You could go down that rabbit hole, sure but there's an alternative:
Sit closer to and lower the volume of the monitors. The further you take this, the more you take the room's characteristics out of the equation.
There's a problem with this approach:
The idea of "perfect" monitors in "perfect" rooms is all about flat responses and minimising unnecessary reflections and room modes, with good reason.
Any non-linearities that force you to deviate from what would otherwise be a "perfect" mix limit the range of rooms it'll sound good in. So, if this dude's making this and that adjustment due to the shortcomings, of which there are many (he's even boasting about it), it'll only sound anywhere-near right in rooms with similar problems. He used a broad brush when describing the average listener's room, but as you'd know, the overall shape, surface material and furniture vary heaps from one person's house to another's.
So, that "good reason" I spoke of comes down to a best-for-most philosophy. That plethora of listening environments is going to deviate from neutrality in countless ways, hence the need to strive for perfect balance in the first place, ensuring that anomalies of these rooms are imposed on an already-perfect product. If said product already has bumps and troughs in its response, they're going to combine with room modes in some environments (double-up) and be cancelled by others. See the problem?
All this is why I suggest what I like to think of as the "sensible" middle ground:
Sit close, lower the volume and you now have the flatness of the monitors combined with just a hint of the room's influence. Being just a hint means that only a "typical" HF ambience will enter the picture, something that will aid in judging reverb levels (easy to overdo, especially with headphones).
HTH
