[3rd&4thT]

If we can put the theological arguments to one side, empirically there is a huge difference between concrete and wood, in the tonal balance of their reflectivity. This is why we tend to value concert halls with wooden interiors over airport terminals made of concrete.

In London you could clearly hear the difference between the low frequency response of largely wooden Kingsway Hall and the concrete midrange of EMI's Studio One.

After one renovation of Carnegie Hall, the bass suddenly disappeared and nobody could figure out why. The bass was restored a few years later, when they discovered that the previous contractor, in defiance of strict specifications, had poured a bed of concrete under the wooden stage floor. The underlying concrete was removed and the bass returned.

If you want to consider all broad-band room bounce as equal, go ahead, but the empirical evidence of centuries of acoustic experimentation says you're wrong. A wooden floor does not sound the same as a concrete floor, and that should be obvious.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT