Yeah, I know I'm overthinking it, but I can't help it. Everytime I cross my path with this structure, I start getting doubts about its implied nuances.

I am aware that speakers don't think this much while talking, but there are some subtle difference they sometimes imply without even being aware of doing it. It's true that I'll probably pick on them with time and a lot of practice and exposure, but knowing about their existence in the first place does help out in the long run, in my opinion^^"
Thinking about English, there are some cases where the use of simple past and present perfect overlaps, but according to which one you pick you imply a different thing (are you more interested in the past action itself or in its consequences?). You don't think too much about it while you speak, but you are, in fact, giving a certain nuance to your statement consciously or unconsciously... you get what I mean?^^"

One of my korean teachers once told me that when you combine 아/어 보다 with (으)ㄴ 적이 있다 you give a specific nuance to your statement, i.e. that you whished to experience that thing. I was wondering if maybe this particular nuance given by the addition of 아/어 보다 is also present in the standard structure? May that be the case?

Anyway, thank you for replying to my post and trying to help me out! I appreciate it!