So do you compensate by repositioning the speakers when you insert new interconnect or speaker cables into your system? How about when evaluating new record clamps or record weights? Do you also reposition the speakers then? Do you relocate the speakers when evaluating the differences between the balanced (XLR) and single-ended (RCA) inputs or outputs of the same preamp? In a multi-arm turntable set-up do you compensate by reposition the speakers for each arm or cartridge or combination of both? Please walk me through the logic where speaker repositioning compensation is valid for some components and not for others? Do you compensate with speaker repositioning for temperature gradients as the components and system warm up and go through their operating temperature range? Where is speaker repositioning valid? And where is it not? Get the picture yet?
speaker portioning is meant to optimize the loudspeaker’s polar response and radiation patterns with respect to the room boundaries and listener’s position. It is not practical or logical for use for components compensation, but you could of course make use of it that way if that is logical to you.
The best reviewers and end-users at home can do when evaluating different components is to “normalize” the evaluation. If you were for instance make an assessment of two different components with each “optimized” with their own, different, speaker positioning this assessment would be invalid and flawed when evaluating the Inherent qualities of each component. For a reviewer to do this, is and would be ignorant as it would imbed different parameters and invalidate any and all conclusions that are being attempted to be shared with the readers as these would be special cases as opposed to diligent systematic process, from which the reader can draw broad and valid conclusions reached on the basis of evidence and solid reasoning.
The first thing we do is put in the component and listen. What do we like? What do we not like? It helps to get a 'base position' of roughly what the new component does vs its predecessor. Sometimes you get something is 100% better in all areas, but not always. If it is better in all areas, set it and forget it...frankly, I probably dont go around moving 600lb speakers just for sport and find out I ruined the perfect spot. In the end, we could be missing something in not doing so, but with an all-out improvement, we take it and dont look back.
However, on at least 5 major occasions, we REALLY liked some elements a lot (revelations of clarity)...but LOST something that were forcing us to make a difficult decision: give up the newfound wonder and lose something we had grown accustomed to...or try to reconfigure to keep what we liked AND get the new uplift in performance.
Thus, the second thing we do is sometimes we take days, sometimes 6 weeks or longer to reconfigure. Moving speakers for example. One time, it was focusing further on isolation where it became clear there was a chance it was NOT the new component...but that upon more careful listening it was exposing other areas of the sound which had heretofore been masked. But in the end, most reconfiguration has enabled the best of both worlds.
However, there have been 1-2 times when reconfiguration did NOT work...and we had to give up a benefit because the price in performance elsewhere that was lost was too great.
In the end, my goal is not a static comparison of A vs B where even if I can further improve the overall system sound by reconfiguring I dont. The goal is moving the entire system forward by purchasing a new component. If by reconfiguring the system to reinforce some weaknesses of the new component...I can capture improvements from this component I have been unable to reproduce with the existing system, then that for us is a 'Buy'...but a 'Buy' that comes with caveats (ie, get ready that you might need to reconfigure).
Stillpoints is a great example. In over 10 years of using them, we have almost never found them to be a great drop-in replacement. They provide great benefits as a drop-in A v B...but in our system, also took away. The placement of the Stillpoints under the equipment, combined with using HRS isolation pads with them and mass damping on top is where after hours and weeks of experimentation, the Stillpoints became permanent members of the system. But they would NOT have been a 'Buy' in a simple A vs B comparison with only using HRS because the drop in results was greater clarity but at the addition of some hardness and loss of weight in Middle C...sacrifices which I was not prepared to make.
So reconfiguration was key to the overall evaluation and purchase decision.
