[jlafrenz]

Yes, that placement is meant to optimize the low end. Do you have absorption at the side-wall reflection points? That's also needed for best results. It makes sense that being very close to the speakers improved clarity, because even without absorption for reflections you get more direct sound.

--Ethan

Yes. I left my first reflection point panels up where they were from the Cardas method. I realize that this is not their ideal location and will have to moved slightly forward. I also put a second panel up in front of them giving me a 4" thick panel.

In comparing the two locations, would it be best to remove the panels all together and see which I prefer? It is really a tough call between the two. Each offers different benefits. Just going to have to do some listening to decide. If I could control the bass a bit better with the speakers further out into the room, that would be ideal to my ears.

[bpape]

To a certain extent, you're exactly correct. Theory is great but you have to place them for what your preference is.

Bryan

[Ethan Winer]

Yes, please do so. But I want to see the floor plan showing detailed positioning of yr testing equipment & what signals used for the test.

Much better: Show (or describe) your room size and seating so I can find a room that more closely emulates what you have. But in any room - and even outdoors - comb filtering always occurs directly in front of a reflecting boundary.

--Ethan

[jlafrenz]

I did a quick search today to make sure that the 83% rule I was trying was correct. It turns out that I actually have it backwards. The distance to my seating position is 83% the width of my speakers. The actual way to use this rule is speaker-to-speaker distance = 0.83 x speaker-to-listener distance. Any correlation that the way I was using it worked? I may try the proper way, but this will mean that I have to move my rack over to the side wall. This is something else Jim Smith suggests, but it certainly doesn't have eye appeal.