Bioth my and Jens responses were in direct response to the plainly incorrect overly broad statement:
Originally Posted by DanDan
That is why you never see speakers in corners, unless of course they are tiny and you want the free LF.
If you want to make absolute statements, then you are responsible for them.
It seems the real sin we have committed is to dare to disagree with a point that is plainly incorrect.
Corner placement can be used to very good effect. And the placement of the speakers precisely to minimize the incidence of reflections with adjacent boundaries by D'Antonnio in his design of the RFZ configuration was precisely an attempt to minimize early reflections in conjunction with the use of speakers precisely selected for their controlled Q.
Additionally, there is another fundamental reason for employing splayed surfaces beyond what is normally considered, and that is frequency resolution. And this is directly related to the same non-reflective nature of the adjacent boundaries used in conjunction with controlled polar devices. To cite an example from the design of Master Sound Astoria:
f = c/l 1130ft/s / 200* = 5.65 Hz (*100 feet to surface and 100 feet back)
The point is not, as is so elegantly misstated, to suggest that everyone indiscriminately corner or soffit mount or splay surfaces! To even interpret what was said in this manner is simply to amplify one's total misunderstanding of what was stated!
It is to illustrate that casual absolute statements such as was made above are incorrect, and that there are indeed occasions - even in very prominent acoustical models - where such techniques, IF PROPERLY DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED, are indeed not only appropriate, but in some cases optimal.
And one might note that the comments were qualified and directed specifically at the statements regarding "corner placement".
So, before you go making unfounded absolute statements, you might want to do a bit more research. Otherwise, you might want to define the extent of your comments to the situation where such a statement retains a semblance of validity.
After all, such lax use of terms and definitions already has TOO many believing that an "RFZ" zone has no reflections entering the space, when the exact OPPOSITE is true! As fundamental to the "RFZ" design by D'Antonnio is the present of laterally arriving diffuse ISD/RFZ terminating energy arriving a MAXIMUM of 10-12 dB below the direct signal! With the exception of perhaps one room, when was th last time you saw such an acoustic response generated here based upon the recommendations of what some consider an "RFZ" model to be? Instead we have far too many erroneously using the term as slang with little to no regard to the proper acoustic definition of the term.
We don't need that idea circulating about corner placement of controlled Q devices as well! And , IF properly implemented, corner placement can work very well, especially in narrow constrained spaces.
So it would be nice to make at least a casual attempt to avoid making statements that far overstep any potentially valid scope in which they may have credence.
But as usual, instead of addressing the acoustical aspects of what was stated, we are again entreated to the usual "if you dare to disagree, you are attacking me" knee-jerk response of the owner of the knee.