Placement tips for Synergistic Research HTFs


I just bought 15 HTFs and will also be making about a dozen of Ozzie's homemade models.  While I will re-fresh myself with SR's placement tips, and I get that I will have to do some experimenting to tailor the HFT effect to MY listening room; are there any "Advanced HFT Placement Tips" some of you would like to share with us?  Something that might be overlooked by many of us?  Or maybe, just a good rule-of-thumb tip for someone just starting to use these?
The tips could be tips for bring out more highs, solidifying the bass response, placement hi vs low, in front of vs behind speakers, on side walls, at reflection points, behind the listener, on the ceiling above the equipment or above the listener, on the equipment.
Any ah-ha that you would like to share?  I would also be very interested in hearing from people using Magnapans.

toolbox149
geoffkait,

You stated that "I have always maintained the SPL meter and test tone method is superior to trial and error for any type of resonator, transducer, Brilliant Pebbles included." No problem. This is what you maintain. This is your opinion. You have the right to maintain your opinion just as others have the right to maintain theirs.

I maintain that there is a lot more to resonators/transducers than SPL metering. Metering may be helpful in some cases, to some extent. But there are many possible methodologies or combinations of methodologies that may be used to obtain good results. Metering is just one. If your meter-only system works for you then no one will say no. But what will work best for others is for them to discover, not for anyone else to decide.
What we have here is failure to communicate. The reason many who've tried the trial and error technique that you apparently favor get mixed results and are forced to go back to a minimalist approach using only a few resonators is because the trial and error approach is inherently flawed. Obviously you will not accept no for an answer, so be it. Who cares?

geoffkait,

I favor using at least 3 modalities. How do you know how many people are getting "mixed results" and are "forced to go back to ... using only a few resonators"? Have you taken a survey of resonator users? How large was the survey sample? Where is the proof for your categorical claim -- upon which you conclude that "trial and error is inherently flawed"? The proof is in your head and nowhere else.

You are right. I will not accept your shallow and flawed explanation. It obviously does not deserve to be accepted at face value. But, as always, you are convinced that you are the forum authority on whatever you care to expound on. No other possibilities exist after you make your pronouncements from the audio pulpit. Who indeed could care less about audio preachers who twist reason into audio pretzels -- in order to stay in the forum limelight to catch new customers? How's business this week? Lol.
@ozzy I like the resonators on top of the speaker cabinets. They seem to make the ceiling disappear. Thanks for the tip.

Toolbox - I made 10 of the heavier bottom resonators. There's a pic of one on my system page. I was able to press fit them in using a hex socket to push them in and make them expand enough to stay put, even after I had to forcefully yank the socket out.

The sound is different.. the dimensions of the soundstage are the same, but the heft or weight of the sound is greater. Mids and bass are tighter and clearer. I'll use the copper based ones around the room as keep the heavy brass bottoms on my speakers and rack. Thanks for suggesting that base. And I misread your reviews.. the other resonators I made were tied for second. I was wondering why I was liking them so much and if the other base could really be that much better. 

This has been fun! We're such dorks.