I did play with speaker and seating placement somewhat, but I was just surprised how not good I found the Revel and 3.6R's in my room. Not that they aren't excellent speakers - the clarity and lack of distortian in Revel's midrange came through unhampered as did the sense of space with the Maggies (although obviously constrained in my room and placement).
The PSBs and the Martin Logan's ended up being located very close to the same location which was interesting because they are so different a design. My PSBs (original golds) are front ported and the MLs have the panel and on of it's woofs rear firing. I think the MLs also did well in my room because of the narrow dispersion (i.e. mitigating brightness of untreated room). I thought I could place the Revel's in a fairly similar location to the PSBs, but I could't get enough bass without putting them pretty close to the front wall. I do have lumpy response in my room below 60Hz.
I originally built my system around the PSBs way back when, hence the amp, but I fell in love with vocals and instruments on the MLs despite some of the other tradeoffs (bass in my room, some dynamics). Midrange is so much cleaner and so much more detailed.
The PSBs and the Martin Logan's ended up being located very close to the same location which was interesting because they are so different a design. My PSBs (original golds) are front ported and the MLs have the panel and on of it's woofs rear firing. I think the MLs also did well in my room because of the narrow dispersion (i.e. mitigating brightness of untreated room). I thought I could place the Revel's in a fairly similar location to the PSBs, but I could't get enough bass without putting them pretty close to the front wall. I do have lumpy response in my room below 60Hz.
I originally built my system around the PSBs way back when, hence the amp, but I fell in love with vocals and instruments on the MLs despite some of the other tradeoffs (bass in my room, some dynamics). Midrange is so much cleaner and so much more detailed.