You keep dodging the question. If it is the room that was causing that problem, what would be the implication if I placed my speakers in the exact same spot you moved the speaker from and it didn't have the problems yours had in the same spot? The room would be completely unchanged. Only the source would have changed.
You skip my questions and challenges to accuse me of dodging the question?
You posit a hypothetical that will not happen. Your speakers, in the same spot (or any other), will not manage a completely flat FR nor a two-dimensional waterfall from all points in my room.
I ask again, when can I come over and do exactly that, have you explain what perceived problem there was in the "bad room spot" that forced you to move your speakers, to get "better" sound, measure the "problem", then see if the "problem" still exists with mine? Or are you going to cop out and say the measurements won't reveal the problem and you still think mine sound poorly...because you said so??
I'm quite certain that measurements will show any number of SPL/frq and SPL/time issues with your gear or mine. The only way to not would be perfect radiators in an anechoic chamber (and then you would suffer from an extreme sweet-spot preference as well as issues with the orientation of your head).
Which is a good example of why there's no such thing as a perfect room. If I were in an infinate space (or an anechoic chamber) then the room would add nothing to the sound: but then the sound would only be hitting my ears from a single direction. The effects of a room (say the room the sound was recorded in) could be reproduced on the source: and the sound would be perfect within an axis with perfect response from the speakers, and with my head pointed directly at them (otherwise my head is a baffle), and with the distances tightly controlled (to keep whatever the audio equivelant of parilax is right). This is pretty much what headphones attempt.
So in the very small "sweet spot", and anechoic chamber or infinate space might be perfect.
All other rooms reflect and absorb-emit sound. These reflections are not time aligned with the original source (mostly), and are rarely identical in the FR-curve. In short: they expand the sweet spot while introducing inaccuracies. That's not always an unpleasent outcome (hence the popularity in some circles of dipolar and omnipolar rigs).
Speaking of dipolar: there's a pretty signifigant difference between speakers that pressurize air (which are loudest near boundries and even half-wavelengths from boundries) and ones which move air (which are loudest farthest from boundries). It's a classic issue for placement in things like maggies, walshs, and even dipole surround speakers.
Jerry, when can I come over and put your house of cards to the test and publicize the results right here on the forum??
Why not do it at your house? It will save you a lot of speaker moving. I'll bring the laptop to save the waterfalls and FR graphs.
So I should expect +/- 0db from 20Hz to 20KHz no matter where I put the mic, nor how I orient a non-omni-directional mike and I should expect zero sound on the waterfall plot after any delay greater than the speed of sound / distance to speaker.
That's correct?
What is "reproduced 100% accurate sound"? Define it for us scientifically, using metrics.
Go to a concert. Sit down with a mic. Get up. Go listen to the concert off a pair of speakers. Compare the waveforms.
Then let me know a date for this to be public test, so we can put those metrics to the test.
Next Sunday. Your house. Let me know where to be.