Yeah, your logic makes complete sense . . . and there are of course innumerable differences in the environments and installations - including those where I've been able to compare vertical vs. horizontal installations of this type.
But 400Hz does lie in a region below where most types of room treatment are effective, and yet above the region where a "control-room-sized" (whatever that is) room is exhibiting primarily modal behavior. In larger spaces (medium-to-large-venue sound reinforcement) it's pretty much a given that well-controlled directivity in the 400Hz region is very important, but in smaller rooms . . . there are many opinions.
For some reason I also have this association with other horizontally-configured monitors, namely Westlakes. But it seems like all the people I've known who have Westlakes also monitor at ridiculously high levels, and maybe that's why I have a bias against monitors that look anything like them . . .
But 400Hz does lie in a region below where most types of room treatment are effective, and yet above the region where a "control-room-sized" (whatever that is) room is exhibiting primarily modal behavior. In larger spaces (medium-to-large-venue sound reinforcement) it's pretty much a given that well-controlled directivity in the 400Hz region is very important, but in smaller rooms . . . there are many opinions.
For some reason I also have this association with other horizontally-configured monitors, namely Westlakes. But it seems like all the people I've known who have Westlakes also monitor at ridiculously high levels, and maybe that's why I have a bias against monitors that look anything like them . . .