What part of what I think do you disagree with?
That room acoustics play a huge part in sound quality and are not addressed by most systems
That having the option of using the best acoustic space possible to test kit will give every system the best chance of sounding good
That finding a speaker that works well with Naim electronics to do A/Bs against our electronics is unfair
That maintaining the signal digitally throughout the electronics adds less colouration
That implemented correctly, room correction will significantly improve the quality and consistency of audio systems
That the majority of hifi equipment is sold not because it is the best sounding option but because its easy to sell and the most profitable solution available for the dealer
1. Room acoustics can play a huge part, even a simpleton can address most issues with minimal effort- ie correct placement of kit. Of course certain kit and room combos will just never work, and nothing will fix that- nothing.
2. If people are going to be using the kit in a good acoustic space then it's a fair test, but otherwise it is likely to lead to dissatisfaction, of course it does open up the option to sell the customer who hears a good demo but has a bad room 'stuff' to fix his room, be it acoustic or electronic fixes- which is what you want.
3. Speakers don't work well or badly with electronics of one brand or another, you either have enough power to drive them and resistance to changes in load variation or you don't. A speaker that sounds crappy on a Nait will likely sound fine on a more powerful Naim amp. Speakers interact far more with the room than the do with the badge on the front of the amp. What one person might consider as working well with NAim, another may consider a screeching mess.
4. If you do nothing to the signal once it is digital and only perform one D-to-A on it then it should be no more coloured than a signal from any other digital source. Whether you thin k it sounds better than an all analogue source is due to your taste- do you think your cd player and amps render analogue redundant? Really?
5. Implemented correctly room correction could improve the sound of rooms that have gross response errors. In an all analogue system however the changes in the sound that D-to-A brings about may well be audible to the die hard analogue user. In my set-up for example it would do nothing other than force me to use an analogue output stage that hasn't been tailored specifically for more tastes and preferences and use a digital clock that is significantly less well implemented that what I currently have in my cd/dac combo.
6. People buy what they like the look of, by and large that's the single largest contributing factor, it is the ultimate barrier to entry, if its ugly you discount it. Only then do you consider the options based on sound, cost, demo availability, being pressed by the man in a tie tapping his foot to the music as he tells you negatives examples of why other things wouldn't suit you so well and pushes upon you how awful the unknown is.
How about these questions.
1.Is the room correction worth the cost of loosing the signature sound of the analogue output stage of my cd/dac/digital source?
2. Am i entirely convinced that the D-to-A in the room correction is implemented anywhere near the level of that in my DAC due to changes in the way the signal is buffered, clocked and presented to the DAc chips.
3. Is it worth buying an unknown set-up to fix a problem that as yet I have not quantified or tried to ameliorate by other more traditional and cheaper methods?
4. Am I really unhappy whit the way my system sounds or are my fears of the unknown simply being preyed upon?