The post in which Darko basically tells anyone who isn't a rich rube to ignore him and audiophilia in general

[Mart68]

Bigger speakers with greater extension risk upsetting the room more? The extra bass depth and 'weight' could upset the perception of 'deeeeetail' in the upper registers I suspect. I know one or two people who seem 'allergic' to bass and love smaller boxes.

His room appears to be about twice the size of mine and I've run big transmission lines (IMF) with no problem. Although he did mention in the previous instalment that although it's large it's also almost square.

 

[Puddingbuks]

At least for once he is talking about something that actually does impact sound quality.

I still don't understand why he insists on using dinky little speakers when he has the space to deploy something more serious. Maybe there is a video I haven't seen where he explains that.

I guess he’s just to lazy to carry big speakers upstairs. And he likes small things, no clutter.

 

[DSJR]

His room appears to be about twice the size of mine and I've run big transmission lines (IMF) with no problem. Although he did mention in the previous instalment that although it's large it's also almost square.

Transmission lines of the old IMF variety (and one or two PMC's of the new variety too it seems) do all manner of things in different rooms, but I take your point. My ATC 100A's were absolutely fine in a small room, although the bass unit is over-damped and rolls away gently below 60Hz or so (easily eq'd back I remember at 'normal' listening levels - and so did the neighbours - cough! )

I just thing that some audiophiles (one or two known to you as well) just don't like deep bass, the extra issues it can cause (and also ill-matched 'tower-type' speakers with possible comb-effects in the lower midrange as the old Mission 753 had if heard too close [less than 3m away]).

 

[Koeitje]

Transmission lines of the old IMF variety (and one or two PMC's of the new variety too it seems) do all manner of things in different rooms, but I take your point. My ATC 100A's were absolutely fine in a small room, although the bass unit is over-damped and rolls away gently below 60Hz or so (easily eq'd back I remember at 'normal' listening levels - and so did the neighbours - cough! )

I just thing that some audiophiles (one or two known to you as well) just don't like deep bass, the extra issues it can cause (and also ill-matched 'tower-type' speakers with possible comb-effects in the lower midrange as the old Mission 753 had if heard too close [less than 3m away]).

The only thing new PMC's do is create port noise (or whatever you call it for TL systems). Never heard a loudspeaker struggle as much with bass as the PMC Twenty.22's I had.

 

[Mart68]

The only thing new PMC's do is create port noise (or whatever you call it for TL systems). Never heard a loudspeaker struggle as much with bass as the PMC Twenty.22's I had.

I'm not at all keen on them either and the price/performance ratio is silly. Their proper studio speakers are good though, albeit very expensive.

 

[DSJR]

I'm not at all keen on them either and the price/performance ratio is silly. Their proper studio speakers are good though, albeit very expensive.

I/We're drifting off here, but old-school big IMF's used to accept the 'TL response dip' at 120 - 150Hz or so and brought the midrange and HF down a bit to match it. This meant that the sub 100hz bass was up to 6dB higher than it should have been. Beginning with the 1976 model RSPM IV and 'mk2' lower models, this was better sorted with more line damping and in the RSPmkIV, a means of rolling very low bass away.