[ariess]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

I see how that may be but as you may know Einstein's views were not mainstream either.

I do not disagree with your position that speaker size should match/suit room size, in fact I support it but for very different reasons.

I don't deny that larger speakers have greater capacity to produce lower frequencies, that's their advantage over smaller ones. I also agree that they typically exhibit a more sensitive load and can generate a higher SPL. Where we diverge is on the equalities. If a small speaker and a large speaker of similar design and construction were driven to the same (reasonable) SPL where the union of each frequency response was flat, the results would be virtually indistinguishable. At the extreme lower end of the range this obviously would not hold true and is why a closer look at the room (construction, shape, contents) and its influences come into play.

As for RH's comments, there are assumptions to them. The kind of room, the kind of speaker the kind of system are assumed to be similar. As we all know there are variations to all of these but as a general rule of thumb he is correct. But if we follow the "mainstream" , as you put it, then we will never realize what is truly possible. The hotel rooms, in HR's example, are used as is and that can be a problem as he states. But I can tell you this with absolute certainty, a pair of 800D3 in Joey's room would sound spectacular. I know this because my room is similar in size and volume. I know this because I had a pair of 800's. I know this because I have done it! But as I stated, for him to realize the full potential he would need to look at the two big players. His first step getting there would have been to remove that carpet that kills low bass performance. Can you hear me now?

How does carpet affect low bass performance?
Never heard of that.