Transmission Line Bass

As a long time proponent of good bass without subs, I like tinkering with different ways of approching the age old problem of recreating all energy below 100Hz.
Seriously, if you look at loudspeaker responses, everything seems goes to hell just below that point, swinging wildly in output response, almost independent of many of the typical factors that would be indicators of performance.
So, the question.
Who among us has had extensive Transmission Line Bass Experience in listening, (like me with the IMF's in days gone by, with Bud Fried being a wonderful mentor to me).
In Jim Thiel's lab, one time he told me 'candidly' that Transmission Line Designs 'in theory' don't work. (Another discussion for another time). But he, like me was a bass freak of the first order, loving a rich full bottom end, hence some of his equalized designs early on. They were an all out attempt to bend the laws of physics.
So, what do we think of Transmission Line bass--so, if you're familiar with the sonics though actual listening, and can express first hand opinions let us hear your impressions of the differences between ported, passive radiators and transmission.

Thanks in advance...


Showing 2 responses by g_m_c

I have had a pair of Meadowlark Blue heron 2's for over 4 years now. They are time coherent, use first-order crossovers, and are transmission-line-loaded bass. I am not skilled in the art of audiophile bs and I have not owned that many speakers. I can tell you the subtlety and nuance these speakers offer are amazing to me. The placement and clarity of instruments and voices, the decay of notes and the general sense of presence can transport me or punch me in the gut. I am still surprised by their sound. Too bad they went out of business.
intersting comment about the wool. Pat McGinty of Meadowlark used 5/8" wool felt in his front bass firing ports. he also tuned each speaker's ports with instrumentation as the final step before shipping.