Anyone heard any higher end PMC monitors like the twotwo.6?

[Pearljam5000]

And twotwo.8?
For some reason PMC doesn't get mentioned at all around here.

 

[hege]

There's already all the info you need to avoid them..

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pmc-twenty-21-bookshelf-speaker-review.14442/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/pmc-speakers.9311/#post-243129

 

[chelgrian]

Generally because their performance at the low end doesn't inspire confidence

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pmc-twenty-21-bookshelf-speaker-review.14442/

The higher end and soffit mounted stuff is expensive enough as to be difficult to get hold of for testing.

When there are lots of other known excellent designs for much more reasonable amounts of money there isn't the will to determine if the expensive PMC is any better than the cheap stuff.

One thing I have seen over on Gearspace is extremely high failure rates on the DSP boards in TwoTwo and PMC refusing to repair under warranty in some cases.

 

[Balle Clorin]

PMC FACT 12 with and without toe in , in room.Not my speakers

Adjusting bass and treble on speaker settings

And here a top end PMC - PMC MB2 SE - in same room

. Note zoomed scale

 

[Marc v E]

Yeez. Another of my audiophile brands gone up in flames.

 

[Deleted member 12642]

There's already all the info you need to avoid them..

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pmc-twenty-21-bookshelf-speaker-review.14442/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/pmc-speakers.9311/#post-243129

How does such incompetence manage to make it to a shipped product? Holy cow.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Here's another example: The fact.8 Signature.

 

[dfuller]

And twotwo.8?
For some reason PMC doesn't get mentioned at all around here.

Yeah, there's a reason for that. They're just remarkably crap. Awful frequency response, super messy directivity, super high distortion. I have no doubt they could build good speakers, if they abandoned that stupid transmission line thing in their small box designs.

 

[Koeitje]

I didn't any high-end model, but had the Twenty.22 before I got my Revel M106. The Twenty.22 is pretty terrible.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Yeah, there's a reason for that. They're just remarkably crap. Awful frequency response, super messy directivity, super high distortion. I have no doubt they could build good speakers, if they abandoned that stupid transmission line thing in their small box designs.

They are well regarded in the pro audio world (almost like ATC)so I'm surprised

 

[q3cpma]

They are well regarded in the pro audio world (almost like ATC)so I'm surprised

Something about emperors and clothes.

 

[gsp1971]

I have heard both their fact. and twenty. series in a Hi-Fi show in Athens, Greece. Didn't like them, even though they were driven by excellent Bryston electronics. Moreover, as @hege mentioned, the PMC Twenty.21 measured here at ASR does not show great engineering. Not to mention that they are overpriced.
I have the feeling the spreading popularity of spinorama reviews (I have seen other websites adopting it) will show the true colors for a lot of self-proclaimed high-end manufacturers. God bless you, Dr. Toole, wherever you are ...

 

[chelgrian]

They are well regarded in the pro audio world (almost like ATC)so I'm surprised

Because a section of the at least the studio recording world behave like audiofools they venerate unspeakable bad monitors, obsess over badly measuring vintage mics, colour the sound with excessively expensive mic preamps that, wait for it, measure badly and think that the more expensive an AD converter the better it is.

Amir should start a ProAudioScienceReview on the basis it's no use having a great reproduction system if the recording was made on crap.

 

[DSJR]

Doesn't matter what the monitor is doing, as a good mix and mastering engineer hears through the monitor - look at some of the ancient and rather flawed JBL and Tannoy pro models of old, which didn't prevent some great recordings being made and produced, compared to some of the over eq'd and compressed s**t recordings today made with supposedly 'flat' monitors and far superior recording and storing technology?

I'd ask Kal if measurements were taken twenty to thirty degrees off axis. I've sat in on some lower model PMC dems as well as the Fact 8 and 12 Signature models and NONE OF THEM toed the speakers to the listener!!!!! (these speakers sounded slightly dull if anything due to the presence dip) I suspect the kind of trendy homes accommodating such speakers wouldn't think of toeing them in either as appearance-in-room is everything... The smallest 25

Different products for different uses. I mean, the ATC 19 was annihilated here for its non-flat response (subjectively the new ones have a similar leaner toned bass not in the cheaper 11 model), yet it's original SCM20 great uncle (the 19's not a direct descendant really) was designed for meter bridges and potential lower mid 'bounce' off mixing desks which may possibly explain the bass light balance! Just a thought obviously with no objective proof, but that's how I understand it to be and my 20's were fine in a small UK room placed close to a back wall.

PMC don't seem to care much for the 'transmission line' cancellation often observed at 120 - 150hz or so. UK made big IMF's used to pull the mids down to balance this and flatten it all from 100Hz to the Hf1300 tweeter sparkle at 13khz, thus giving a 5dB rise below 90Hz or so down to the TL-assisted cut off (down to 17Hz in the largest models - you couldn't hear it but the pressure waves set doors rattling loudly). The 25-23i's I set up just a few weeks ago sounded bass light and shrill using Hegel 190 and Rega Elex R amps, so not just an over-zealous tweeter here... (audiophiles would tell me to run the speakers in as if that would bring about a magical change - maybe it does ).

Back in the past, I heard the now replaced PMC MB1's a few times in passive form (Bryston and NAD 2200 power amps used) and liked them a lot. No idea how the good (to me) sounds translated to response accuracy though.

 

[sergeauckland]

I've rather liked the PMCs I've heard in studios, but then they were 'proper' TLs, wall mounted and equalised, (BB5s with XB) not the little ones, too small for the TL to do much.
I had a pair of the larger IMFs in the 1970s, and they worked well, so always has a preference for sealed box or TL bass. However, TL has to be big, isn't a TL if it isn't. None of this 'quarter wave' nonsense.

S

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'd ask Kal if measurements were taken twenty to thirty degrees off axis. I've sat in on some lower model PMC dems as well as the Fact 8 and 12 Signature models and NONE OF THEM toed the speakers to the listener!!!!! (these speakers sounded slightly dull if anything due to the presence dip) I suspect the kind of trendy homes accommodating such speakers wouldn't think of toeing them in either as appearance-in-room is everything... The smallest 25

You can see the off-axis horizontal and vertical responses in the review on the Stereophile site. I, too, had to toe them in but never got them to sound right anyway.

I've rather liked the PMCs I've heard in studios, but then they were 'proper' TLs, wall mounted and equalised, (BB5s with XB) not the little ones, too small for the TL to do much.

Not as big as the BB5s with XB but I was similarly disappointed with the IB-1S back in 1998:

 

[sergeauckland]

You can see the off-axis horizontal and vertical responses in the review on the Stereophile site. I, too, had to toe them in but never got them to sound right anyway.

Not as big as the BB5s with XB but I was similarly disappointed with the IB-1S back in 1998:

I think any loudspeaker needs individual equalising to achieve a properly flat response (say to no more than +-1dB) A few loudspeakers with DSP crossovers built-in achieve that, as far as I'm aware, no passive 'speaker even gets close, nor do unequalised actives.

One further aspect for stereo use is pair-matching, which should be to less than 1dB for accurate imaging, and another reason for individual equalising against a reference. Studios used to do this as a matter of course, but with so much of today's recordings being mixed on small project-studio systems, and few home listeners taking the trouble to do it, accuracy just isn't there.

S.

 

[DSJR]

For historical note, I'll try and include anechoic (Hirst Labs near Watford) and now fifty year old data for one of the granddaddy and direct inspirations of all PMC speakers, the UK made IMF Monitor - This one kind of grew into the pro Mopnitor (B139 bass, B110 mid and HF1300/Hf2000 tweeters and maybe was replaced by the TLS50 with KEF 8" B200 driver.

 

[dfuller]

I think any loudspeaker needs individual equalising to achieve a properly flat response (say to no more than +-1dB) A few loudspeakers with DSP crossovers built-in achieve that, as far as I'm aware, no passive 'speaker even gets close, nor do unequalised actives.

Eh, some actives get close, but very few indeed. In room, absolutely not. But rooms screw everything up.

Because a section of the at least the studio recording world behave like audiofools they venerate unspeakable bad monitors, obsess over badly measuring vintage mics, colour the sound with excessively expensive mic preamps that, wait for it, measure badly and think that the more expensive an AD converter the better it is.

Amir should start a ProAudioScienceReview on the basis it's no use having a great reproduction system if the recording was made on crap.

Ah, but you're misunderstanding. That part of audio is art. The tools are not just there to be flawless, they're there as different colors on the pallette, so to speak. I wouldn't want to use super flat mics and super clean mic preamps most of the time unless I was strictly recording documentary style (which I do not, and frankly very few do).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think any loudspeaker needs individual equalising to achieve a properly flat response (say to no more than +-1dB) A few loudspeakers with DSP crossovers built-in achieve that, as far as I'm aware, no passive 'speaker even gets close, nor do unequalised actives.

Sure but, even for those who agree with you about DSP, why start with something so not right?

For historical note, I'll try and include anechoic (Hirst Labs near Watford) and now fifty year old data for one of the granddaddy and direct inspirations of all PMC speakers, the UK made IMF Monitor - This one kind of grew into the pro Mopnitor (B139 bass, B110 mid and HF1300/Hf2000 tweeters

Ah, yes. I was inspired to build a large version of the Pro Monitor (with the help of John Wright). Loved it for years.