OP
- Thread Starter
- #21
Stuff needs to get reviewed at some point. In addition, my back is hurting so I opted for a lighter, smaller speaker to test.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000 Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
Too expensive at $1000+ for me to buy it. Hopefully someone sends one in for review.
Kyle / MrHeeHo
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2018
- Messages
- 163
- Likes
- 183
Is it the complete lack of bass that kills it?
I think the knowledge that the products are junk comes from the review. You wouldn’t expect these products to do so poorly (except for the PS Audio Noise Harvester).
Looks like the product page for this speaker is down. To be fair in judgements, the cached site states:
"Compact High Definition Satellite Speaker "
"The best satellite speaker in the acclaimed Pro Series, ProMonitor 1000 speakers pair with a ProCenter 2000 and matching ProSub for a complete ProCinema sound system. "
So it is not a standard "pro monitor", as the name could suggest.
So maybe I guess the manufacturer's response to this would be: "Thou shalt not use it nor measure it without a sub"
[and they were sold with 5Y warranty for a little more price justification..]
"Compact High Definition Satellite Speaker "
"The best satellite speaker in the acclaimed Pro Series, ProMonitor 1000 speakers pair with a ProCenter 2000 and matching ProSub for a complete ProCinema sound system. "
So it is not a standard "pro monitor", as the name could suggest.
So maybe I guess the manufacturer's response to this would be: "Thou shalt not use it nor measure it without a sub"
[and they were sold with 5Y warranty for a little more price justification..]
Last edited:
Andreas007
Active Member
Yes, there seem to be severe sink marks.
Either this is poorly designed or poorly processed. The latter would mean that overall cabinet target dimensions are also affected. This speaker screams „cheap“!
Last edited:
I once traded a pair of old Paradigm bookshelves for a complete 7.1 surround sound system from Definitive Technologies. When I saw the offer and the MSRP (which was WAY more than the MSRP of my Paradigms) I thought I hit the jackpot and would be trading up to an amazing system.
When I first saw them, I was shocked by the cheap construction and shoddy plastic and screws and sheet metal construction. When I plugged them in, it suddenly all made sense why I was able to trade for them so easily.
They are among the worst speakers I’ve ever heard in my life that attempts to sell themselves as “high quality“. Absolutely could not stand them. I didn’t have the heart to sell the whole set for more than $100 or so, which is what I believed them to be worth at most, sonically. Good riddance.
When I first saw them, I was shocked by the cheap construction and shoddy plastic and screws and sheet metal construction. When I plugged them in, it suddenly all made sense why I was able to trade for them so easily.
They are among the worst speakers I’ve ever heard in my life that attempts to sell themselves as “high quality“. Absolutely could not stand them. I didn’t have the heart to sell the whole set for more than $100 or so, which is what I believed them to be worth at most, sonically. Good riddance.
Robbo99999
Master Contributor
Makes me wonder how companies decide to design/release a speaker with such poor tonal balance from the factory (amoungst other faults) - I mean it's severely bass shy and treble heavy. I mean wouldn't you have to go out of your way to make such a badly balanced speaker or at least just slap together a few components without measuring them in any way! (Hell, couldn't they even just listen to the speaker before they sell it!)
EDIT: I wonder if it's been designed to sit really close to walls or in corners, which might pump up the bass and bring it more in-line with the treble....someone in this thread did mention that there were some rear panel design ques that indicated wall mounting as a feature.
EDIT: I wonder if it's been designed to sit really close to walls or in corners, which might pump up the bass and bring it more in-line with the treble....someone in this thread did mention that there were some rear panel design ques that indicated wall mounting as a feature.
Last edited:
I have added the Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000 to Loudspeaker Explorer where it can be compared to other speakers.
Listening window consistency is bad on the vertical axis. That said, it seems like they would sound better when listened a few degrees below tweeter height, as it seems to fill the gap around 5 kHz. This would be consistent with an optimal design axis being between the woofer and tweeter, as opposed to the tweeter axis of the measurement. Still, a speaker should not be sensitive to such small vertical angles.
Listening window consistency is bad on the vertical axis. That said, it seems like they would sound better when listened a few degrees below tweeter height, as it seems to fill the gap around 5 kHz. This would be consistent with an optimal design axis being between the woofer and tweeter, as opposed to the tweeter axis of the measurement. Still, a speaker should not be sensitive to such small vertical angles.
These speakers seem just odd.
The passive radiator is too small. Simple physics says that it needs to have an area significantly larger than the bass driver - its whole point is to take over shifting air at frequencies below where the bass driver has given up. I have a horrid feeling that the passive radiator doesn't even have a spider - the really cheap small ones don't. Which may be why the additional mass is apparent held on with a screw. A too small passive radiator is going to run into excursion problems very quickly, and is probably the source of a large fraction of the low frequency distortion. (I wonder, if the passive radiator is indeed spiderless, whether it is hitting a rocking mode near 500Hz, and that is where that distortion hump comes from. Just a thought.)
If this speaker is intended to be used with a sub-bass system, why does it have a passive radiator at all? (This is a question I have I of any small vented speaker intended for such use.) A fourth order alignment is intended to allow bass extension below where the excursion limit of the driver would prevent the speaker going. It has pros and cons. If a speaker is to be used with a sub, design it sealed. It will be cheaper, and you will be less likely run into unfortunate compromises. And this speaker sure has them. Despite the passive bass radiator it doesn't even seem to have enough bass extension to get into a region where it would match with a conventional sub.
One can only conclude that this is another example of a speaker designed by the marketing department.
The passive radiator is too small. Simple physics says that it needs to have an area significantly larger than the bass driver - its whole point is to take over shifting air at frequencies below where the bass driver has given up. I have a horrid feeling that the passive radiator doesn't even have a spider - the really cheap small ones don't. Which may be why the additional mass is apparent held on with a screw. A too small passive radiator is going to run into excursion problems very quickly, and is probably the source of a large fraction of the low frequency distortion. (I wonder, if the passive radiator is indeed spiderless, whether it is hitting a rocking mode near 500Hz, and that is where that distortion hump comes from. Just a thought.)
If this speaker is intended to be used with a sub-bass system, why does it have a passive radiator at all? (This is a question I have I of any small vented speaker intended for such use.) A fourth order alignment is intended to allow bass extension below where the excursion limit of the driver would prevent the speaker going. It has pros and cons. If a speaker is to be used with a sub, design it sealed. It will be cheaper, and you will be less likely run into unfortunate compromises. And this speaker sure has them. Despite the passive bass radiator it doesn't even seem to have enough bass extension to get into a region where it would match with a conventional sub.
One can only conclude that this is another example of a speaker designed by the marketing department.
That seems like the charitable interpretation, designed as wall mount rears crossed over to a sub, but as @Francis Vaughan points out, just using a simple sealed box would be a better and cheaper solution.
What I find hilariously shameless is the manual has multiple sections talking about crossing over with the ProMonitor sub; not any sub, but their sub specifically. Don’t know if I’ve ever seen that.So maybe I guess the manufacturer's response to this would be: "Thou shalt not use it nor measure it without a sub"
It's get even stranger to have a passive membrane in it. I realy wonder what it does in this speaker? Does the membrane even work?
Edit says:Thats why iam interested what the speaker experts say to the design and the poor bass performance. I think something is wrong.
Last edited:
Yes it works - the "middle screw tuning" prevents the speaker to fall apart in higher SPLs. Also rather than producing bass it acts as a suspension to supress even more resonances.
Not shure if that makes sense to me. Than i would use a closed box and the money for the passive i would use for a better driver. But iam not a expert and if you could explain this more in detail i would be happy.
Robbo99999
Master Contributor
Yeah, true, and you'd think if companies designed a speaker for a specific use or placement then they might refer to this in their sales blurb to make sure it was bought by the right people for the right implementation. (I'm not sure many companies are upfront about saying that their speaker needs to be close to a wall for best performance though, but still if it's designed for that purpose then I'd want my customers to know that).
Similar threads
- Poll
