Ex Machina Pulsar MkII review (via EAC)

[YSC]

This site and comments are often hilarious. It's amazing in the audio world that people can have such toxically arrogant opinions about equipment they've never heard. That said, I own the Quasars and they are my primary mixing monitors. They're fantastic, and in my room, have easily bested speakers far more expensive. I have one grips, whoch is the lack of a remote DSP switch for tracking purposes. Otherwise, they're fantastic.

Has anyone compared those genelecs to the Ex Machinas? I mean... genelecs are notoriously coloured sounding monitors. Oy... eye rolls all around

these personal emotional type accusition is kind of eye rolling hilarious to me personally though... when I noticed the ex-machinas in the first place and wated to audition it, I saw that in their own promotion they are selling about it being... ruler flat perfect in measurement...

 

[Beave]

In case anyone is interested
He has a website

 

[holdingpants01]

In case anyone is interested
He has a website

At least we know which more expensive monitors they beat at his place - Barefoot MM27, talking about coloured sound...

 

[ElJaimito]

Well, if you could provide measurements that showed a coloured response, that would be something I guess…or maybe a survey of professional users which indicated a common consensus that Genelecs sound “coloured”. That might be considered evidence. Otherwise it’s really “just like, your opinion man.”
There are many professional users here, I haven’t actually seen that as a common opinion.

I don't have Genelecs because in various A:Bs I always prefer Neumann. I don't see Genelecs as coloured, exactly, but they do have a characteristic presentation, some more than others. I don't like PMCs either, never liked transmission lines, ATCs are preferred by me and I have recommended them in the past. But the funny thing is, speakers all are less than perfect, all are somone's choice, and suit different needs. In such choices, you can't separate the speaker from the room: different strokes for different folks, and different monitors work in different rooms and genres.

 

[Tovarich007]

I'm not pro, I don't pretend to have listened to everything, nor to have the best ears (far from it), but I am often surprised in reading audio forums by exchange of opinions expressed with such a degree of certitude based only on some measurements (and not on every criteria, moreover) .

Obviuosly, you can't separate the speakers from the room and from other equipments used to feed them. And, as well, you can't separate the speakers from your own ears, your own tastes, your preferred musical genre(s) you're listening or working on.

Measurements are quite useful and necessary, I'm not a maniac subjectivist audiophile, but, assuming they're well done and complete, measurements tell a lot but not absolutely everything. Beyond a certain degree of measured performance, the most linear on test bench is not necessarily the best sounding, nor even the most "uncoloured". By the way, coloration and linearity in frequency are linked but not totally synonymous concepts.

For instance, my personal best listening to nearfield midfield monitors were the PSI A 17 and A23. I am certain they're not as good on the test bench than equivalent recent Genelecs the Ones 8341 or 8351 and Neumann KH150 or 310 , but they're not bad either and sound great to me and also to some good pro sound engineers and producers.

I liked also he Genelecs I've listened too (not listened to Neumannns yet) but I prefer in this range the PSIs. Graphs tell a lot but not everything, and anyway you can't suppress nor deny subjectivity, which is an integral part, and not a side effect, of the process of listening and working on music.

As for the Ex-Machinas, they're not imported and quite unknown so far in France where I'am living, so I can't say anything about them.
This is just personal thoughts about some excess of certitude bordering agressivity and untolerance frequently read on forums. Please keep cool and don't be so sure about yourself and your positions, remember that no speaker is perfect but few are pure crap, and certainly none among good pro monitors.

 

[dfuller]

I'm not pro, I don't pretend to have listened to everything, nor to have the best ears (far from it), but I am often surprised in reading audio forums by exchange of opinions expressed with such a degree of certitude based only on some measurements (and not on every criteria, moreover) .

Obviuosly, you can't separate the speakers from the room and from other equipments used to feed them. And, as well, you can't separate the speakers from your own ears, your own tastes, your preferred musical genre(s) you're listening or working on.

Measurements are quite useful and necessary, I'm not a maniac subjectivist audiophile, but, assuming they're well done and complete, measurements tell a lot but not absolutely everything. Beyond a certain degree of measured performance, the most linear on test bench is not necessarily the best sounding, nor even the most "uncoloured". By the way, coloration and linearity in frequency are linked but not totally synonymous concepts.

For instance, my personal best listening to nearfield midfield monitors were the PSI A 17 and A23. I am certain they're not as good on the test bench than equivalent recent Genelecs the Ones 8341 or 8351 and Neumann KH150 or 310 , but they're not bad either and sound great to me and also to some good pro sound engineers and producers.

I liked also he Genelecs I've listened too (not listened to Neumannns yet) but I prefer in this range the PSIs. Graphs tell a lot but not everything, and anyway you can't suppress nor deny subjectivity, which is an integral part, and not a side effect, of the process of listening and working on music.

As for the Ex-Machinas, they're not imported and quite unknown so far in France where I'am living, so I can't say anything about them.
This is just personal thoughts about some excess of certitude bordering agressivity and untolerance frequently read on forums. Please keep cool and don't be so sure about yourself and your positions, remember that no speaker is perfect but few are pure crap, and certainly none among good pro monitors.

The thing that puts me off the Ex Machs is that they advertise ruler flat and are very, very far from that.

 

[Tovarich007]

On this particular point you're right. But Erin's appreciation on the speaker is much more balanced than only based on FR, as important this criteria obviously is.

Perhaps it was a defect on the tested unit, because such a difference between the Erin's measurements and the constructor specs is quite strange. Ex Machina has no interest in publishing specs that are so far from truh, its reputation would quickly collapse so.

And, on the other hand, SoundonSound, which is a rather serious pro magazine, had published a very good review on an Ex-Machina model ( don't remember which one).

Anyway, my remark wasn't particularly based on Ex Machina speaker, but on harsh and definitive assements too often published on forums by people who are not specialists themselves and who haven't listened the devices they critic, based on one or two relatively poor measurements and forgetting all the rest.

 

[holdingpants01]

And, on the other hand, SoundonSound, which is a rather serious pro magazine, had published a very good review on an Ex-Machina model ( don't remember which one).

This is interesting, they actually reviewed the same model: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/ex-machina-soundworks-pulsar

"Diagram 1 illustrates, in blue, the Pulsar’s axial amplitude frequency response in high‑latency, phase‑corrected mode, from 200Hz to 20kHz. It’s one of the flattest responses I’ve measured and other than the odd wiggle fits between ±1dB limits. That’s really outstanding."

BTW Erin further investigated this case, new info is added in the review with a response from Pulsar and it seems that the differences are mostly caused by the different measuring methods, so SOS graph is accurate for what it is, but so is Erins

 

[Tovarich007]

I don't understand the SOS graph : the Y axiss (ordinate) is on a magnitude of minus 18 dB or so. What means - 18 dB in sound level ? Why not measure at 80 dB and/or 90 dB like does Amir? could this be the origin of the large difference between the two graphs ?

I'm not fully convinced by the Ex Machina answer. If a coax speaker measures flat only in a very narrow position, at the level or slight about the tweeter axis and at a very short distance), it means that the speaker has a very narrow sweet spot, which is quite strange for a coaxial. And if it's flat only at a very short listening distance, why build a midfield with high SPL max capability like this speaker, which is not intended to be listened to at 0,5 m, but between 1,5 m and 3 meters in the majority of cases.
So I don't understand the method used by Ex Machina to measure its models.

By the way, the last measurements made by Erin show a FR much flatter than his first measurements, but we can still see some oscillations anyway. It's not the ruler flat FR showed made by Phil Ward for SOS nor by Ex Machina.

All this is quite puzzling, If someone can explain ?

I would like to see a test by Amir and/or by john Atkinson in Stereophile on this speaker, just by pure curiosity, because I'll never buy such an expensive and not imported speaker.