Fostex PM.03 Active Speaker Review

[Sancus]

The Fostex has the same preference score as the KEF LS50 (with sub), but the Fostex is surely incapable to play in a living room.

I am just pointing out that the currently it seems there is no metrics to indicate this.

Well, we have the standardized distortion graph now, at least, and this is one of the things the listening tests were supposed to help with.

But I'm not sure it makes sense to try to include power handling in the preference score(even if it were possible, which it isn't without doing a huge amount of original research). A speaker that handles more power doesn't sound better, it just goes louder. If you don't NEED that loudness, then that component of the score would become a useless bias.

 

[hmt]

A too think that it is not necessary to bake this into a single score. One just has to choose the right speaker for the room size which is quite easy.

 

[MZKM]

The Fostex has the same preference score as the KEF LS50 (with sub), but the Fostex is surely incapable to play in a living room.

I am just pointing out that the currently it seems there is no metrics to indicate this.

Because Klippel charges >$1000 for this test.

But yes, max SPL (under certain THD?) should not be factored into the preference rating, it should be used to narrow down option choices if looking to purchase, same with sensitivity.

 

[amirm]

Thanks for the standardised distortion measurements @amirm. Much appreciated

Did you buy the Klippel module or are you calculating the SPL/input voltage manually?

Manually.

 

[Robbo99999]

I don't like "unhappy mid-woofers", don't abuse the animals please!

Looks like a very EQ'able speaker, I guess this is quite a nice little inexpensive speaker. Problem is, if you talk about cheap speakers being EQ'able it kind of defeats the purpose, because who would buy a cheap speaker and then buy a UMIK-1 microphone to measure & EQ it, a UMIK-1 microphone that costs more than the speaker. I think cheap speakers like this one...the comment/observation that is EQ'able is moot because it's not the target audience, and "out of bounds" for that audience. But...it is interesting to know that it can be EQ'd just on a technical 'interest' level.

 

[jhaider]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Fostex PM.03 active monitor/speaker...

Horizontal directivity shows an uneven dispersion:

View attachment 58207

]View attachment 58272

Is anyone else surprised at the large dispersion disruption (shown as standard polar map and normalized squiggly lines above to give two views) around the crossover, given the small midwoofer and reasonable crossover point? I wonder what's going on there.

 

[BYRTT]

...We have a pretty smooth response until the crossover point of 2.6 kHz...

Think this one XO point should read 1,7kHz thanks a great review and the published data.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I could still support around 2 kHz, but not as low as 1.7.

Is anyone else surprised at the large dispersion disruption (shown as standard polar map and normalized squiggly lines above to give two views) around the crossover, given the small midwoofer and reasonable crossover point? I wonder what's going on there.

Seems to be primarily an on axis anomaly, off axis looks like you would expect. Possibly something to do with baffle diffraction on some of the nearby edges.

 

[napilopez]

How do you know whether or not it was blatantly audible?

Amir may have not identified it at all or may have liked it; this doesn't mean that you or I wouldn't have identified it or that we would have liked it.
And from my understanding Amir's listening assessments are far from comprehensive nor is the methodology used particularly rigorous (in terms of analytical observation).

Well, that's precisely my point . Amir didn't say that the distortion measurements affected his listening impressions. It very well might have, but the review didn't indicate this. I just wasn't sure why @kaka89 had concluded from anything in the review that "distortion plays a big part in speaker performance." Distortion performance isn't good, but neither did Amir say it became an issue.

The Fostex has the same preference score as the KEF LS50 (with sub), but the Fostex is surely incapable to play in a living room.

I am just pointing out that the currently it seems there is no metrics to indicate this.

Understood, I just wasn't sure what prompted you to say distortion plays a big part in speaker performance.

That said, I wouldn't be completely sure the Fostex is "incapable" of playing in a living room with a ideal sub. I tried the similarly sized ilouds in my living room once and they sounded better than they had any right to crossed with my sub. It was a quick experiment and it's likely it wouldve sounded worse when pushed, but for some quick casual listening it sounded quite good. YMMV.

 

[BYRTT]

I could still support around 2 kHz, but not as low as 1.7...

As seen in below model for a 70mm diameter piston think that in wooofer is of so small a diameter it has good theoretical dispersion to meet a kind of omni dispersion of a 19mm tweeter, so think that bump in directivity index should tell here is the XO point caused by spacing and order of slope used

 

[jhaider]

Seems to be primarily an on axis anomaly, off axis looks like you would expect.

Exactly opposite. The figures quoted above show a pronounced horizontal dispersion disruption, but given midwoofer size and crossover point one would expect much smoother dispersion.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Powered (passive) loudspeaker seems an odd choice to me. You're already paying to put a power supply and a bunch of electronics in there - surely at this point it's cheaper, or at the very least a better engineering decision, to put the filters before the amps.

No, this way you can use one amp per speaker. No need for separate amps for woofer and tweeter. You can also run a slave with just a regular speaker wire. If you wanted to run a slave active you'd better use a proprietary cable other wise folks will switch up the wires and blow the tweeters.
Speaking in terms of costs here.

 

[Berwhale]

...as monitors get wider and wider it gets harder and harder to find speakers that fit beside them. I wonder if you could get away with the left and right speakers flanking your monitor, and the subwoofer tucked behind the monitor?

Indeed, my Tannoys are 74cm apart and sit either side of a 64cm wide 27" WQHD monitor. However, 34" UWQHD monitor i'm keen on is 80cm wide

The little Fostex sub looks interesting, especially at it's price point (£118 in the UK). I could maybe fit it on my desk, but I would prefer to hide it under the desk if possible.

 

[Berwhale]

who would buy a cheap speaker and then buy a UMIK-1 microphone to measure & EQ it, a UMIK-1 microphone that costs more than the speaker

Maybe...

Someone who used the the UMIK-1 to measure their main system and would also like to EQ a secondary bedroom or study system.

Someone who wants learn how to use a UMIK-1 and REW with a relatively small financial commitment (perhaps they are addicted to fun and learning )

Someone who who understands that they may get better results with correctly setup and EQ'd cheap speakers than with poorly setup expensive speakers.

 

[q3cpma]

Here, these are 140€/pair. Wonder how the JBL 104 or just a pair of Tannoy Reveal 402 compares.

 

[Yuno]

Here, these are 140€/pair. Wonder how the JBL 104 or just a pair of Tannoy Reveal 402 compares.

Yep, as with many things seems like those are only a decent deal in US. I would never buy those fostex speakers at the price they sell for in EU, when Edifier speakers with 4inch woofer can be bought for $100 or less.

 

[Robbo99999]

Maybe...

Someone who used the the UMIK-1 to measure their main system and would also like to EQ a secondary bedroom or study system.

Someone who wants learn how to use a UMIK-1 and REW with a relatively small financial commitment (perhaps they are addicted to fun and learning )

Someone who who understands that they may get better results with correctly setup and EQ'd cheap speakers than with poorly setup expensive speakers.

Definitely, I agree, but those are also "edge cases" rather than the main audience for these types of speakers.

 

[JohnBooty]

The little Fostex sub looks interesting, especially at it's price point (£118 in the UK). I could maybe fit it on my desk, but I would prefer to hide it under the desk if possible.

I never feel like under-the-desk subwoofers integrate well with desktop speakers. (That is, if I'm sitting at the desk, as opposed to listening from across the room)

Maybe it's just me. It seems to be a popular arrangement.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I never feel like under-the-desk subwoofers integrate well with desktop speakers. (That is, if I'm sitting at the desk, as opposed to listening from across the room)

Maybe it's just me. It seems to be a popular arrangement.

It certainly didn't do the old Cambridge Soundworks PC Works 2.1 system from 20 years ago any favors in my ears, but then again the satellites were tiny cubes with 2.5" drivers, so the "sub" (5" I think) was more like a woofer and crossover may have been as high as ~200 Hz. Add boundary gain and room modes (boom boom) so the sub had to be turned down plus whatever was lost by the desk being in the way, and you got a massive hole in the lower midrange that was obvious to me even then. I think that's quite a common problem with these, and part of the reason why people went back to 2.0s.

Eventually this system ended up on my nightstand, with satellites placed next to the "sub" and an old sock in the BR port. That was quite decent, actually. Still a slight loudness tendency, not infinite level handling, but quite pleasing. I have been wondering why on-desk "subs" never became more popular in these systems ever since.

I think you have to be able to cross a sub reasonably low (<100 Hz?) before under-desk placement works.

I know this monitor problem full well, and it's even worse here since my viewing distance is ridiculously short by most people's standards. I've been sticking with a 5:4 19" monitor with good viewing angles. Pretty ideal aspect ratio for me tbh. Eizo make a 23.8" square model, for multiscreen applications I guess, but I doubt my neck muscles would appreciate something even higher. Not cheap either, they probably don't make them in huge numbers. You could place speakers between the monitors then though.

 

[JohnBooty]

Hahaha I had those old Cambridge Soundworks as well. Totally agree with your experience.

Those were really an eye-opener (ear-opener?) to me long before I really got into the hobby. First time I had something besides 1980s boomboxes and utterly dreadful 1990s 2.0 computer speakers. The Soundworks speakers were not... good... but they were the first time I had an actual speaker system that could produce something that was a reasonable approximation of "full range."

I think you have to be able to cross a sub reasonably low (<100 Hz?) before under-desk placement works.

I tried a JBL 3-Series + JBL 310S sub (under the desk) arrangement crossed over at 80hz and it just didn't sound integrated to me when I was sitting up close with the desk between me and the subwoofer. I think it might have worked better if I'd experimented with lower crossover points or perhaps even let the desktop speakers play full range with the sub filling in the bottom octave. It was only a temp setup so I didn't have a chance to really experiment.