This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the PMC result6, active professional monitor (speaker). It is kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $3000 for a pair.
I have to confess: this is one ugly looking monitor! Let's hope all the accents are functional. The bottom grill hides a transmission-line like port.
Back side is simple which is fine by me:
Others may want the dip switches to change the response. Speaker is designed and manufactured in the UK.
I didn't notice until late that the reference axis is top of the woofer ring, not the tweeter. I used the latter but know from experience it will only make tiniest difference.
Temps in the lab were pretty low, around 50 degrees F (10 degrees C).
If you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this tutorial first:
PMC result6 Measurements
As usual we start with our family of anechoic frequency response measurements:
I hope you are as shocked as I am to see such a chewed up response. Combined with poor directivity, this is a colored speaker which is the antitheses of what a professional monitor should be. Needless to say, early and predicted in-room response are very poor:
Sadly, I forgot to measure the port. The drivers do tell a story as far as lack of neutrality:
Company advertises wide directivity and we kind of see that if we ignore the variability:
At 86 dBSPL, the sweep was clearly but at 96, I could already hear distortion during the sweep:
Waterfall shows the expected resonances:
Finally, here is the step response for fans of that:
PMC result6 Listening Tests and Equalization
At first listen, the impression was that of slight brightness but also lack of clarity. Both were fixed mostly with my quick and dirty filters:
Turning the filters off, hid the piano notes in one of my test tracks. Overall impression will be highly dependent on what content you play.
Sub-bass performance was good for speaker's size. About 60% of that spectrum was reproduced with reasonable amount of distortion. This is far better than typical bookshelf speakers that don't even play that region.
Related, I was able to play fairly loud until I could detect tonality changing. This was with one speaker.
Conclusions
I had no preconceived notions when I entered this test. But as soon as I ran the first sweep in the lab, and saw the very uneven response, I knew disappointment was in my cards. Not only is the frequency response all of the place, but distortion is quite high as well. The only highlight is ability to player lower in the range.
Company really needs to pay more attention to objective measurements and perform proper listening tests. If they had done this, they would have produced a far better monitor. Their competitors even on a bad day, produce far, far better monitors.
I can't recommend the PMC result6. It is an embarrassment for the company.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
I have to confess: this is one ugly looking monitor! Let's hope all the accents are functional. The bottom grill hides a transmission-line like port.
Back side is simple which is fine by me:
Others may want the dip switches to change the response. Speaker is designed and manufactured in the UK.
I didn't notice until late that the reference axis is top of the woofer ring, not the tweeter. I used the latter but know from experience it will only make tiniest difference.
Temps in the lab were pretty low, around 50 degrees F (10 degrees C).
If you are not familiar with my speaker measurements, please watch this tutorial first:
PMC result6 Measurements
As usual we start with our family of anechoic frequency response measurements:
I hope you are as shocked as I am to see such a chewed up response. Combined with poor directivity, this is a colored speaker which is the antitheses of what a professional monitor should be. Needless to say, early and predicted in-room response are very poor:
Sadly, I forgot to measure the port. The drivers do tell a story as far as lack of neutrality:
Company advertises wide directivity and we kind of see that if we ignore the variability:
At 86 dBSPL, the sweep was clearly but at 96, I could already hear distortion during the sweep:
Waterfall shows the expected resonances:
Finally, here is the step response for fans of that:
PMC result6 Listening Tests and Equalization
At first listen, the impression was that of slight brightness but also lack of clarity. Both were fixed mostly with my quick and dirty filters:
Turning the filters off, hid the piano notes in one of my test tracks. Overall impression will be highly dependent on what content you play.
Sub-bass performance was good for speaker's size. About 60% of that spectrum was reproduced with reasonable amount of distortion. This is far better than typical bookshelf speakers that don't even play that region.
Related, I was able to play fairly loud until I could detect tonality changing. This was with one speaker.
Conclusions
I had no preconceived notions when I entered this test. But as soon as I ran the first sweep in the lab, and saw the very uneven response, I knew disappointment was in my cards. Not only is the frequency response all of the place, but distortion is quite high as well. The only highlight is ability to player lower in the range.
Company really needs to pay more attention to objective measurements and perform proper listening tests. If they had done this, they would have produced a far better monitor. Their competitors even on a bad day, produce far, far better monitors.
I can't recommend the PMC result6. It is an embarrassment for the company.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
