PMC result6 Monitor Review

[Rja4000]

the PMC 6 (the modern version of this) is a far, far better speaker than the Result

At double the price, one may expect so...

 

[NYfan2]

Very dissapointing, keeping in mind that PMC is sold in Europe as one of the better monitor brands.

This shows that we need to have everything tested by an independent party.

 

[Mnyb]

Can it be an attempt to spin the circle of confusion even faster many consumer speakers have the "bat" showroom response curve already to sound more "exciting" B&W for example.
When this monitor have the same response this will result in a slight counteraction of this response when used for setting the tonal balance .

Then consumer speakers then have to have an even more extreme "bat" curve to yet again get the showroom sound

 

[Doodski]

Can it be an attempt to spin the circle of confusion even faster many consumer speakers have the "bat" showroom response curve already to sound more "exciting" B&W for example.
When this monitor have the same response this will result in a slight counteraction of this response when used for setting the tonal balance .

Then consumer speakers then have to have an even more extreme "bat" curve to yet again get the showroom sound

I think this is simply a example of sheer incompetence and not a master plan for global dominance.

 

[wwenze]

PMC fans: "It's about personal preference!~~~"

The target preference curve: /‾\_/‾\_/‾\

 

[Sokel]

Their big 2 meter mains monitors is what short of got me into this hobby a long,long time ago.

Results here are disappointing but not unexpected.
It's been some time now that the need of British companies to differentiate led them to strange results.Like this one.

Thanks Amir!

 

[tamagaba]

200 dollar from Aliexpress with free shipping

 

[Miley_B]

Quite sad to see really. When I was at college PMC were my dream monitors but as I got to use them and hear them occasionally I realised all was not right. This graph that looks similar to a hiking map of the Himalayas that Amir has given us is of no surprise.

 

[Chaos01]

Oh wow. I Had some pmc twenty5.22 bookshelve speakers and i really Loved the Bass and dynamic range. The Bass sounds 'fast' (whatever that means) and deep, dont heared Something equal cool Bass Response. BUT the hights was so damn boosted with +10db that i really could Not listen longer than half of a hour. Room correktion Made a nice flat Response of them but i could never get a 'phantom Center Image' from them. Tried all positions, toe in and out, there never was a stereo triangle effect. With my LS50 and even Sonus Faber Venere No Problem. So i thought all of the PMC Home Hifi Line would have that horrible hights boost, maybe as voicing to sell to older Ppl with Hearing loss or to get Attention in Show rooms, dont know, or maybe this are Just Design failure. I thought the Studio speaker Line would be with a flat response, but to see that is shocking me. The hard thing is that they lie so badly in the marketing to sell 'studio Like pro Speakers' that are Just bad. Poor people who mixed songs with that bad to Equalizable speaker...
Also the Prodigy or the Fact fenestria measurest so badly and Look what pmc writes about them... wonder how Bad the new prophecy Line will measure. Costumers are fooled so Bad Just because they company has a good Image because of all the lies.

 

[Waxx]

Everything i don't want from a speaker: expensive, ugly and very uneven sound response, high distortion and uneven dispertion...

I don't know what PMC was thinking when they put this on the market.

 

[JeremyFife]

Loads of reviews recently - huge thanks @amirm , very much appreciated.

Nasty measurements, especially when the price and brand is considered.

Any chance that response is deliberate? Difficult to understand otherwise.

 

[Bleib]

Only $3000 to ride this roller coaster! Yikes!

Thanks Amir!

Dubya designed this W

 

[thewas]

The bat population seems to be getting out of hand

 

[thewas]

I feel embarrassed to be British at this point. Apart from KEF every other British brand seems to have just gone and dived into the deep end. Linn and NEAT and Naim were already swimming there. But B&W, Tannoy, PMC, ATC, what have you sold your souls for?

Thanks also to the since decades sick and corrupt press as well as hobbyist and even some professionals falling for it and echoing the hype, such brands manage to survive, on the other hand classical stereo audio as a hobby is dying together with its fans which mainly grew up in its golden era, similar like playing and collecting tin soldiers or model trains. We are just a small bubble which has practically no market relevancy compared to other electronic segments and even currently popular audio devices like wireless headphones and loudspeakers.

 

[DSJR]

This is seriously sad performance, yet I honestly believe it's intentional for whatever reason.

 

[thewas]

This is seriously sad performance, yet I honestly believe it's intentional for whatever reason.

It is, same as for other such brands, and I am quite sure for mainly two reasons, to stand out in the listening (many audiophiles love such thinking different is better and more revealing - I have easily recognised their bat curve character in few audio fairs I listened to them in the past) and also it is an easier/cheaper engineering with only partial baffle step compensation and resonant port/TL tuning.

 

[Maiky76]

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 2.8
With Sub: 5.3

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Idiosyncratic tuning
• directivity is similar to many other speaker without waveguide.
• With active amplification so much better could be accomplished, others do at a much cheaper price point

Directivity:

Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 5.5
with sub: 7.7

Score EQ Score: 6.3
with sub: 8.5

PMC Result 6 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
February202025-165114

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 48.0 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.56
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 101.4 Hz Gain -4.92 dB Q 1.32
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 248.9 Hz Gain 3.29 dB Q 2.13
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 475.6 Hz Gain -1.66 dB Q 5.88
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 795.9 Hz Gain -3.29 dB Q 3.96
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1195.0 Hz Gain -2.83 dB Q 3.27
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2137.4 Hz Gain 2.86 dB Q 1.36
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4392.3 Hz Gain -1.68 dB Q 2.62
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10714.4 Hz Gain -1.87 dB Q 5.80

PMC Result 6 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
February202025-165114

Preamp: -3.00 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 48.0 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.56
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 106.9 Hz Gain -4.92 dB Q 1.20
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 245.4 Hz Gain 3.56 dB Q 1.91
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 462.5 Hz Gain -1.38 dB Q 5.88
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 780.7 Hz Gain -3.25 dB Q 3.05
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1213.0 Hz Gain -3.22 dB Q 4.03
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 2010.3 Hz Gain 3.48 dB Q 1.76
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 4891.5 Hz Gain -3.31 dB Q 1.42
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10868.0 Hz Gain -2.11 dB Q 2.18

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[Purité Audio]

When will U.K. loudspeaker manufacturers enter the 20th Century, so very poor.
Keith

 

[DSJR]

It is, same as for other such brands, and I am quite sure for mainly two reasons, to stand out in the listening (many audiophiles love such thinking different is better and more revealing - I have easily recognised their bat curve character in few audio fairs I listened to them in the past) and also it is an easier/cheaper engineering with only partial baffle step compensation and resonant port/TL tuning.

I no longer visit dealers routinely to judge what they feel is a good sound these days, but not knowing so much at all about pro choices, how to pros choose monitors? is it word of mouth, price range, the fact they travel around studios and get to 'know' certain models well? Not sure they visit a pro audio shop for a dem.

I mean, these won't ever usually be found in a domestic dealership selling PMC (same with Focal and Dynaudio) and I've only ever glimpsed these in an Abbey Road Mastering article or two on YouTube, the analogue mastering room using PMCs and the recording studios still using big B&W 800s I believe.

 

[holdingpants01]

I have some experience with PMC monitors, but I never understood their appeal. From the models I heard PMC TwoTwo 6 were the worst and IB1S were the best, though lacking anyway. All of them had similar wavy response, but IB1S at least reproduced some bass, TwoTwo 6 were horribly bright and useless. This shows how big part of the pro audio market is based on vibes and brand name rather than science