PMC speaker comparison

I have listened to the Fact 8 versus the Fact 12 with Bryston amps. No contest - Fact 8 was too lean for me. Fact 12 was very good - deep fast base and good timbre.

I heard a 20.26 at a different dealer. It sounded rather stiff and uninvolving. I suspect it had not been properly run in . PMC speakers take several months to loosen up.

MB2s are huge! They are supposed to have slightly more slam/weight in the bass, but would dominate most rooms. Last I heard HiFi Lounge had a pair ex-dem. I believe Fanthorpes have a pair of s/h IB2s but I haven't heard them.

The Goldenear triton's might be an option for you. The triton 1 is rather tall, but they have integral powered woofers which go down to 19 Hz. They are efficient and easy to drive and sound a lot of fun. Triton 2+ and 3+ have been getting good reviews and are smaller.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Halloween Man posted:

it may be worth reading the reviews on pmc website for fact 12s as some comparisions are made

Hmm, all i can see is one person traded up from PB1 to Fact 12, saying preferred latter, but no detail. And ive looked under,all the current models but no comparisons

On pmc website for fact 12s there is a reviews tab. One is 'the ear' review of the fact 12 - the reviewer (René van Es) states "It is clear where these loudspeakers come from, from bigger and smaller brothers and sisters in recording and mastering rooms in studios all over the world. The fact.12 might be best compared to a PMC IB2i or even an MB2i, but housed in a domestically friendly cabinet with real wood veneers. It is that good I promise you, and just as power hungry too". The reviewer was so impressed he purchased a pair! René van Es also reviews Twenty 26 on The Ear website so useful to read both reviews for comparison.

I've listened to both the 20.26 and FACT12 on the end of NDX/SuperNait2. 

To me, the 20.26's did all the hifi stuff well, but were not very musically involving at all - the sound was very much "over there". The FACT12's were a different animal all together - hugely involving to the extent that although they excel at the hifi stuff (speed, rhythm, clarity etc etc...) the music was so much fun to listen to that I forgot about all of that stuff. 

Despite what others have written, I found the Supernait2 more than capable of producing fantastic results with the FACT12 (as did Martin Colloms in his review of the speakers), and am having an ex-dem pair delivered on Saturday of this week for a home dem. If they work in my room (about 8m x 4m, firing across the short length) they will be staying.

Cheers

Matt

I would speak to Paul at HiFi Lounge who is very knowledgable about the PMC range and has probably heard most of the models you are interested in.

He and others have left regular feedback on the i series vs Twenty vs Fact on the dedicated PMC thread on another well known AV forum if you look for it.

I found an interesting discussion on a Bryston forum discussing differences between various upper range PMCs (PM2i, Twenty.26, Fact12, IB2, MB2, MB2XBD & BB5). I was going to copy two charts here, one showing power reserve required to reproduce the same high level peak on each, and the other showing relative cone excursions (likely to have a relationship with speaker distortion at higher volumes) - however  I don't know how to copy an image to here other than a photo, so instead this is a link, if the moderators will allow: http://www.audiocircle.com/ind...sg1486215#msg1486214

The charts don't give any idea of comparative sound, but nevertheless are interesting studies.

Why would anyone want to listen at 110 dB? Crazy, and not in a good way.

Dozey posted:

Why would anyone want to listen at 110 dB? Crazy, and not in a good way.

That's not the point, or certainly not maintaining anything like that sort of level while listening, rather it relates to coping with peaks  -  if listening to something like Telarc's recording of 1812 at a realistic orchestral level I'm guessing there could be instantaneous peaks easily up to that sort of sound level, or beyond, even if the average level is way,  way lower. I'm sure there'll be data on the dynamic range of that disc somewhere. On my present system which happily can play at realistic rock concert levels if I want, I have to turn the volume lower than I like to hear the remainder of the music for the Telarc disc or I can hear my speakers hitting the cone excursion extremes on the peaks, which doesnt sound nice.

The post shows how, with the less efficient models, quite extreme amplification is needed if you do want to be able to cope with such peaks without deterioration, and assuming the speaker itself can handle.

Of more interest, however, is the scale of difference between the different speakers, and how much more the cones have to move on some than others, some potentially moving out of their linear range at relatively low levels compared to others, while others having bags to spare for peaks, and demanding less of amplification.

none of this is a surprise, of course, just basic maths from cone size and quoted sensitivity levels, but rarely assembled in this comparative form.

Just my ten cents worth, I had a chance to listen to the fact 8 along with the 20-26, 24,23 also many others along the way, I ended up with a pair of 26 which I love, they negative is they take an age to run in, 6 plus months and need good amplification to get the best form them in my opinion, 250 or 300. Interestingly I found the fact 8 too dry in the bass and totally involving, very detailed and revealing but did nothing for me on an emotional level whereas the 26 was a totally different kettle of fish.

I know we all say the same thing over and over on the forum but you need to listen and decide what works best for you in your own particular setup, it took me 18 months of trying different speakers before I finely settled on the PMC 26 and that was after a 2 week home trial to confirm I was totally happy with them in my room, my advice is get a home dem wherever possible and don`t make any rush decisions or be swayed by well meaning advise from others, just trust your own ears.

I see from your later post it will be difficult to audition speakers but unfortunately with all things hifi the only way is to go and listen even if that means having to go out of your way to do so otherwise it could all end up a very costly mistake. 

Good luck with your search and enjoy the ride.

Rob T posted:

... I had a chance to listen to the fact 8 along with the 20-26, ... Interestingly I found the fact 8 too dry in the bass and totally involving, very detailed and revealing but did nothing for me on an emotional level whereas the 26 was a totally different kettle of fish.

My experience of the Fact 8 mirrors Bob's above in terms of its dry, lean tone, which seemed to artificially suck all the warmth & emotion out of singers' voices.  This is completely different to what the PB1i and Fact 12 sounded like.  And MB2 SE don't exhibit this trait either.

Best regards, FT

Innocent Bystander, I don't want to derail the thread, but with a typical lp dynamic range of 10 dB I think it would be utter folly to have the quietest  bits of the record averaging 100 dB.  

Dozey posted:

Innocent Bystander, I don't want to derail the thread, but with a typical lp dynamic range of 10 dB I think it would be utter folly to have the quietest  bits of the record averaging 100 dB.  

I agree if you're playing recordings with a dynamic range of only 10dB you certainly wouldn't want, or wouldn't be wise, to play at levels peaking at 110 (unless a very large room - the 110 will be at 1m)! 

However, certainly some music has greater dynamic range even on vinyl - especially orchestral music, but even some rock music. Digital is capable of far greater dynamic range, and is very commonly the case in classical music. The Telarc recording I cited is possibly the most extreme available (which is why I mentioned it) - I havent found any reliable information regarding the dynamic range between lowest quietest passages and highest peaks, but even the vinyl version apparently was claimed to have a 60dB range, though was challenging for the stylus to track, while the digital version reputedly has a range of more than 90dB. In this context, if you want the lowest passages to be audible the peaks could easily exceed 110dB, and by some margin - I'm guessing somewhat over 120 .

The red book standard for dynamic range specifies a 'standard' transfer level of -17dB relative to the maximum 16 bit excursion, i.e. a headroom of 17dB.  So 110dB peak level would imply a maximum of 93dB average for the majority of the louder passages.

Measuring my average listening volume gave between 65dB and 75dB (slow response 'A' weighted), implying that I only need up to 92dB to cover peaks.

I'm not sure how that red book standard transfer level relates to music with particularly wide dynamic range, when the music could have peaks of more than 17dB above average? (And is that the level at the listening position, or 1m on axis as per the speaker specs? If the former, it would be louder at 1m.)

I know the Telarc 1812 is an extreme case, but my understanding is that in order to not overload with the 160dB canons, everything was recorded at a lower level than normal - with the result that, for that particular recording at least, the peaks are considerably more than 17dB above the average level. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the canons were about 30dB above orchestra maximum, though that is not categoric - I don't know if that means peaks 30+17 above average, which would be 122dB based on 75dB average.  Of course no-one is likely to want to play canons at 160dB at home, the actual level recorded, but maybe a little over 120dB is acceptable given the short duration  in order to get the orchestra approaching a normal level.

Hi IB,

To get the canons 30dB above the orchestra maximum, the CD transfer would have to have been made at 13dB below the standard transfer level - that's why you have to turn the volume up so much.  The standard transfer level is normally the highest sustained level, the peaks can go up to 17dB above this level.  Consider the standard transfer level to be sort of equivalent to the 0VU mark on the VU meters of a tape deck and you'll get the right idea.

Telarc always have been a maverick company.  I have a copy of Frederick Fennel's recording of Holst's suites and Handel's Fireworks recorded with the Cleveland Symphonic Winds - the first digital recording intended for general release at the time of recording (before CD came out); and damn good it is too.  They do like that bass drum!

i have a pair of mb2s, and i love them, they replaced a large pair of TDL's called The Monitor also transmission lines. before getting them i listened to pbi's and the fact 8 but found the fact 8 not to my taste at all,  the pbi's were closer but still did not have the wow factor. then had the chance to audition the mb2s's. they blew me away, clearly better than than the others. would strongly advise a listen if you can live with chimp coffins lol

tony abraham posted:

i have a pair of mb2s, and i love them, they replaced a large pair of TDL's called The Monitor also transmission lines. before getting them i listened to pbi's and the fact 8 but found the fact 8 not to my taste at all,  the pbi's were closer but still did not have the wow factor. then had the chance to audition the mb2s's. they blew me away, clearly better than than the others. would strongly advise a listen if you can live with chimp coffins lol

Did you by any chance hear the EB1i or their more industrial counterpart the IB1i, or even the more recent IB2i? 

The MB2s certainly are appealing on paper, thaough less so visually - if only the transmission line port was at the bottom not the top, then they could go on  lower stands to be less imposing. Do you reckon they'd work on stands maybe 6" lower that tilt them to direct the tweeters at the listening position? 

Being a relative newbey to the forums,may I ask a newbey question.  I have Proac D20R speakers, with a 100 hours on them now.  I am very pleased with the sound but I am wondering do members prefer to remove the foam covers and expose the drivers whilst listening.

staffy posted:

Being a relative newbey to the forums,may I ask a newbey question.  I have Proac D20R speakers, with a 100 hours on them now.  I am very pleased with the sound but I am wondering do members prefer to remove the foam covers and expose the drivers whilst listening.

Answering only for myself, I leave the grilles on (mine aren't foam, but an open- weave plastic-like fabric) - I've tried both ways and happy wth the dust protection - and, crucially when kids were young, finger protection) in place - and my speakers arent very attractive open, though My consideration was not really as AB comparison.

however, it is really a personal matter for you: if it sounds better one way do that! If you have young kids leave on, or ar least leave on when there's any risk of inquisitive fingers. If a partner or anyone else that matters can't stand the sight of naked drivers, leave them on - but remove when you're focussed on listening if it sounds better to you that way.

Generally grills off. There is normally a high frequecy bump of as much as a couple db from removing them. 

When my PMC 20.23s were new they were too harsh without the grills. After a month they were better with them off.

But now there is a little todler around so back on they go except for rare listening sessions where I have the living room to myself.

With my PMC 20.23s, it depends on the recording... Grilles on when I find the violins too harsh - grilles off for a slightly wider soundstage.

Grilles off for me on the 20.23's. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

tony abraham posted:

i have a pair of mb2s, and i love them, they replaced a large pair of TDL's called The Monitor also transmission lines. before getting them i listened to pbi's and the fact 8 but found the fact 8 not to my taste at all,  the pbi's were closer but still did not have the wow factor. then had the chance to audition the mb2s's. they blew me away, clearly better than than the others. would strongly advise a listen if you can live with chimp coffins lol

Did you by any chance hear the EB1i or their more industrial counterpart the IB1i, or even the more recent IB2i? 

The MB2s certainly are appealing on paper, thaough less so visually - if only the transmission line port was at the bottom not the top, then they could go on  lower stands to be less imposing. Do you reckon they'd work on stands maybe 6" lower that tilt them to direct the tweeters at the listening position? 

no, only other pmc's i have listened to is the active ib2s-xbd-a but at 35k a bit out of my price range but truly amazing sound, now when i win the lottery.....

not sure about lowering they work just right at this level, it may throw the sound balance off. you could ring pmc direct their tech dept is very helpful

pair of eb1's for sale on fleabay

Well, I've now done some listening, and can offer my comparative views. I haven't heard in my own home, but I did haul my own speakers along over the 48 hour 1000 mile round trip to give me a baseline for comparison...

The following observations are based on Twenty.26, Fact 12 & MB2 SE, IMF RSPM compared with each other; Fact 26, MB2 SE and IMF compared with each other and with B&W 802D3, and EB1i compared with IMF. As I am not a professional reviewer, nor do I have great certainty of understanding of some of the terms used in professional reviews, my descriptors are more comparative than absolute, being the best I can do to describe the sound, and looking back just after the event not taking notes at the time.

Details of the PMCs are easily found online. Nearest IMF model to mine for which information is available online is the Professional Monitor Mk III (appears identical, though mine doesn't say it is Mk3)

Impressions

MB2 SE: great detail and clarity, vocalist sounded uncannily in the room, immense dynamics, bass is tuneful, and weighty when it should be. Effortless. Everything seemed tauter than the IMFs - in fact In virtually every respect better than my IMFs, but with a similar tonal balance and character. Soundstage, though, was very similar.

Fact 12: amazingly good bass for such a small looking speaker - but lacks the depth of either the IMF or MB2. Remarkable clarity, with individual plucked strings presented as if right there in the room. Great tautness and detail, though compared to MB2 tended to lose resolution on busy orchestral crescendo. However, the sounstage seemed compressed, giving a sort of boxed in feeling, mostly between the speakers, unlike the MB2 and IMF which spread an orchestra much wider. Overall impression was of accuracy, but not as involving as either the MB2 or IMF.

Twenty.26: bass seemed a bit constrained, and although it was taut there seemed to be a hint of resonance in the upper bass. Clarity didn't stand out as as it did with the MB2 and Fact 12 - however i abandoned the audition fairly quickly because they just seemed inferior overall to the IMFs and not my cup of tea, so it was not worth pursuing to see if they did some things better. If that seems unkind, it is only that they were outclassed, by the others: if I were auditioning speakers only up to their price bracket the situation may have been different. 

EB1i: unfortunately this audition was only against the IMFs, and in a room where I didn't hear the others, so not comparative against the other PMCs. My impression was that they had more in common with the MB2 than the others - they also had a similar tonal balance, clarity and soundstage compared with the IMFs, but were tauter throughout, and with greater clarity in the midrange in particular.

B&W 802D3: these seemed to have good clarity and accuracy, and had good bass, if not as good as the MB2, and everything was good, but failed to be engaging - I was left with a feeling that everything was very polite and pleasant, and would make great background music - but I wouldn't want to spend that sort of money to play muzak. I curtailed the listening as I felt that for me they didn't 'beat' the IMFs, although in terms of midrange clarity and accuracy they were undoubtedly better. (802s werent a target for the session, but happened to be their so invited themselves for a listen because I'd never heard any B&Ws)

Conclusions

B&W 802D3 and PMC Twenty.26: Neither I felt was an overall improvement on the IMFs, and so were of no interest to me.

Fact 12: on balance weren't good enough to consider as a replacement for the IMFs, even though in many respects they were pretty impressive. My view might be different if I had to have small speakers, as they were the best small ones I've ever heard - a profile less than 6" wide makes them almost invisible!

MB2 SE: These are the speakers for me! Volume of the cabinet is similar to the IMFs, though the height on their stands makes them rather imposing - however that is balanced a little by the narrower profile, so just about domestically acceptable. Shame I can't afford them at present, but a target for a few years time when secondhand ones come down enough.

EB1i: Without the benefit of a direct comparison with anything other than the IMfs it is hard to be precise, though I'm guessing that alongside the MB2s the latter would be likely to stand out as better. The EBs were pretty impressive, with nothing to criticise while improving on the IMFs in most respects - a speaker I'd be very happy to have if I can't have MBs, and with probably greater domestic approval, too.

Interestingly, whilst the comparisons showed some deficiencies in my now ~45 year old speakers, against all the others in some respects, but particularly the EB1i or the MB2 SE both of which seemed better throughout, the IMFs, granddaddy of transmission line monitor style speakers, acquitted themselves very well, remarkably so for their age. And pleasingly I was not left with a feeling of dissatisfaction going back to them, just an awareness that even better is indeed possible, so having made up my mind that the MB2 is the model to have, I just have to await funding...