So Thorsten has broken cover ...

[anon_bb]

Above even knowing your enemy - know yourself .

Young grasshopper still has much to learn.

 

[KUB3]

I would find it fascinating to hear some of your uber systems playing a few of my familiar tracks. No doubt most of these behemoth systems would be better in some ways than what I am used to hearing. I'd certainly like to compare JBL v large active PMC v DIY projects, horns and panels - as a basis for where I am now. When I have more space again in the future I'd like to know which direction I'll want to be heading in. If any of you are near the south east that is?

 

[Alex S]

Sorry I've been away on a covert sheep cloning experiment in China.

LV and Kondo is not a great match IMO - the LVs don't really behave that efficiently and seem to need a big amp to control the bass.

Good luck to Thorsten, who I have met and, since I know nothing, he seemed very knowledgeable.

 

[bottleneck]

What I was trying to say, was that speakers have strengths and they have weaknesses.

All of them - no exceptions.

I'll mention strengths only, because people can be too precious if you dare to mention a weakness.

Electrostatics have a strength in detail retrieval.
Horn speakers have a strength in dynamics
ATC and PMC (and many others) have a strength in power handling.


''Neutral'' or ''truthful'' is a misnoma.

Better put, ''neutral'' is a lack of any extreme - e.g. detail retrieval or dynamics - and therefore as far AWAY from a live experience as it is TO the live experience...

..Live music containing extreme dynamics, detail, and power (etc)

You simply cannot have it all, and to pretend to do so is to be blind to the simple facts.

Pick a compromise that you enjoy.

 

[penance]

Did you name one Flossy?

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Shin, you obviously didn't see my previous post, when constructing your transducers (nice craftsmanship btw), did you use your chord amp in the voicing of them?

Sorry I must have missed your previous post.

The answer is no. The main amps used through development were Greg Balls GB amps:

http://members.dodo.com.au/~gregball/guru_004.htm

I used a 300w/8ohm for bass and 150w/8ohm for mid and treble. Tri-amped of course. Great amps BTW. I also used AKSA 55N+, ESP P101 and Patek SE implementation with both SMPS and linear supplies.

I only had a single SPM1200E so could never really make much of an assessment when paired with the mains since I really needed another two more. Its been sold now anyway to provide finances for these:

 

[bottleneck]

they make a nice visual match for your main speakers.

 

[Tenson]

What are they Ant? NCD 700?

 

[anon_bb]

I absolutely agree - you cant have it all - you compromise based on cost, music taste and audio preferences. However having said that it is not as subjective as you paint it and soem designs are very much worse than others.

Low distortion, high detail, low colouration designs are more (tonally) neutral or "truthful". Our measurements paradigms arent perfect and neither is out tech which is why diviergence of opinion can occur, alongside the aforementioned factors.

I dont claim PMC are perfect, however they are very detailed, very dynamic and quite neutral. Of course specific designs can beat them in certain areas but for an all round music collection for someone who cant tolerate additions they are hard to beat.

Some people do seem to seek a lack of accuracy by intention - which is fine but it isnt "high fidelity".

I apply the term neutral only to tonality - where it is appropriate.

 

[bottleneck]

You simply cannot have it all, and to pretend to do so is to be blind to the simple facts.
.

.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

''Neutral'' or ''truthful'' is a misnoma.

Better put, ''neutral'' is a lack of any extreme - e.g. detail retrieval or dynamics - and therefore as far AWAY from a live experience as it is TO the live experience...

..Live music containing extreme dynamics, detail, and power (etc)

You simply cannot have it all, and to pretend to do so is to be blind to the simple facts.

Pick a compromise that you enjoy.

Wouldn't you agree that is better to approach what's considered the the baseline for reproduction of sound - the recording. And rely on the recording to best try capture the venue?

I understand that's somewhat of loaded question with so many subjective opinions on how it should be done. Its just my opinion that you should narrow the variance between recording and the final measureable output of the system as a whole, including room. Its certainly accurate in terms of tracking the source and the onus is then the responsibility of the recording.

If you start voicing this and voicing that your dealing with not only imperfect recordings but also other more damaging distortions. Lessen the variables I say and it works very well for me.

I'm *not* saying this is the only way to get where you need to go but its certainly a very valid approach.

About dynamics: I think they come predominately from realistic SPL's. And system needs to play at those levels whilst still tracking the source accuratly. That makes sense because its only higher SPL's that have the neccessary headroom to give the range needed between peak and noisefloor to make us start to believe that the sound is proportional to what you'd expect in a traditional setting.

The word dynamics, when used in the context of discussing loudspeaker presention, is a description of several individual 'traits' that superimpose as a subjective whole. These 'traits' are measurable ie. its possible to engineer dynamics. It also has little to do with high efficiency.

Much of the 'dynamic' nature of a loudspeaker can be assessed by its impulse/step response. These are the absolute baseline performance indicators of just how accurate a loudspeaker is because they take into account both amplitude and time characteristics of the speaker. A lot of loudspeakers are poor in this regard and non are approaching perfect.

Since a loudspeaker is being asked to produce every possible eventuality for sound it must closely adhere to the fundamentals of how a perfect transducer would perform. Unfortunately no loudspeaker comes even close to that and will remain that way until we get a radically different approach to how we tackly the problem, in other words the technology so far isn't good enough.

 

[anon_bb]

Agree 100%.

 

[bottleneck]

Hi

Nope! don't agree at all!

Dynamics and SPLs are entirely different things.

SPL being a matter of volume, Dynamics being a matter of contrast.

You can have huge dynamic micro and macro swings with low SPL.

 

[murray johnson]

I dont claim PMC are perfect, however they are very detailed, very dynamic and quite neutral. Of course specific designs can beat them in certain areas but for an all round music collection for someone who cant tolerate additions they are hard to beat.

Hi BBV,

I would beg to differ. I think that they aren't detailed and don't reproduce dynamic range very well. I wouldn't even call the system I heard particularly neutral.

It doesn't surprise me though. Heavy diaphragms being poorly controlled by relatively weak magnets having to make large excursions won't sound terribly good but, as long as you like them, thats all that matters. Its a purely subjective opinion though.

 

[sideshowbob]

No it means that SSB isnt in a position to judge.

Judge what? I've never made any negative comments about your Brinkmann, as I've never heard one, something I've always made clear. PMCs, OTOH, I've heard many times. I'm quite confident an SME into JBLs or a Verdier into Altecs would be far superior for my tastes than anything at all into PMCs.

What's quite apparent is that you've never heard JBLs, except perhaps in a cinema. The claim to have heard them in a shop is clearly made up.

People might take you a little bit more seriously if, instead of claiming that PMC are the best speakers in the world, you simply said they were the best speakers you'd heard to date. I'd still disgree, but wouldn't feel any need to take the p1ss out of you. The other side of this is not saying you have heard things when you clearly haven't.

-- Ian

 

[KUB3]

Murray, have you heard the smaller active pmc AML1? These have some powerful magnets on much smaller drivers. Very accurate I have to say. Tenson took some pics of his old pair a while back...

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?t=10950&highlight=speaker+porn

 

[anon_bb]

Oh please the pmc midrange is extremely sensitive - at least as much as the atc. It is also exquisitely detailed. The dynamics are stunning. If you feel you can demonstrate otherwise then I will be happy to hear it. They are also quite tonally neutral without having jackson pollock add a little random tonal aberation.

It only needs enough slew to cover its range of operation.

 

[anon_bb]

Actually I have heard them and I gave you the clue - work it out. Also - source first . You have only heard pmc many times at shows as you have previously stated.

I never claimed they are the best in the world - you assume that. Doubtless something better exists, and I know they can be bettered in specific areas. However as an overall package they are hard to beat and certainly not by the designs being touted here.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

I'd agree. My cabs had substantial bracing, and were constructed from 1" MDF with a 2" MDF sandwich for the front baffle. Here's an early picture showing the bracing, which is recessed 6mm into grooves in the main cabinet walls.

These will not win any prizes for ultimate extension- they were originally designed for use in a Tact controlled sub/sat set up crossed over to the mains at 350hz. Low distortion was therefore of more importance. For a pure subwoofer, I would use a very different drive unit. I did play with the radial volt in the same cab and it's a punchy little sod! Again though, for pure sub bass, it really doesn't cut it IMHO.

Nice work

Clearly the work of a perfectionist because your know your dealing with that breed when even the internals look good!

 

[sideshowbob]

Actually I have heard them and I gave you the clue - work it out. Also - source first . You have only heard pmc many times at shows as you have previously stated.

Source first is balls, once you get to the quality of any of the TTs we're talking about, it's all down to personal taste.

I asked you to be specific about where you heard JBLs, especially given that almost none of the top models are available in the UK at all, and those that are available have only recently started to get some small distribution. In the absence of you being specific, I think you're lying.

I never claimed they are the best in the world - you assume that.

I can't be bothered to list all the posts where you've claimed nothing else is nearly as good. There's too many of them.

Doubtless something better exists, and I know they can be bettered in specific areas. However as an overall package they are hard to beat and certainly not by the designs being touted here.

Including all the designs being "touted" here that you haven't heard?

-- Ian