15-12-2020, 05:19 PM
Ah, Ted...
I fear I might have offended him. I don't know for sure, as he didn't get back to me, but here it is (post #39 onwards): https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/show...p?t=144431
As I explained in that thread, PMCs are far from neutral, and I simply don't understand how they can be marketed as "monitors". The first time I heard a pair (2002), I was absolutely astonished at how much HF lift they had. Once I got past that, I then had to come to terms with the recessed mid and lumpy bass. When I later acquired the means to measure speakers, all my subjective observations were confirmed. However, a lot of people like them. It is an attractive sound if you like that sort of thing - which explains why they are so successful in the domestic market - but there's no way they should be used as monitors IMHO. However, it's impossible to change people's minds about this sort of thing - even with hard, objective data. This is audio, after all...
ATC, on the other hand, have stuck to their principles, and produce domestic speakers that sound like their monitors. They are just as successful as PMC, and certainly have my respect. The measurements in the last post of that thread show the cheapest ATC (the SCM7 from about 12 years back) is the flattest of the bunch that I picked at random to measure. They are what I would choose to mix on, although I have at various times used all of those I presented measurements for. Other speakers might sound "nicer", and so might be better for domestic use, but that's personal preference - I'm happiest with monitors because I enjoy hearing something that was close to what the engineers heard at the time, that isn't necessary for everyone. As a tool to do a job - rather than something to entertain you - you need a monitor. The arguments for monitor speakers are much the same as picture monitors vs domestic TV sets, of course.
As I say, I don't know what he disagreed with, but the other topic we discussed was LS3/5As. Perhaps it was that instead; perhaps it was both? I honestly have no idea. The public record shows that I asked nicely for confirmation, and also shows that I presented verifiable facts and sources. Which is unusual in audio - I go out of my way to do so, as the usual subjective conversations are practically worthless...
LS3/5As were never flat, even when new. The design that R&D produced wasn't bad, but it got modified somewhat by Designs Department (as was usual). Ignoring the obvious differences at the bass end, it's no wonder that you preferred the ESL to them, given that LS3/5As are quite up-and-down through the mid and treble. Of course, they are subject to ageing, and no original LS3/5A measures like it did from new. And they varied throughout the production run for various reasons well-documented elsewhere. The 11 ohm redesign helped a lot, and these measure reasonably well today. As I mentioned to Ted, I've been involved with a lot of research on the LS3/5A in recent years - I can't get into the details for commercial reasons, but be assured that what I write about them is based on objective facts rather than faith and belief.
The currently available LS3/5As will be much closer to the original design intent, and come with a warranty, but they are expensive. That's because they are expensive to manufacturer - trust me, it's not the profiteering you might be tempted to suspect. But as I said earlier, most of these present-day manufacturers also produce non-BBC designs that are well-worth considering - the ones I've got in mind have better sound quality and are better value for money - IMHO, of course. I don't want to get any more specific for the reasons I gave earlier...
One thing to bear in mind: decent quality monitor-style speakers do tend to be rather insensitive. Not as bad as the Maxims, but even so, they do need a bit of power behind them. Ideally at least 50 watts per channel in a smaller room, but obviously it does depend on what you pick. In my experience, a lot of people fail to understand this - even BBC engineers, sadly. People see a small box and assume a small amplifier is all it needs. The opposite is often true. So your current amplifier - and whether or not you're prepared to change is - is something to bear in mind when choosing speakers.
Something that is often forgotten: an amplifier enters clipping at a point before conspicuous distortion is apparent. This "grey area" sounds harsh, but not in a way that is obviously an amplifier problem - as a result, people usually assume it's the speakers straining. It's a shame clipping indicators aren't routinely fitted to domestic amplifiers.
I fear I might have offended him. I don't know for sure, as he didn't get back to me, but here it is (post #39 onwards): https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/show...p?t=144431
As I explained in that thread, PMCs are far from neutral, and I simply don't understand how they can be marketed as "monitors". The first time I heard a pair (2002), I was absolutely astonished at how much HF lift they had. Once I got past that, I then had to come to terms with the recessed mid and lumpy bass. When I later acquired the means to measure speakers, all my subjective observations were confirmed. However, a lot of people like them. It is an attractive sound if you like that sort of thing - which explains why they are so successful in the domestic market - but there's no way they should be used as monitors IMHO. However, it's impossible to change people's minds about this sort of thing - even with hard, objective data. This is audio, after all...
ATC, on the other hand, have stuck to their principles, and produce domestic speakers that sound like their monitors. They are just as successful as PMC, and certainly have my respect. The measurements in the last post of that thread show the cheapest ATC (the SCM7 from about 12 years back) is the flattest of the bunch that I picked at random to measure. They are what I would choose to mix on, although I have at various times used all of those I presented measurements for. Other speakers might sound "nicer", and so might be better for domestic use, but that's personal preference - I'm happiest with monitors because I enjoy hearing something that was close to what the engineers heard at the time, that isn't necessary for everyone. As a tool to do a job - rather than something to entertain you - you need a monitor. The arguments for monitor speakers are much the same as picture monitors vs domestic TV sets, of course.
As I say, I don't know what he disagreed with, but the other topic we discussed was LS3/5As. Perhaps it was that instead; perhaps it was both? I honestly have no idea. The public record shows that I asked nicely for confirmation, and also shows that I presented verifiable facts and sources. Which is unusual in audio - I go out of my way to do so, as the usual subjective conversations are practically worthless...
LS3/5As were never flat, even when new. The design that R&D produced wasn't bad, but it got modified somewhat by Designs Department (as was usual). Ignoring the obvious differences at the bass end, it's no wonder that you preferred the ESL to them, given that LS3/5As are quite up-and-down through the mid and treble. Of course, they are subject to ageing, and no original LS3/5A measures like it did from new. And they varied throughout the production run for various reasons well-documented elsewhere. The 11 ohm redesign helped a lot, and these measure reasonably well today. As I mentioned to Ted, I've been involved with a lot of research on the LS3/5A in recent years - I can't get into the details for commercial reasons, but be assured that what I write about them is based on objective facts rather than faith and belief.
The currently available LS3/5As will be much closer to the original design intent, and come with a warranty, but they are expensive. That's because they are expensive to manufacturer - trust me, it's not the profiteering you might be tempted to suspect. But as I said earlier, most of these present-day manufacturers also produce non-BBC designs that are well-worth considering - the ones I've got in mind have better sound quality and are better value for money - IMHO, of course. I don't want to get any more specific for the reasons I gave earlier...
One thing to bear in mind: decent quality monitor-style speakers do tend to be rather insensitive. Not as bad as the Maxims, but even so, they do need a bit of power behind them. Ideally at least 50 watts per channel in a smaller room, but obviously it does depend on what you pick. In my experience, a lot of people fail to understand this - even BBC engineers, sadly. People see a small box and assume a small amplifier is all it needs. The opposite is often true. So your current amplifier - and whether or not you're prepared to change is - is something to bear in mind when choosing speakers.
Something that is often forgotten: an amplifier enters clipping at a point before conspicuous distortion is apparent. This "grey area" sounds harsh, but not in a way that is obviously an amplifier problem - as a result, people usually assume it's the speakers straining. It's a shame clipping indicators aren't routinely fitted to domestic amplifiers.
