advertisement


Floorstanding speakers - thin versus fat

Antifon

pfm Member
I'm not really sure if this is a sensible question or not, but anyway...

The question: Is there a characteristic sound to the (now more conventional) thin, deep-from-front-to-back floorstanding speakers, compared to the (now less favoured) layout which is as wide (roughly) as it is deep?

The reason I ask is that I'm planning to get some new (secondhand) speakers, and I'm considering either ATC SCM50's or PMC Fact12's - the former are very much "fatter" than the latter.

The reason I'm not sure whether it makes sense to ask about the shape is because I suspect that the internal layout (simple ported versus transmission line) may well override any effect that the external shape of box makes?

But I don't know, because I have heard neither, and (because I'm looking to buy secondhand) I won't have the opportunity to listen to the two side by side.

The best comparison I have is that I own a pair of ATC SCM40's - which I like very much, and which will be staying here - and a pair of PMC FB1i's. I don't actively dislike them, but I'm not so fond of the latter. However... I doubt that FB1i's tell me a lot about what Fact12's sound like!

I guess the question I'm ~really~ asking is this: I'm fairly confident that the SCM50's will be similar to something I already like the sound of. Are the "thin" Fact12's likely to hold unpleasant surprises for me?
 
Thanks - that was easy!

I confess I feel more "comfortable" with that physical format because my very first "proper" speakers were Monitor Audio MA1's, which are almost exactly the same shape as the ATC's - but "comfort" is probably not a good basis on which to buy £5k speakers...
 
Narrow speakers should image better. I have not heard the two speakers you mention, but am a PMC fan.
 
Narrow speakers should image better. I have not heard the two speakers you mention, but am a PMC fan.

That's an interesting point, and one I'd not heard before. But unlike many people I'm not too concerned about imaging, because I seldom stand anywhere near the optimal position for any of my speakers.

I'm enthusiastic about PMC too, but I'm very much hampered by never having heard a 3-way PMC design. The FB1s are the extent of my experience.

I have also considered the bigger box PMCs such as the IB2 and MB2 but they are probably overkill for my medium-size room, and they don't come up for sale much anyway (and tend to be way more than £5k!).
 
Thanks - that was easy!

I confess I feel more "comfortable" with that physical format because my very first "proper" speakers were Monitor Audio MA1's, which are almost exactly the same shape as the ATC's - but "comfort" is probably not a good basis on which to buy £5k speakers...
Are you running them active or passive?
 
The whole fundamentals range in the PMC frequency response is shelved-down by around 5dB, I would expect it to sound "lean" and "bright":

3tXRqDp.jpg
 
Are you running them active or passive?
Ah yes, it gets more complicated! If I go with ATC, it would almost certainly have to be active - because almost nobody buys passive SCM50s.

Whereas the PMCs would be passive, driven (initially) with Hypex NC500 monoblocks.
 
The whole fundamentals range in the PMC frequency response is shelved-down by around 5dB, I would expect it to sound "lean" and "bright":

Sorry, I don't know the meaning of shelved-down, but "lean" and "bright" don't sound like what I'm after.
 
Ah yes, it gets more complicated! If I go with ATC, it would almost certainly have to be active - because almost nobody buys passive SCM50s.

Whereas the PMCs would be passive, driven (initially) with Hypex NC500 monoblocks.
I have active ATC40S, they are amazing, the 50s will be even better. Look at the quality of the drivers compared to other brands, no comparison.
 
I have active ATC40S, they are amazing, the 50s will be even better. Look at the quality of the drivers compared to other brands, no comparison.

I have to agree about the quality - I had to remove a bass driver from an SCM40 because one of my amps went DC and destroyed the voice coil - it's a heavy bit of kit, and it was good that I could just send the driver back for repair, though it wasn't cheap!

But the difficult bit about SCM50s is that they don't come up that often for sensible money unless they are really bashed about. The midrange PMCs are a bit easier to get hold of (especially Twenty5 26s and Fact 12's), and it's only the IBs and MBs that start to really get pricey.
 
The question: Is there a characteristic sound to the (now more conventional) thin, deep-from-front-to-back floorstanding speakers, compared to the (now less favoured) layout which is as wide (roughly) as it is deep?

The transition from radiating mainly forward to radiating in all directions will occur at a higher frequency with a narrower baffle. This is an audible difference but it's effect will depend on how the directivity of the drivers is handled.

A narrow baffle usually has sharp edges closer to the drivers than a wide baffle. The stronger diffraction affects the imaging more but again detailed design is relevant.

On balance a wider baffle probably has a slight advantage acoustically but other factors are likely to be stronger in determining the overall performance.

I guess the question I'm ~really~ asking is this: I'm fairly confident that the SCM50's will be similar to something I already like the sound of. Are the "thin" Fact12's likely to hold unpleasant surprises for me?

The ATCs are well designed but overly expensive speakers. The Fact 12's run a 2" upper midrange driver down to 400 Hz and so cannot really be described as well designed and seem to be beyond overly expensive. If you are seriously considering a pair make sure you listen to them at the maximum volume you need because they will be more SPL/distortion limited and possibly at midrange frequencies that matter more.
 
The ATCs are well designed but overly expensive speakers. The Fact 12's run a 2" upper midrange driver down to 400 Hz and so cannot really be described as well designed and seem to be beyond overly expensive. If you are seriously considering a pair make sure you listen to them at the maximum volume you need because they will be more SPL/distortion limited and possibly at midrange frequencies that matter more.

Hmmm.... the thing that made the biggest difference to me going from FB1's to SCM40's was the midrange, which I found astonishing. I kept thinking that I was listening to a remixed track of a familiar song - the midrange detail was so much different. So perhaps I should just go with the ATCs.

The only thing about ATCs is that they will almost certainly be active, and I had wanted to "roll my own" active setup with Hypex Fusion modules. But perhaps I will have to forego that (and perhaps I ~should~ forego that, given my minimal skills in that area). I could try to find some passive SCM50s but they are very thin on the ground.
 
Pick the one with the biggest woofer. There's no replacement for displacement. I'm now a firm fan of classically proportioned loudspeakers that are wider than they are deep.

Unfortunately in terms of area, I suspect that they are about the same (ok, I haven't done the easy maths - I'm just guessing) so they probably have the ability to move about the same amount of air.

The other factor which I don't want to think about (but have to) is weight. Passive Fact12's weigh about half that of active SCM50's, which is something to think about when you need to shift them around!

[Edit: I did the easy maths and I was wrong. The SCM50's single woofer has about 1.5 times greater area than the Fact12's two.]
 
I'd buy active ATC 50's if I could buy them for under £600. I'd buy the PMC Fact 12's if I could buy them for under £200.

This seems to suggest that you think there are other speakers in the ~£600 price range that can equal or better a pair of active SCM50's.

Is that what you are saying - are do you just mean that you can't afford either speaker?
 
Pick the one with the biggest woofer. There's no replacement for displacement. I'm now a firm fan of classically proportioned loudspeakers that are wider than they are deep.

I have a Nait 2 into JBL4429 setup. With 91db efficiency, and a 12” bass unit, the JBLs make the pip squeak Nait sound unusually LARGE.
 


advertisement


Back
Top