PMC Twenty5 23 / 23i

[tuga]

They also play well at lower volumes, which I felt was a failing of my ATC’s.

This is probably because they seem to have an in-built Loudness contour to the frequency response.
They sound good at lower volumes because they compensate for our loss of sensitivity at frequency extremes but somewaht 'boom-tchizz' at high volumes.

 

[Mike Reed]

more tighter

Gosh! That much?

listened to the new Prodigy speakers yesterday. They just do everything right, pretty unbeatable for the money.

Your impression mirrors the HiFi News(?) review I scanned through yesterday in W.H.S. in the City during an idle moment. I think there's a series as per other models but these were stand-mounts, I remember, costing around £1250.

Bass is omnidirectional, once it leaves the port it goes all over the place.

Yes, I like that aspect; I'm very fond of bass all over the place. Nice simple frequency dispersion drawings, b.t.w.


I suppose there are reasons, and I've had (and still have) a few stand-mounts in my time, but I just cannot see the advantage of a stand-mount versus a similar footprint floor-stander. For a start, you have the added cost of decent stands (not cheap !). Secondly, however brilliant the design of the smaller spkr, it still represents a compromise. As an aside, I'm amazed that PMC are able to present their brand of transmission line in such small spkrs !!!!

 

[tuga]

Gosh! That much?



Your impression mirrors the HiFi News(?) review I scanned through yesterday in W.H.S. in the City during an idle moment. I think there's a series as per other models but these were stand-mounts, I remember, costing around £1250.



Yes, I like that aspect; I'm very fond of bass all over the place. Nice simple frequency dispersion drawings, b.t.w.


I suppose there are reasons, and I've had (and still have) a few stand-mounts in my time, but I just cannot see the advantage of a stand-mount versus a similar footprint floor-stander. For a start, you have the added cost of decent stands (not cheap !). Secondly, however brilliant the design of the smaller spkr, it still represents a compromise. As an aside, I'm amazed that PMC are able to present their brand of transmission line in such small spkrs !!!!

Those standmounts are transmission line in name only.

 

[Dingbat]

I suppose there are reasons, and I've had (and still have) a few stand-mounts in my time, but I just cannot see the advantage of a stand-mount versus a similar footprint floor-stander. For a start, you have the added cost of decent stands (not cheap !). Secondly, however brilliant the design of the smaller spkr, it still represents a compromise. As an aside, I'm amazed that PMC are able to present their brand of transmission line in such small spkrs !!!!

I have a pair of stand-mounts in a secondary system, but I agree with you on this matter. I figure a stand-mount will pretty much have the same footprint as a floor stander, and then if you need to get a dedicated stand for the stand-mount, what is the point? My secondary stand-mounts sit on a shelf, which is undoubtedly a compromise, but that isn't my main HiFi system, and is only used for the odd casual listen if I'm hanging about in that room.

Having said that, there are different sound compromises between a stand-mount versus a floor standing speaker, so I can understand if somebody preferred the presentation of a stand-mount. I once auditioned a KEF Reference 1 versus 3 (non-meta). I actually thought the Reference 1 had the more coherent sound, but lacked a bit of bass. The Reference 3 had the bass, but seemed to have some strange gap in the mid-band which detracted from the sound. Anyway, I had enough doubts from this that I didn't get either.

 

[manicatel]

I’d suggest that Stand mounts don’t have as much cabinet colouration as floorstanders do, as they have less cabinet.
Also, generally less deep bass which may otherwise overwhelm a small room. In a small study type room, there is a good argument for a pair of stand mounts with possibly a small sub to control the amount of low bass you want to have rather than an equivalent floorstanders which may have to be positioned too far away from the front & side walls to minimise bass & room interaction.

 

[Mike Reed]

I have a pair of stand-mounts in a secondary system, but I agree with you on this matter.

I’d suggest that Stand mounts don’t have as much cabinet colouration as floorstanders do, as they have less cabinet.
Also, generally less deep bass which may otherwise overwhelm a small room.

Interesting observations. Not sure about the cabinet colourations bit as they should be suitably damped/designed so that it's not a stand v. floor-mount consideration. However, I've never done small rooms for my main listening so your excess bass theory may hold water.

My breakfast area adjoining the kitchen (all one room, really) is small; smaller than a small room even D) and for years I had JPW or TDL bookshelf speakers on wall-mounts. Substituted cheap 'n' cheerful Richer Sounds (Gale) mini floor-mounts sitting on my 18mm ply shelf and it's a complete sonic upgrade in every respect. The 2 bookshelf spkrs are I.B. (sealed boxes) but the Gales have 2 tiny front ports each., so prob. more efficient but the transformation would suggest that's just one element.

 

[sunbeamgls]

If you have space for their extra physical depth, Twenty.26 are a significantly better speaker than the Twenty5.23