That's the idea, Glenn Croft knows what he's doing and makes great sounding amps, He's a little eccentric in some regards in that he doesn't believe in circuit boards in favour of point to point wiring. I like some of his more out there approaches but in all honesty I do miss a remote when it is in use but I live in flat where I need to chnage the volume quite often.
Steve - not sure if there are any but I was close to go croft/ harberth route before I went for ATC's, however I would go for remote and single volume control version.. from what I've read Croft users like the designer approach to dual mono volume.
bluedroog - the one and only time I've heard valve pre with actives was a revelation for me.. did you notice any difference between croft/ opals and dac/ opals combination?
bluedroog - the one and only time I've heard valve pre with actives was a revelation for me.. did you notice any difference between croft/ opals and dac/ opals combination?
lpv said:
It was a funny one for me as I had two contrasting experinces with the Croft. I first had the 909 and tried it with various pre-amps before settling on the Croft which had a profound positive impact. Some previous efforts sucked the life out of the sound, enter the Croft and it was another level. The sense of realism and soundstange were much improved as was bass. It almost certainly wasn't the best measuring on paper but it was hugely enjoyable.
I used the Croft with my Opals and did enjoy the sound very much. I was curious however to try remving it as I have an M-DAC and use the remote volume and fancied trying balanced XLR. To my surprise it didn't make a huge difference. A little of the valve tonal body was lost but in favour of better detail. Purely from a sound perspective while they were differnent it was tricky to say which I prefered.
What this led me to was to revisit passive pre-amps, I tired a Tisbury and Icon Audio up from the M-DAC with volume disabled and prefered both, I'm probalby going to get a higher end passive now.
Both passive, active vavle and digital volume in the DAC work well but no way I'd say a Croft would be money well spent now if I didn't already own it yet it was a very worthwhile upgrade in my passive system. That's not to say other valve / actives combinations wouldn't be. Funnily enogh the 909 is supposed to excel with passive pres and I had the gain on the Croft reduced to get the best from the pairing.
I know lots of Opal owners use the Project valve pre-amp which gets much praise as a pairing. Much is down to appropiate output ratings but plain old synergy and personal preference goes a long way too because many seem to think the Opals don't excel with passives which isn't what I heard.
It is fun trying!
I know some of the harbeth users use 909 with passive pre and that's probably including Alan Shaw..
Today, I can't see how my actives would benefit from valve pre but would love to hear a combination of croft/ harbeth or quad/ harbeth or new quad artera/ pmc twenty5..
Today, I can't see how my actives would benefit from valve pre but would love to hear a combination of croft/ harbeth or quad/ harbeth or new quad artera/ pmc twenty5..
hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004
Well-known member
No bass timing issues with my 20 21's they sound fast and tight like they're supposed to.the 5 or 6 degree slant was specifically done to obtain excellent timing between the high and low frequencies so I very much doubt Pete Thomas would make such a mistake with bass timing issues on speakers that had all sorts of lab testing thrown at them in that department.
Mark Rose-Smith said:
Hey Mark, why is your gear laying on the floor? Have you got one those new project vertical turntables?*biggrin*
hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004
Well-known member
Mark Rose-Smith said:
The photo you've used for your profile is approx. 90 degrees to the left out of kilter *smile*
hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004
Well-known member
Sorry.it was just a quick snap with my phone.I wasn't looking for amateur photographer of the year award.and actually everything is just about straight..it's maybe the backwards slant on the speaker and the stripe on the carpet that makes it all a bit odd looking.
Mark Rose-Smith said:
Please don't think I was being narky about your photographic skills Mark, you're one of the good guys on here, so I'd never do that to you. It was just tongue in cheek that the photo is on its side... Maybe it's my pc that's changing the image orientation when I view the forum?
hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004
Well-known member
No problem Doug.I am actually in to a bit of photography as are many folks on the site.But it is pretty straight . lol.I do prefer landscape photography though being a native of Scotland.
hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004
Well-known member
Mark Rose-Smith said:
The picture was 90 degree to the left so looked as if your speaker and stand lay on the floor. Lol
Still nobody compared the PMC Twenty5.22 with the PMC Fact 3?
From a technological point of view i think the 22 clearly has the advantage with the better TL, optimized tweeter, better woofer and thicker cabinet.
From a technological point of view i think the 22 clearly has the advantage with the better TL, optimized tweeter, better woofer and thicker cabinet.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I think there will be benefits for both models. The TwentyFive series benefit from newer materials that PMC are using, and some other new design aspects. Despite better cabinets for the TwentyFive over the Twenty, you may find the Facts have a more solid cabinet, and you'll have the benefit of the "tone control" on the back of the Facts. I think the choice between the two will come down to the room they'll be used in and the sort of sound the buyer is looking for.ErwinC said:
nopiano
Well-known member
At least you have heard them all, ErwinC! I suspect that at home they'll sound better than any demo, and your fine tuning the positions - both of speakers and yourself - could optimise the bass attributes you are seeking.
Based only the the Twenty series and Fact .8 I've auditioned, I'd expect the Fact to be rather more refined, but the 25 series to be a bolder version of the slightly analytical but excitingly clear 20 series.
BTW, you may want to edit your last post as you seem to have your 20s and 25s a bit interchanged! Good luck, whatever you choose. (I don't suppose you'd consider any KEF, Harbeth or ATC, perhaps??)
Based only the the Twenty series and Fact .8 I've auditioned, I'd expect the Fact to be rather more refined, but the 25 series to be a bolder version of the slightly analytical but excitingly clear 20 series.
BTW, you may want to edit your last post as you seem to have your 20s and 25s a bit interchanged! Good luck, whatever you choose. (I don't suppose you'd consider any KEF, Harbeth or ATC, perhaps??)
nopiano said:
Post edited. Thanks.
I did consider (and heard) ATC and Harbeth but these speakers are too big/wide for my setup except for the Harbeth P3ESR and ATC SCM7/11. And the ATC SCM19 are ugly-looking speakers with their metallic grille imo although i really like their sound.
What alternative does KEF have according to you? I owned the KEF LS50 some years ago but the PMC 25.22 or Harbeth M30.1 or ATC SCM19 are much better imo.
David@FrankHarvey said:
Thanks again David.
After owning the Twenty.22 i am looking for speakers with a similar sound as the 20.22 but with better, more powerful bass and a bit more detail. I don't know if the 25.22 or Fact 3 is the solution in my case. The price difference between the 2 is very substantial.
I listened to the 25.22 2 weeks ago and the bass on these is clearly better than the 20.22, even better than the Fact 3 imo. Detail and microdynamics are also better than the 20.22 and Fact 3. But the sound has become a bit more enthousiastic.
The Fact 3 i also heard a year or so ago and i remember the more controlled sound of them. Detail was better than the 20.22. But these speakers cost a lot more than the 25.22 and i don't know if they are better than the 25.22. Probably only different like you mention above.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
From the LS50, you have either the R300 or the Reference 1 - that's quite a jump from £995 to £4500! I feel KEF could do with a range to sit in between the R Series and Reference Series in order to have some standmount options in the £1750-2500 price point.ErwinC said:
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Maybe a standmount for £2k, and two floorstanders for £3k and £4k would fill the gap nicely. But despite a huge difference between R and Reference, what you could put inbetwen the two is beyond me!
I narrowed my choice between a pair of 20.22 for 1000 pound or a pair of 25.22 for 2500 pound. Any advice from people who have heard both?
nopiano
Well-known member
I agree too. As you've already moved on from LS50s there's not much to suggest without spending a lot. Have you ever heard Sonus faber Veneres?ErwinC said:
nopiano
Well-known member
I can't believe the 25 are worth 2.5 times more, so I'd choose the 20s for a grand. And spend the rest on music or your sources (not that i'm saying there's anything wrong in that department).ErwinC said:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram