The PMC's are good speakers so I'd be interested in your impressions. Not that I'm interested in switching as I found the brand that I will live with for a long time.
I wouldn't switch the Bryston, but that's just me. That B60 is a such a great little amp. I think you can send it to the factory for performance upgrades if it's an older version. Bring it back to spec + some.
I am digging Arts post. PMC's are definitely a great speaker, and IMO sound better than any Totem speaker I have heard to date. Not saying Totem speakers are not fantastic, because they are. The B60 is amazing. The MAC 6500 is also amazing, but completely sound different. What sound you like is up to you, some prefer MAC, some prefer Bryston. Personally, I prefer Bryston. One thing is for sure the PMC's would be a better match for your amp than the current speakers you have.
Of course all this depends on what kind of music you listen to, your room, and a fast and speedy upgrade of your source. The Apollo is a great player, but slap a Bryston DAC or CDP with your B60 and you will quickly forget that you ever owned the Apollo. Personally, I like your setup, and if possible I would look at your room first, and if not possible my first upgrade would be my source. Just my opinion. Cheers.
PMC's are a natural match for Bryston with a wide appeal. I've heard them primarily with the new Bryston squared series amps and that tends to be a match that dealers do. It's very smooth and relaxed yet it can boogie when it needs too. I've heard Totem with Bryston many times and personally like the sound but I'd describe the PMC as more refined. I've never heard a direct A/B test of an older Bryston to the squared but I perceive the squared as a smoother version of the same sound - kind of like moving to a more aged version of scotch in the same brand.
My B60 is the SST model, and I do like it very much. I'll probably keep it, but I'll listen to the Mac just to see.
I'll be auditioning the gear Thursday night and will post later with observations.
Nick, I'll no doubt upgrade the source at some point, but I'll stick with the Apollo for now. The Mac and the PMCs are available locally 2nd hand, in mint condition, so I'll throw money there first.
I really like your system, Frank, for some obvious reasons.
Mac and Bryston are pretty different. They're both equally good and musical IMO. I prefer the attack and immediacy of Bryston, but I'd very happily live with Mac for a long time. The difference is a matter of preference or taste, not which one is "better."
Auditioning the gear should make the differences very obvious pretty quickly.
I like the PMCs more than the Totems, but there are trade offs. If my ears are correct and the rooms were conducive to accurate demos, the Totems should be more 3 dimensional sounding, whereas the PMCs are more of a wall of sound that'll project sound toward you. Not that they're forward and in your face though. I haven't heard both side by side, but I've heard both with the gear you're looking at.
If you're looking for a happy medium between Totem and PMC, look at Audio Physic if you can. I thought they were the perfect balance of the two, combining both speakers' strengths. But that's just me.
While you'll get different with whatever you choose, I think it'll be a lateral move in most ways. The biggest increase in sound quality will be a better source IMO. If you can swing a Bryston BDA-1, that should bring the most imporvement IMO, but probably the biggest change.
I love the Apollo. It'll combine very well with whatever you're contemplating. I've heard it with everything you've got and are looking at. The BDA-1 does everything the Apollo does, but significantly better. That the basically same sounding BCD-1 are easily the best sources I've heard for the money and just about the absolute best sources I've heard regardless of cost.
The BDA-1 will save you $700 over the BCD-1, and will allow a lot of sources to be connected.
I've never heard any PMC speakers before, but I've talked to my dealer at length about them and he describes them as very "precise and analytical" (YMMV). Paired with Bryston, I would imagine this would be a lively combination, if that's your bag.
If this is the case, moving from the Hawks to this combo would be much different.
Well I bought the PMCs. They sounded even better than I expected, and the bass was surprisingly good, thanks to the 'transmission line' design. They also imaged very well. I also expect them to get even better when broken in, as they are still new. The guy selling them bought them new for a second system, then decided to go another way, so they're literally brand new. So it was too good a deal to pass up.
I still like the Hawks, but they're fussy re placement and need to be way out in the room, and I think the PMCs will work better with my smallish room, and with the Bryston.
And I'm keeping the Bryston. The Mac sounded great, but a bit mellow for my tastes. I've listened to Macs before, but never side by side with my own amp. There are some parts of the music that sounded a bit too subdued on the Mac in comparison--they were audible and clearly articulated, but sounded more 'recessed' or were simply not emphasized as with the Bryston. A certain 'snap' was missing. I could certainly live happily with the Mac, but I like the Bryston and it's already paid for, so it was a no-brainer.
My most recent listens to Mac gear concur with yours...nice sounding but a bit veiled. Great stuff though...congrats on your new speakers. You have a great setup!
I think longer listens to Mac gear is required to appreciate what it does. I'd never describe the McIntosh sound as "veiled", although I can see how that impression can be given. It's just a different presentation, but with the Mac gear I've listened to (which is very little) everything is all there....nothing hidden. It's just not going to throw things out at you though. Some people find that a more natural way to present music.....more "real" maybe. Some don't. No right or wrong except for the individual. Bryston is very very good gear as well and it appears to be your preference. Congrats on the PMC's.
After a night of listening at home, I'm very happy with the PMCs. Actually the fellow who sold them liked them so much so that he played them once, then immediately decided to spring for the PMC FB1s instead. He was a bit apologetic about his 'madness', but I assured him that it made perfect sense to me.
Now that I'm keeping the Bryston amp, a BDA-1 will be my next upgrade -- thanks for the suggestions and it's already on my list -- though I'll wait till I find a deal on one online.
I'm glad you found something that works well, Frank. I haven't heard the current i line, but I heard that they're a good improvement over the previous + line.
Bryston and PMC are a great pairing. I'm pretty sure PMC uses Bryston in developing their speakers.
I'm a little confused on which speakers you ended up with though. Are they the DB1 or TB2? I think you got the DB1, but the 2 in the title throws me off a bit.
Yes, PMC uses Bryston in development, and it mates Bryston 'powerpac' amps with their pro line of active speakers. PMC also distributes Bryston in the UK. Lots of synergy there.
I bought the TB2 model. Its funny, I told a friend that I bought a pair of speakers for $2k and she assumed they must be huge ($2k is a lot of money to non-audiophiles). I didn't correct her assumption, as I'll invite her over sometime and surprise her twice: first with how small they are, then again with how loud they sound.
There's a nice review here: http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/1995/v/3/sp/
Nice looking speakers Frank. I used to have a pair of Bryston monoblocks. Very good bit of of gear, although people used to come over, see my rig, and ask why I was using car amps on my stereo system ;-)
David, I just read your post again, and it still gave me a belly laugh the second time. I can well imagine people thinking that the monoblocks are car amps. Too funny.
The Power Pacs look great on the back of PMCs. And they sound fantastic there too. I've seen and heard them. They kinda lose something in the looks department when sitting on a rack. Not that they're ugly, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.