The Devil
IHTFP
Yes.
Kans are Krap.
Active ATC users: Which preamp?
- Thread starter notflat
- Start date
Kans are Krap.
The Devil
IHTFP
To clarify.
Speakers which 'rip the music to shreds' or 'highlight problems with the recording' are not, IMO accurate nor revealing, unless we make the obviously false assumption that the recording engineers ripped the music to shreds, or amplified their own mistakes. Kans perhaps fall into this category. Speakers should not routinely sound 'harsh' except with certain recordings.
So many people think that 'analytical' = accurate. It simply isn't the case. Martin-Logan electrostatic hybrids, for example, sound 'etched' which some people mistake for 'detail'.
I don't know how many times I'll have to point this out. Unless & until you have heard what I hear, you will probably not understand what I mean.
Speakers which 'rip the music to shreds' or 'highlight problems with the recording' are not, IMO accurate nor revealing, unless we make the obviously false assumption that the recording engineers ripped the music to shreds, or amplified their own mistakes. Kans perhaps fall into this category. Speakers should not routinely sound 'harsh' except with certain recordings.
So many people think that 'analytical' = accurate. It simply isn't the case. Martin-Logan electrostatic hybrids, for example, sound 'etched' which some people mistake for 'detail'.
I don't know how many times I'll have to point this out. Unless & until you have heard what I hear, you will probably not understand what I mean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lt Cdr Data
om
bub, I never really understood exactly what you meant by accurate, could you precisely define your terms, so I can see where you are coming from?
I found the atc 50s interesting, they were old and had the old tweeter, a vifa d27 -80 or something
this was changed to the d27 45-06 in later versions and I believe they now have a seas for dvd
my atcs were odd at first perhaps caus they were so different.
At first I had them with the grills off and they seemed painfully bright, they too seemed very directional, I couldn't get a good image or stage to my liking, and I am a soundstage freak. In fact this is definately what I seek, great wide deep stage.
After a while, with the grills on, the treble seemed a bit laid back, so it went from bright to dull. Bizarre.
I liked them though, Despite being full of ne5534 opamps, which are said to be audiophile death( I also had an audio analogue puccini which used these and again was a very nice amp. so you have to be careful of what you read, it might not tally with experience in practise, (they use these for the amp stages and crossovers), and provided a circuit diagram, I found they had dynamics, the music had inflection, it ebbed, microdynamics that I have only heard from high sensitivity spx and valves.
I found the bass unremarkable for the size, it was there but a bit too unobvious for me, I wanted better from a 9" active, maybe the 100s are bigger and better. Or maybe you need a trans. line or a sub.
They were great, I could see inside the music, the mix, and I still found them enjoyable to listen to, in fact very nice to listen to.
Its like people say naim is like wallpaper shredding, you again have to use your own ears, I like it, and don't think they are harsh. Again ATCs were not as I have heard them described. Listen yourself and decide, its the only way. Anything else is hearsay.
I found the atc 50s interesting, they were old and had the old tweeter, a vifa d27 -80 or something
this was changed to the d27 45-06 in later versions and I believe they now have a seas for dvd
my atcs were odd at first perhaps caus they were so different.
At first I had them with the grills off and they seemed painfully bright, they too seemed very directional, I couldn't get a good image or stage to my liking, and I am a soundstage freak. In fact this is definately what I seek, great wide deep stage.
After a while, with the grills on, the treble seemed a bit laid back, so it went from bright to dull. Bizarre.
I liked them though, Despite being full of ne5534 opamps, which are said to be audiophile death( I also had an audio analogue puccini which used these and again was a very nice amp. so you have to be careful of what you read, it might not tally with experience in practise, (they use these for the amp stages and crossovers), and provided a circuit diagram, I found they had dynamics, the music had inflection, it ebbed, microdynamics that I have only heard from high sensitivity spx and valves.
I found the bass unremarkable for the size, it was there but a bit too unobvious for me, I wanted better from a 9" active, maybe the 100s are bigger and better. Or maybe you need a trans. line or a sub.
They were great, I could see inside the music, the mix, and I still found them enjoyable to listen to, in fact very nice to listen to.
Its like people say naim is like wallpaper shredding, you again have to use your own ears, I like it, and don't think they are harsh. Again ATCs were not as I have heard them described. Listen yourself and decide, its the only way. Anything else is hearsay.
The Devil
IHTFP
Accurate = hifi = fidelity to the original signal in all respects: tonally, timing, dynamics etc etc.
The 'problem' a lot of audiophiles have with the ATC bass is that they have become used to overblown bass from normal domestic speakers which add bass to everything. So the ATCs sound bass-light in comparison until you play a so-called 'stunt' track with gallons of bass.
ATC monitors do not work to their full potential on the supplied stands.
The 'problem' a lot of audiophiles have with the ATC bass is that they have become used to overblown bass from normal domestic speakers which add bass to everything. So the ATCs sound bass-light in comparison until you play a so-called 'stunt' track with gallons of bass.
ATC monitors do not work to their full potential on the supplied stands.
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said to Notflat in a PM, I find ATCs to surprisingly sensitive to positioning, both relative to the walls and to the listener.
They can sound very bright and unpleasant if the listener's ears are at tweeter level or higher. You have to line them up properly (according to ATC they're designed to be listened to with ears at the same level as the midpoint between the centre of the tweeter and the centre of the midrange, but I find experimenting around that general area is a good way of tweaking the sound to your tastes). Ideally the tweeters should be physically higher up thant he listener's ears but I got pretty good results by angling the speakers back a few degrees (I'm now experimenting with raising them up instead and so far I think I prefer this).
They also vary quite a lot based on how toed-in they are. Their response is a lot smoother and more natural with minimal toe-in than when they're toed in heavily, or worse, pointed directly at the user, though the latter configuration gives a bit more bite which may please fans of hard-hitting rawk. The soundstage also doesn't "gel" properly until you find just the right toe-in, which can be a bit of a pain considering how hefty ATC actives tend to be... (with my 25kg Target stands, my 20s total more than 50kg each, and they're genuine lightweights compared to the bigger ATC beasts!)
It took me ages to work this out for myself, using a combination of repeated trial-and-error, conversations with ATC engineers, and the occasional magazine reviews. IMO ATC should make more of a point of explaining their intended speaker positioning in the manual (IIRC it's pretty vague...) But once you've sorted the positioning they really do sing.
Notflat, upon reflection I'm not so convinced the ATC actives and passives are all that different in "presentation". As I only had the SCM-12s for a few days in my home I didn't really have the chance to find the ideal positioning for them. I suspect that the differences I heard were largely down to the amplifier I was using with the passives vs. the active's ATC power amps, and the positioning. I would be curious to hear a pair of well run-in SCM-12s in a system whose owner has taken the time to position them properly.
Actually, now that I think about it, my experiences of the 12s mirrors Data's experience of the Active 50s to some extent, at least regarding the grilles. Having owned the Active 10s for two years prior I was a bit new to the whole removable grilles thang, so just assumed they would sound better with the grilles off. In that configuration they sounded a bit "sharp" and bright, but generally better than with the grilles on which made them sound soft and dull to my ears. Speaking with ATC on the matter (whilst still in possession of the 12s) they confirmed what I'd read, that they were designed with the grilles in place. So who knows? I find the presentation of the ATC actives (particularly the 20s, which I found smoother and more natural than the 10s), once positioned properly, to be somewhere between the begrilled and grille-less configurations of the passive 12 - not too dull but not too bright (a.k.a. just right.
)
Dunc
P.S. - I also find that the ATCs like to be well away from walls. It's not a bass thing either. When they're too close to the rear walls (say, 50cm or less) the midrange gets very muddy and unnatural, and the soundstage becomes very two-dimensional (particularly at high volumes). Side walls contribute their own problems (can't remember what specifically, as I currently don't have that problem, but I remember having to take fairly drastic measures in my previous flat with the Active 10s, as the room was very narrow and sidewall reflections proved problematic).
They can sound very bright and unpleasant if the listener's ears are at tweeter level or higher. You have to line them up properly (according to ATC they're designed to be listened to with ears at the same level as the midpoint between the centre of the tweeter and the centre of the midrange, but I find experimenting around that general area is a good way of tweaking the sound to your tastes). Ideally the tweeters should be physically higher up thant he listener's ears but I got pretty good results by angling the speakers back a few degrees (I'm now experimenting with raising them up instead and so far I think I prefer this).
They also vary quite a lot based on how toed-in they are. Their response is a lot smoother and more natural with minimal toe-in than when they're toed in heavily, or worse, pointed directly at the user, though the latter configuration gives a bit more bite which may please fans of hard-hitting rawk. The soundstage also doesn't "gel" properly until you find just the right toe-in, which can be a bit of a pain considering how hefty ATC actives tend to be... (with my 25kg Target stands, my 20s total more than 50kg each, and they're genuine lightweights compared to the bigger ATC beasts!)
It took me ages to work this out for myself, using a combination of repeated trial-and-error, conversations with ATC engineers, and the occasional magazine reviews. IMO ATC should make more of a point of explaining their intended speaker positioning in the manual (IIRC it's pretty vague...) But once you've sorted the positioning they really do sing.
Notflat, upon reflection I'm not so convinced the ATC actives and passives are all that different in "presentation". As I only had the SCM-12s for a few days in my home I didn't really have the chance to find the ideal positioning for them. I suspect that the differences I heard were largely down to the amplifier I was using with the passives vs. the active's ATC power amps, and the positioning. I would be curious to hear a pair of well run-in SCM-12s in a system whose owner has taken the time to position them properly.
Actually, now that I think about it, my experiences of the 12s mirrors Data's experience of the Active 50s to some extent, at least regarding the grilles. Having owned the Active 10s for two years prior I was a bit new to the whole removable grilles thang, so just assumed they would sound better with the grilles off. In that configuration they sounded a bit "sharp" and bright, but generally better than with the grilles on which made them sound soft and dull to my ears. Speaking with ATC on the matter (whilst still in possession of the 12s) they confirmed what I'd read, that they were designed with the grilles in place. So who knows? I find the presentation of the ATC actives (particularly the 20s, which I found smoother and more natural than the 10s), once positioned properly, to be somewhere between the begrilled and grille-less configurations of the passive 12 - not too dull but not too bright (a.k.a. just right.
)Dunc
P.S. - I also find that the ATCs like to be well away from walls. It's not a bass thing either. When they're too close to the rear walls (say, 50cm or less) the midrange gets very muddy and unnatural, and the soundstage becomes very two-dimensional (particularly at high volumes). Side walls contribute their own problems (can't remember what specifically, as I currently don't have that problem, but I remember having to take fairly drastic measures in my previous flat with the Active 10s, as the room was very narrow and sidewall reflections proved problematic).
Last edited by a moderator:
The Devil
IHTFP
Hi Duncan,
Nocturnal? I really must haul myself over to Edinburgh at some point.
ATB.
Nocturnal? I really must haul myself over to Edinburgh at some point.
ATB.
Well, yes actually. Working evening shifts.
And you're more than welcome to come and have a listen. You know how I said that I'd gotten the 20s how I liked them? Well.... I'm still playing really.. But they sound pretty good anyway so you're still welcome.
Dunc
And you're more than welcome to come and have a listen. You know how I said that I'd gotten the 20s how I liked them? Well.... I'm still playing really..
But they sound pretty good anyway so you're still welcome. Dunc
