ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

Does it occur to you that I don't take your opinion about anything particularly seriously?

 

I completely agree to these statements. Any other discussion or eventual conclusions about / from these data are just based on biased measurements.

 

Out of interest - I use ETF5.0 with a preamp and calibrated microphone from IBF-Akustik. Do use the same software? (I'm asking because I get some problems with ETF on my soundcard).

 

Hi,

Does it occur to you that I answer your jibes rationally and topical and ignore your childish namecalling only to illustrate the nature of your personality?

Ciao T

 

Hi,

I use Speakerworkshop and a Behringer ECM8000 Mike with a sitable calibration file to offset the amplitude error of the Behringer mike.

Ciao T

 

Hi,

Rest assured the MEG measurements are accurate, remember, their main customer is still the german federal radio & tv network, who have stringent standards mof acceptance and both test equipment and the will and time to use it.

Ciao T

 

To me atcs add a harshness to the sound above and beyond what may reasonably be excused with "accuracy". Its my opinion of course but they always put my ears on edge. PMC are also "accurate" but do not seem to suffer from this problem.

 

No, I don't think your posts are in the least bit rational, and I think you are a nutter - there's no shortage of nutters associated with hi-fi. This thread is childish retaliation for your recent exposure as a dot-fetishist, thus sacrificing any credibility whatsoever.

B-Z attention-monster: ATCs accurately reflect the source, which is the problem if harshness is encountered.

 

No they dont, they add something. That something is distortion. Compare female voice through the atc with live acoustic female voice. Accurate it is not.

I hardly think insulting 3d and making irrelevent comments about dot fetishes has anything to do with the audio merits of this argument. Please refrain. This is not Pink Fish Media where such antics are the norm! 3ds posts seem to be a great deal more rationale and objective than yours bub. Cant you accept others may not like the "toys" you have picked and that their view can be as rationale as yours? That seems to be rather childish. As are terms like "mr fruitcake" and "B-Z attention-monster". Show some respect for other members bub and get over the equipment insecurity.

 

He offered his opinion on my personality, and I reciprocated. It's only our opinions, after all.

If you encounter audible distortion with ATC speakers, there is a problem with the source. I know this for a fact, and I am not going to argue about it.

I thought "Mr Fruitcake" & "B-Z Attention-monster" were rather amusing, and might raise a few grins.

 

The only one grinning is you bub.

The distortion was only present with atc and has been present every time I have heard atc, regardless of however many changes are made in the rest of the equipment. That to me is "proof". The only common factor is atc. What is your "proof" based on?

 

ok, lets cut the slanging match, we know bub loves them, but I have said it b4, not personally, you must be nutty to have layers of mana...not that I have heard them, so can't comment, but one of the things I like to think of is the guy in the street, he would think anyone with layers of mana is nutty.

mind you, he would with amps full of thermionic bottles, still I do think layers of iron is a bit much, personal opionion...

the problem is the dual nature of the human monkey

we have objectiveness with subjectiveness, or proof vs gut intuition or feeling vs logic, call it what you will.

many things in hifi sound good but don't measure good

conversely, some things measure near perfect but sound bad.

What we need is definitions.

accuracy

as recorded in the studio? I hear this word bandied around and don't like it...what does it mean...we need clarity.

so James, surely to say accurately, you need to audition all 'accurate' monitors with reference to the studio and decide, tho I know you like atcs....interesting tho about the naim stuff, great taste I grant you, but is it accurate, I do like what it does tho'

...only way to do it is listen to all 'claimed' accurate monitors and see which is closest to the sound.

or is accuract some engineers specs like freqency, impulse, square waves, phase, distortion.

we need cast iron answers b4 we debate...

lets get these agreed on and then come together to debate?

even then, Thorsten dislikes and James likes, so in the end we have the element of feeling, and we need both in balance, feeling AND objectivity.

too much and you are spock, too little and you are mcCoy or a chav monkey

at the end of the day, hifi to me is about feeling, not perfect measurements, if I like it, that's what counts. science design, ears like or loathe. listen first....

 

If it sounds good but the measurements are bad then we have failed to understand hearing.

If it measures nearly perfectly but souns bad then we have failed to understand all the measurements that need to be made.

Accurate hifi = what comes out of the speakers is an accurate amplification and translation of the signal in the media?

 

It might just mean some of us prefer the sound of inaccurate equipment. Certainly seems to be the case.

Dunc

 

They might be well accurate but not under the identical situation as the measurements of the other speakers.
With my statements I'm not trying to defend any of the two loudspeakers. I'm just mentioning that when you have two measurements and want to compare them you have to first see if they were made under the identical situation.

 

Hi,

The conditions under which they are made are stated/obvious, MEG has their own large AEC. Response is measured free-field, on main axis, 1m distance at 0 and 45 degrees horizontal.

This type of measurement is very common and largely standardised so that such measurements are generally comparable.

As mentioned, they where made under sufficiently equal conditions to be comparable, IMHO.

Ciao T

 

Who cares what you think? I've heard ATC speakers sounding crap - both dealer demos. I've owned them for three years, and have three mates with ATC actives: 50, 100, and 150. I can assure you that they do not distort audibly with careful set-up and adequate ancillaries.

The only other speakers which are comparable which I have heard are Quad electrostatics - they lose out to ATC only because of their comparative lack of dynamic headroom & bass authority.

 

Yes, at you.

 

By your own admission, you know nothing about Mana.

 

I agree James, I am very sceptical, but if it works for you, I thought vol controls were a load of bull, but tried 3 with vastly differeing results, shocking in fact, so I will relent a tad, but even so,
anyone who buys layers of mana is simply buying someones profiteering approach and its highly dubious to put it politely. Its on a par with shyster russ andrews for conmen awards. for some reason that I can't comprehend, people like and buy into these shady shysters. I tend to concentrate on the core issues and relegate cabling and stands and all that to the sides as functional. sadly the ancilliaries have become too prominent.
I mean, 100s of pounds on a mains cable....a piece of wire.... there's something very wrong there....