ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

[merlin]

Compare female voice through the atc with live acoustic female voice. Accurate it is not.

For once I have to agree with Biohazard. Having said that, if all you listen to is talentless lesbians ATC would not be your first port of call anyway. And they are bloody good when it comes to rock, dance, reggae, orchestral....

PMC's are wrong, just in a different area. All speakers are compromises and we all seem to have different priorities - hence the rather amusing stances taken by some.

Before this goes any further, some of you might want to read much of the thread's future

here

A classic

 

[anon_bb]

Oh merlin you are naughty... have you been stalking me again online? Female voice hardly equals talentless lesbians. Lets take a more open minded point of view - as well as avoiding silly name calling.

Sure all speakers are compromises - so much is obvious. However some are more compromised than others. Some are more accurate than others. Thats what objective testing and subjective listening are for.

Some people prefer inaccruate equipment - but perhaps only as they find the flaws too much to bear and the inaccuracy covers up the limitations of audio?

Bub - you seem to care obviously, otherwise you wouldnt be so offensive to myself and others. Your opinion doesnt consitute proof. Thats not to say your opinion isnt valid - I am just saying it isnt proof. You might be grinning at me ... but oh does mocking ever mock the mocker. Especially when they are using phase 11 mana.

 

[merlin]

Funnily enough no. I was looking for opinions on ATC over in the States and found even that site had become infected. Rarely have I read such an in accurate summation of a piece of audio equipment. It no doubt fuels the rumours.

I'm sorry but PMC loudspeakers simply sound like jumped up PA speakers to me. I am used to more refined transducers to be fair. I usually find some good points with all the loudspeakers I trial. PMC's have me struggling.

Sometimes it really pisses me off that internet forums are full of idiots claiming they have the best and most accurate hifi's available. Unless said tongue in cheek, it displays an amazing lack of maturity IMO.

 

[anon_bb]

Very odd coincidence that - I had assumed that you had found it at the same time as you searched out my other online habits via my username. In fact didnt you post references to my postings on audiogon previously on another forum? Naughty naughty... It is inaccurate in your opinion, that isnt the same as fact though you seem to proclaim it as such. If I have misread your intent then I apologise of course.

Just as you struggle with pmc so do I struggle with atc. I find some of the opinions concerning atc on this thread hard to credit. However that is my opinion and the converse of your opinion - I dont claim it as fact as it is just a subjective judgement. To me pmc have all all the good points of atc without the corresponding weaknesses and sound much more refined, dynamic and better in the bass. I can only assume that you have just heard pmc under show conditions when they are "showing off"?

BTW I havent claimed I have the best and most accurate hifi on this thread to the best of my knowledge. My only statement was that I consider atc not to be accurate. Consequently your remarks, if they are aimed at me, are wholly irrelevent. If they are aimed elsewhere then fair enough. Though to me name calling and internet searching for mud to sling also displays a lack of maturity. I agree with you that idiots pretending to be condescending experts drag down audio discussion forums. In that spirit perhaps we can keep the posts on topic and gentlemanly?

 

[merlin]

It is inaccurate in your opinion, that isnt the same as fact though you seem to proclaim it as such.

No, your comments are totally inaccurate and that's clearly not just my humble opinion.

PMC's have stunt bass. Listen to quality subwoofers from Velodyne, Revel or some custom builds and you will realise just how wrong the PMC is. By contrast, I have to admit that the ATC is very close to obviating the need for subwoofers, excepting of course the positional compromises of doing so.

If you find the above condescending then you are reading my posts correctly. Well done.

 

[anon_bb]

Thats nothing to be proud of merlin. Neither is name calling or searching the web for mud to sling. It does you no credit at all. You just expose yourself as an ignorant oaf - posing as an expert, something that is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt by your confusion of your opinion with the over arching truth. They are not one and the same. You can make as many statements about the inferiority of others technical expertise as you like but you never offer any technical justification - just a lot of waffle.

"Stunt bass?" - is that a technical term? So am I correct in saying that you have only heard pmc at shows? It seems almost churlish to point out that this thread is about atc not pmc...

I suggest that for the benefit of this forum as a whole that you take a less condescending attitude and cease the juvenile mud slinging and name calling.

 

[merlin]

Juvenile? Me?

:moony:

 

[anon_bb]

Thats a stunt bottom "merkin" - so I cant take it seriously ;-)

 

[3DSonics]

Gentlemen please,

Enough already, this thread discusses the measured performance of ATC and other studio monitors, NOT subjective impressions and the "my hifi sounds better than yours" BS.

Can it please and return to topical discussions.

Ciao T

 

[merlin]

Thorsten,

when you or anyone else produces data, resulting from a series of tests involving the likes of the ATC's, Meyer Sound, Genelec et all under identical conditions, this thread may buck the trend and become useful. Until then.......

 

[anon_bb]

Indeed - and in a gentlemanly fashion.

3d - is there any further info on the distortion spectra? Anything that would indicate a sonic character? Also which speakers doyou think give much better measured performance?

 

[The Devil]

Yawn.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

when you or anyone else produces data, resulting from a series of tests involving the likes of the ATC's, Meyer Sound, Genelec et all under identical conditions, this thread may buck the trend and become useful. Until then.......

The data HFN produced according to general "best practice" and the data produced by MEg are by an large comparable, even though ATC would look even worse if the measurements where as stringent as those done by MEG.

Those are the facts.

If you don't like the facts, that's too bad, but don't hide it behind "the data was not produced under absolutely identical conditions.". If you take this to the logical conclusion then you can never compare one speaker to another, as changing the speaker, all else being equal, still amounts to "non-identical" conditions.

The facts remain, the ATC measurements made by HFN of the ATC SCM50 are acceptable for mid-fi or lo-fi gear, but not for a high quality studio monitor.

If you feel HFN's measurements are wrong, take it up for them.

No amount of complaining will change the facts and they are the only thing topical and of interest here, nebulous "i dont like these measurements" complaints do not add to the subject.

Ciao T

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

3d - is there any further info on the distortion spectra?

The graphs in HFN are actually quite clear, even if measured severely off-axis for midrange and treble, the textual comments there even more so.

Short and simple distortion in the midrange up to 1% for 90db/1m.

Anything that would indicate a sonic character?

Yes, HFN plotted 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th seperately.

Also which speakers doyou think give much better measured performance?

MEG RL900/901 all versions
K+H O500
Meyersound X-1
Tannoys 15/215 Monitors and Tannoy Dreadnaught
Silbersand (any of the higher range)

I appreciate that most of these are German and all of limited exposure.... If others would like to add to the list.

I suspect any Kinoshita Monitor also would be miles ahead.

Ciao T

 

[oedipus]

Hi,
The data HFN produced according to general "best practice" and the data produced by MEg are by an large comparable, even though ATC would look even worse if the measurements where as stringent as those done by MEG.

I wouldn't be surprised if the distortion figures got worse if the ATC's were turned up to 96dB@1M. It is largely conjecture just how much worse those numbers would be...

Those are the facts.

The facts are: MEG data; ATC data. That's it so far. You can draw the conclusion that the rl901k's are better and that seems reasonable enough. The ATC followers might want to crank up the ATC's to 110dB@1M and then compare again against the MEG's, as ATC claim that low distortion at high volume is their thing.

The facts remain, the ATC measurements made by HFN of the ATC SCM50 are acceptable for mid-fi or lo-fi gear, but not for a high quality studio monitor.

[Now the text in bold is really causing all the problems here]

You need to put significantly more data on the table before that last part of that statement can be construed as fact, because at the moment it is nothing more than a highly provactive opinion...

 

[anon_bb]

3d - can you scan a plot? Or perhaps just state what the level of the harmonics were? I have only heard tannoy monitors - the rest are hard to come by here. I have ehard good things about the meyers though from someone else on this forum.

It seems unlikely that distortion would go down as volume is increased... or that other monitors distortion would rise much more sharply.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

3d - can you scan a plot? Or perhaps just state what the level of the harmonics were?

I can't scan them, simply buy the current HFN.

Levels are highly variable with frequency, hard to describe.

Ciao T

 

[anon_bb]

I already bought it and threw it away - no point buying again

Just wanted to know the level of 3rd harmonic, which I assume is dominant after the 2nd.

 

[merlin]

Meyersound X-1

I presume you mean the HD-1? or do you mean the X-10? I am unfamiliar with an X-1 and the UK distributor is a client of mine.

If you mean the X-10, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

To make the "mid to low fi" claim does seem to be purely confrontational. Can you back it up with figures for products such as the Proac Studio 100 or Monitor 30's?

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

I wouldn't be surprised if the distortion figures got worse if the ATC's were turned up to 96dB@1M. It is largely conjecture just how much worse those numbers would be...

Distortion mechanisms in Speakers are comparably well understood, so it would be not only conjecture.

The facts are: MEG data; ATC data.

Actually, they are data generated by MEG for their speakers, most likely accurate, no significant data provided by ATC for their speakers and independent measurements by HFN on ATC speakers.

That's it so far. You can draw the conclusion that the rl901k's are better and that seems reasonable enough. The ATC followers might want to crank up the ATC's to 110dB@1M and then compare again against the MEG's, as ATC claim that low distortion at high volume is their thing.

If low distortion at high volumes WOULD BE PRESENT, then it would be even lower at low levels. Given the mechanisms involved we can safely discount "low distortion" as a feature of the speaker measured by HFN.

You need to put significantly more data on the table before that last part of that statement can be construed as fact, because at the moment it is nothing more than a highly provactive opinion...

Sorry, but 1% Midrange distortion at 90db/1m is unacceptable. Compare other independent distortion measurements on a wide range of High End HiFi and Mid-Fi speakers (can be found in reviews by www.soundstage.com) to see just how many of these better the result HFN measured on the ATC speakers.

My contention stands, the measurements made by and published in HFN are unacceptably bad if we wish for an accurate and low distortion monitor. At least the measured ATC Speaker would fail severely the quality acceptance test by the german federal radio/tv network for large format quality control monitors.

Ciao T