ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

[3DSonics]

Hi,

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.

X-10, forgot the 0.

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

Maybe, however the question only asked "what would measure better?" I mentioned what would.

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?

I'm not interested in Pro-Ac, but in generic classes, that said I believe they have measured some Pro-Ac's over at the NRC for soundstage.com, just have a look.

Ciao T

 

[dominicT]

Why is it that when people ask for data and they get it that they then say that the data is unacceptable? Unbelieveble. If you guys want all data to be collected under the same conditions then this is unreasonable. So every manaufacturer of all equipment would go to the same location at the same time, and we are talking everything here, cars, microwaves etc - get real. The whole point about having a standard of measurement is that data can be compared on a like for like basis. If manufacturers were found to be claiming something that they are not then they would be found out, interesting that ATC do not claim anything on performance via graphs! And I can back up 3DS with the east German regs on suppliers, actually most governments are stringent.

Bub I do find it difficult to reconcile your insistance on 'accurate playback' and that distortion must be at the source, when your choice of preamp is anything but accurate! Oh, and such arrogance - at least you are consistent. Did you have your gathering in July as I did not see a thread about it - I would have thought that many people would have wanted to hear your 'best sound system in the universe' to see if it was true or not.

 

[merlin]

Just to add that the ATC measurements refer to the domestic anniversary model, which subjectively sounds somewhat different to the regular studio unit (I have now heard both at length).

The anniversary employs completely different amplifier and crossover topologies as well as a totally different cabinet design.

It would be interesting to find out if the Studio series measures the same, and if so, why the substantial sonic differences don't you think?

 

[anon_bb]

It does seem awfully high at 1% - are there any other corroborating independent reviews containing similiar measurements? Not that I am skeptical - it seems to be borne out by my own listening experiences. As you say - it can only go up with level.

 

[The Devil]

Bub I do find it difficult to reconcile your insistance on 'accurate playback' and that distortion must be at the source, when your choice of preamp is anything but accurate!

Rubbish, the NAC 52 is one of the very best preamps available to mankind.

Why don't you just start a "Kick Bub" thread, and have done with it? Or, even better, just get a life?

 

[merlin]

Why is it that when people ask for data and they get it that they then say that the data is unacceptable? Unbelieveble.

Dominic, just to be clear, I didn't ask, nor would I be foolish enough to claim ATC's are the most accurate loudspeakers available. They are undoubtedly lacking in certain areas and this is most likely attributable to distortion somewhere in the system. Having said that, they are superior to 90% of the rubbish I hear being passed off as hifi.

The only reason for my comments was Thorsten's assertion that they represent low to mid fi. That is simply unfair and provocative.

 

[anon_bb]

Nobodys kicking you bub. I suggest we leave the nac 52 for another thread before things get out of hand. Your statement seems somewhat absolute though bub - I dont think its proven its just opinion.

merlin - could you be more specific about where you think the atc are lacking?

 

[merlin]

There is a lack of believability in the presence area compared to references. It's interesting to note that the distortion plots show 3rd harmonic spikes around the crossover points for the midrange dome.

An esteemed speaker designer claims that this driver sounds far better when crossed over at 600hz and 3khz than at the frequencies ATC employ. They seem to be almost running it wide open and the measurements suggest something is going on.

I have heard the drive unit itself sounding far more authentic and not exhibiting this colouration.

All the above should be taken in context however. The ATC's are fine loudspeakers and for many people ultimate authenticity is of less importance. My experience with ATC suggests that they can replay enornous amounts of information as a coherent whole at high levels with ease. The downside is that there are loudspeakers out there that can make that information sound more believable.

 

[dominicT]

Rubbish, the NAC 52 is one of the very best preamps available to mankind.

Why don't you just start a "Kick Bub" thread, and have done with it? Or, even better, just get a life?

Bub, the NAC52 is certainly a very, very, very good preamp, no question - but accurate is not what Naim does - it just seems to fly in the face of your quest for accuracy and your claim that your ATCs are accurate when the source isn't does not add up. No, this is not a kick bub thread - do you actually realise that for years all you have done is kick other people? Look at how you spoke to 3DS calling him a "fuitcake". You also resolutely say that mana is the answer to everything regardless of the problem and tell everyone that they know nothing, "it could not have been set up properly" "does not count if not on mana" as you sit there with 'all of the answers' in 'smug mansions'. Tone had it down right, you are very, very insecure. I have a Quad and do not care if others have a better system; you on the other hand cannot handle it.

I have a great life thanks, all the better actually for getting on and enjoying the music rather than chasing the dream of owning a hifi that sounds like the 'real thing' when the 'real thing' sounds nothing like the version on the digital or analogue recorder that recorded it in the first place and don't even get me started on the loss achieved between master and CD or even worse the record in the shops.

 

[anon_bb]

merlin - thanks, your assessment concurs with my experience and your observation on the 3rd harmonic provides a possible rationale for what I heard. What frequencies do atc cross over at?

Dominic - would it be a good idea to start a seperate thread for this to avoid distractions? I agree with you by the way - they are not neutral at all. Interestingly I find their deviation to have a similiar character to the atc. Possibly bub likes it. I hope he takes notes of your comments regarding conduct.

 

[merlin]

380hz and 3.5khz, 2nd order.

 

[zanash]

Pull the other one its got bells on it...

Quote
"Rubbish, the NAC 52 is one of the very best preamps available to mankind"

I had to wait a couple of hours to stop laughing.

What it does, it does well ...not my taste but theres no accounting for that. The big problem is ...as with many Naim products they tend to ignore the spatial information, so you end up listening in virtual mono.

As for better pre amps ..well anything without a vol. pot will be better than one with. So there's any number of passives, then you can look at the transformer types.......

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Just to add that the ATC measurements refer to the domestic anniversary model, which subjectively sounds somewhat different to the regular studio unit (I have now heard both at length).

The anniversary employs completely different amplifier and crossover topologies as well as a totally different cabinet design.

It would be interesting to find out if the Studio series measures the same, and if so, why the substantial sonic differences don't you think?

It is my understanding that while the actual amplifier circuitry may be different, the actual crossover frequencies and slopes are the same, as are the drivers. So key measured features (distortion, directivity and most likely frequency response) should be the same.

As I subscribe to the notion that even if two Amplifiers measure identical according to traditional (THD, IMD @ xxxWpower and identical frequency response) significant sonic differences can exist this and the cabinet changes may account for the differences.

I had previously seen ATC measurements (not as complete as in HFN though) which I remember having the same rather distinct Frequency response shape, this was a larger studio model.

It may be interesting to some if I where to provide a partial discussion at least of what I feel the subjective results of the measured performance of the ATC SCM50 DOMESTIC ANNIVERSARY EDITION may be, based on the measured response.

First, the distinct frequency response curve with a slightly emphasised LF and HF (both having a boost relative to the "average" 500Hz-5KHz SPL) strong depressions in the 500Hz and 4.5KHz range (the fundamental and presence ranges respectively) will have together with the rapid treble rolloff off axis the effect to make the speaker sound detailed (due to the emphasis on the formants over fundamental tones) without subjective forwardness or edginess at high volume (due to the upper midrange depression) but somewhat lacking in presence at lower volumes and comparably less than ideal vocal intelligibility, made worse by the poor directivity conrtol of the speaker at midrange and lower frequencies, unless the room is extensively treated acoustically.

The strong off axis treble rolloff will lead in room to a fairly "warm" balance which may be, together with the upper midrange depression, required to offset the effects of the rather high midrange and treble distortion (especially that of dissonant "odd order" harmonics). This distortion in turn will make the Speaker sound subjectively louder than it is actually playing but also lends an edginess that may require the offseting frequency response alterations to balance out, I call this (for obvious reasons) the Aphex Effect.

The LF response peaking and relative LF Q derivable from the plots and the high levels of LF distortion would suggest a speaker majoring in what people call "PRAT", always found in a certain midbass emphasis combined with some attenuation of really low frequencies and fairly high LF distortion (which is why most competently designed SET's readily out-PRAT Naim - call it the "Maxx-Bass effect" if you will).

It certainly is in my view an interesting blend of using one weakness to conceal another, but it is rather far from traditional accuracy, note that the writing is based strictly on interpreting the measurements and deriving expectations from them, though my ears do agree largely with "what these speakers should sound like based on measurements".

As somone who speaks english as third or fourth language, rather than natively I tend to focus on some areas few native english speakers would, vocal intelligibility is one, as completely and correctly understanding the sung english lyrics often remains difficult for me (a problem I do not have with even the thickest german dialect!), so it is an area where I focus and where ATC is particulary lacking, also the "Aphex Effect" really gets on my nerves quickly, I have a very low tolercance for this, while many may actually percieve this as an "enhancement" of sound.

Anyway, so much on bringing the correlation of measured and subjective performance together and on what I hear.

I have my asbestos suit on, so feel free to flame away.

Ciao T

 

[anon_bb]

No flames here - you described exactly what I heard with the atc 100! A very scholarly treatment that I found very interesting, especially wrt the odd order harmonics in the mid and treble which I found were very intrusive, to the point where a female companion at the dem had to leave the room for the duration of the use of these speakers. Just out of curiosity do any of atcs plots reflect these characterisitics as well, or just the HFN measurements?

 

[The Devil]

Quote
"Rubbish, the NAC 52 is one of the very best preamps available to mankind"

I had to wait a couple of hours to stop laughing.

What it does, it does well ...not my taste but theres no accounting for that. The big problem is ...as with many Naim products they tend to ignore the spatial information, so you end up listening in virtual mono.

You've been reading the magazines, because that is nonsense.

If you'd like to hear my system, and write anything at all about it, that's fine. It won't change my opinion, and I have a lot of experience with hi-fi. IOW, it's still the best I've heard.

 

[anon_bb]

Take this topic to another thread please.

 

[The Devil]

Hi,

<incomprehensible waffling removed>

I have my asbestos suit on, so feel free to flame away.

Ciao T

OK, you are a boring deaf nutter.

 

[merlin]

Thorsten,

in my experience, vocal intelligability is superb at both low and high levels with the ATC. What is lacking is realism, the subjective impression that something or someone is actually making the noise.

I'd also have to disagree with your description of ATC bass. It is low distortion. Any domestic loudspeakers with lower distortion at 40hz? I cannot think of any. It is true that they do not cover the bottom octave and that this subjectively leads to the rythmnic qualities you describe but again, this merely helps to make sense of most modern recordings.

Warm balance? Yes. Hard? No. Potentially they are at high volumes but this is quite possibly down to inadequacies in the recording as it is only an issue with some software. They are mildly shelved down in the midrange in order to make them sound acceptable in the near field - quite a benefit in both the studio and the typical british living room. IME, flat response in the comparitive nearfield leads to an un natural emphasis on the midrange and a subjective thinning of timbre.

So whilst ATC's are far from the perfect speaker descibed by their more blinkered ownership, your claim of low fi is a clear example of the forum's tendency for exaggeration in order to get ones point across.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity do any of atcs plots reflect these characterisitics as well, or just the HFN measurements?

Sadly published extensive measurements of larger ATC Speakers are nearly as rare as rocking horse droppings, hence I took the opportunity to point out some that actually are readily available.

As said, the frequency response curve I remember more or less accuratly from a Pro Audio publication a few years back, I never saw much else, sadly, excluding the more frequently reviewed small 2-Ways.

Ciao T

 

[The Devil]

"So whilst ATC's are far from the perfect speaker descibed by their more blinkered ownership, "


I'm not blinkered, I've heard Quad electrostatics. I guess you'll be knocking those, next. No-one on this thread has heard my system, and all you are describing is suboptimal installation of ATC actives.