Hi,
merlin said:
in my experience, vocal intelligability is superb at both low and high levels with the ATC.
Try it with foreign language songs. Honestly.
merlin said:
What is lacking is realism, the subjective impression that something or someone is actually making the noise.
Yes, to me even pure acoustic recordings sound heavily processed on ATC's, as I said, I'd call it the use of "MaxxBass" and "Aphex".
merlin said:
I'd also have to disagree with your description of ATC bass.
Disagree all you like.
merlin said:
It is low distortion. Any domestic loudspeakers with lower distortion at 40hz? I cannot think of any.
Hmmm, around 4 point something percent 2nd and 3 point something 3rd for 90db/1m @ 40Hz? And you call that "good"? I call that (without all the tedium of converting percent to absolute and sumsquare addition etc to get THD) eyeballadded 5% THD or -26db. I don't have the Mag at hand, but 50Hz was not much better.
Now we have a problem, the only current publication that actually publishes distortion measurements for speakers is soundstage, courtesy of the NRC (used to be Floyd Toole's gig) and they measure 50Hz - 10Khz and at 90db/2m, which as everyone (who passed acoustics 101 anyway) knows translates into 96db/1m.
So we have a measurement of 96db/1m/50Hz compared to one at 90db/1m/40Hz.
Given is that at low frequencies the excursion of the driver increases lineary with SPL and quadruples for each and every drop of frequency by one octave> Given is also that at low frequencies the 2nd & 3rd HD (and thus THD&N/S) are directly and lineary related to excursion. These givens can be found in the common literature on the subject.
Considering all that is given I would suggest that 50Hz/96db/1m is more stressing on the driver than 40Hz/90db/1m, being in terms of driver excursion equal to 35Hz/90db/1m and that if a speaker can equal a THD&N/S of -26db or better at 50Hz/96db/1m it will very likely have a lower or at the very least comparable level of distortion than the ATC SCM50 DOMESTIC ANIVERSARY EDITION at 40Hz/90db/1m.
I must state the assumptions made, anyone with sufficient acoustic background should be able to confirm these.
I would add that the NRC measurements also show the midrange and treble distortion up to 1KHz at 96db/1m, where HFN measured around 1% for the ATC SCM50 DOMESTIC ANIVERSARY EDITION. So any speaker showing a level of distortion of better than -40db @ 90db/2m will have materially lower levels of distortion than the ATC SCM50 DOMESTIC ANIVERSARY EDITION.
Now on to domestic loudspeakers that should equal or better the ATC SCM50 DOMESTIC ANIVERSARY EDITION in terms of distortion for both low frequencies and midrange treble, based on the assumptions stated above:
Dynaudio Confidence C4 Loudspeakers: Measurements
Paradigm Reference Studio 100 v.3 Loudspeakers: Measurements
Paradigm Reference Signature S8 Loudspeakers: Measurements
Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 7 Loudspeakers: Measurements
Dynaudio Audience 80 Loudspeakers: Measurements
Wilson Audio Sophia Loudspeakers: Measurements
Note that list above contains quite inexpensive speakers (Paradigm, Dynaudio Audience 80) together with boutique fair (Wilson, Dynaudio Confidence), but all are large floorstanders (what did you expect).
I guess the closest relation to the SCM50 in the field is the Wilson Sophia (3-Way, 10" Ported woofer) which with a good amp will draw about level with the ATC on price and which shows around 6db lower LF distortion and baring two narrow spikes very little distortion at all 96db/1m above 100Hz. Even at 101db/1m distortion, excepting two spikes around 500Hz & 1KHz remains around 0.5% above 100Hz with 50Hz-10KHz @ 101db/1m below 3% THD at all frequencies in the range covered.
To better this you do need to get a MEG RL900/901, K+H O500 (both similar price as ATC SCM50 and also active), Tannoy System 15/215DMT (the System 15 lists at a very reasonable £1,800/pair, the 215 around £ 3,000/pair but are passive) or Meyer X-10 (I am sure others apply, I prefer to talk about that which I know).
Frequency response both on axis and over the listening window is pretty decent too and all that precludes the Sophia from recommendation as mid/far-field monitor is poor dispersion control. It is expensive, admittedly, but just the Wilson Watt/Puppy appears to deliver what ATC promise (yes, I'm a closet Wilson fan, I liked their older speakers better, more studio monitor like, less HiFi).
merlin said:
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.
What the SCM50 sounds nearfield is quite irelevant in both domestic settings (where few people are likely to listen to large speakers in the nearfield) and in studio settings (where the SCM50 and larger are clearly mid-field to far-field monitors).
And I might add that their near complete lack of dispersion control makes them particulary difficult to deploy in the mid & far field.
merlin said:
IME, flat response in the comparitive nearfield leads to an un natural emphasis on the midrange and a subjective thinning of timbre.
Completely agreed.
merlin said:
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.
I do not feel this to be the case. ATC claims to make the most accurate monitors avaiable. In terms of freqency response flatness, distortion and dispersion control they are quite clearly significantly worse (distortion > 12db, dispersion control is better not mentioned, response flatness barely acceptable) than a significant number of other state of the art studio monitors and many quite ordinary domestic speakers.
Ciao T
