ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

Hi,

The Strata goes louder a LF than the Q200, without much distortion, interesting you choose to ignore the Q200 test also posted, where you get 7% THD @ 40Hz, not bad considering it's a tiny sealed box.

And all being equal, the SCM50's distortion also goes way up below 50Hz.

Carefull, I bet Studio vs. SCM7 would proove you rather wrong.... Stop generalising and be precise, it might get you somewhere.

Ciao T

 

Hi,

LF distortion was measured midway between port and woofer at 25cm (attenuating higher harmonics and higher frequency HD and signal considerably).

They took a seperate set of measurements at 0.5m on the midrange axis but did not show the curves, they merely write "remarkably low distortion of under 1% through mid & treble".

I would say 1% THD @ 90db/1m throughout midrange & treble is remarkable, but certainly not for being low, I'd say remarkably high actually, a pair of 1960's Tannoy Monitor Red's measured around 1% THD throughout the Midrange & Treble at 100db/1m, for comparison!!!

Ciao T

 

So Thosrsten,

are you trying to tell me that the Q200 has substantially better distortion figures than either the Stentor 111 or Stadium? Because if you dig out your old copies of HFNRR, you will find the enormous levels of second and third harmonic exhibited by both these flagship designs under test conditions.

Sorry I cannot post a link but as you know HFN is purely paper based sadly.

SCM's distortion will go up below 40hz (not 50 as you again exaggerate). Output however is substantially curtailed at these frequencies so the subjective affect is benign - I wish I could say the same for Rel Strata!

What is clear is that you prefer to listen to a particular type of loudspeaker, and this being the case, you are as single minded as anyone. With regards to your acceptance of appalling levels of distortion in Rel subwoofers (don't believe me? Let's buy a Strata 11 and get AV Talk to measure it!), this simply shows to me that you are no less of a hot air merchant than anyone else on the internet. And I thought you were above all that pettiness.

 

Hi,

I am not trying to tell you anything.

I don't keep too much backlog and rarely buy the Mag (I bought it because one of RealHi-Fi.com's products was reviewed).

Actually according to the HFN plots there is a pretty even level of 2nd/3rd/4th harmonics in the 0.5-1% range down to around 60Hz, distortion goes up steeply below this to around 16...20% THD at 20Hz and below.... So you are right, I stand corrected.

Several actually, depening on use. While I probably could monitor recordings on my setup I use for home listening, it would be a bad idea. So I would use one general type of system to monitor recordings and another to listen to music for pleasure. Both system will share some charateristics, but they will differ sharply in others....

Ciao T

 

Merlin,

You have some nerve to lecture 3ds about being petty or a hot air merchant. It seems that once again you are resorting to name calling in lieu of any real technical argument. Its not convincing anyone. I have picked up more useful information from 3ds in a day than I have from you in 3 months. That is the ultimate test of somebodys expertise.

Plus - you just got served!

Nick.

 

Biohazard,

Grow up will you, your attemps an ingratiation are mind numbingly tedious.

If Thorsten is happy to recommend subwoofers exhibiting double figure distortion figures at anything approaching useful levels, and at the same time spends a whole thread attacking a loudspeaker showing distortion levels no greater than 4% as being mid or low fi, he is clearly making vacuous statements.

That by the way is a fact, backed up by data supplied that thorsten desperately tried to sidestep. Now how about you providing some data to back up your spurious claims or are you too busy trying to cause an arguement?

 

But you have said that the Q200 shows excellent distortion figures, that the Strata is no doubt better still, and therefore by reference, you have told me that these products are objectively vastly superior to the top of the range Rel product. Without any evidence to back it up of course.

 

This has surely got to be the most baffling and boring thread ever.

 

The reason that HFN are taking measurements at those distances is to eliminate the room from their measurements - you simply wouldn't get that close if you could make free-field measurements (like the NRC and MEG examples you cite).

There are inherent difficulties in taking several of these kind of measurements and then working backwards to a unified 20Hz-20KHz frequency response plot.

If you dig through Floyd Toole's papers, you'll find that he is highly critical of these types of measurements in lieu of proper free field measurements and he makes a cogent case for needing a sizable anechoic chamber in order to get meaningful (and comparable) data.

 

Hi Merlin,

Clearly I am wasting my time with any attempt of a reasonable dialog. Your loss.

"In this world, there are two kinds of people -- those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter."

Robert Anthony Wilson

L8er T

 

Merlin,

Asking me to grow up after referring to me as "biohazard" lacks a certain credibility I feel. As for trying to "ingratiate" myself with 3ds nothing could be further from the truth. The actual point was that I was just illustrating that for all you proclaim your expertise I never seem to gain anything useful from your posts. I dont doubt you know a lot about loudspeakers but your attitude is rather condescending, insulting and superior - BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION EARLIER IN THIS THREAD - and sadly this greatly lessens the contribution you make to this forum.

Regards,

Nick.

 

I think that's true, but for reasons which you possibly wouldn't guess. Do you know Roy K Riches?

 

I just skimmed this thread, so may have missed a few details along the way. However I would like to add a few points...

REL's:
I owned one of the best models for a few years. I spent ages tweeking it's placement and crossover settings to get a smooth integration. However I found the optimal setting was with it turned off. The sub is simply too slow and muddy for music.

PMC's:
Personally I find their treble very nice and smooth, like the dynaudio's I also own. Sorry to disagree.

ATC's:
Ok they are a touch brighter than some, plus they don't delve into the sub tones range, but they are pretty darn good in comparison to most peoples hifi.

German studio options:
These all look incredibly ugly to me. Best left to the studio imo.

Also the fascination with bass cone diameter is a little concerning. There are other factors which leaves this size thing quite redundant, like complex cabinet design, driver excursion etc. I've heard some 10'' designs destroy 18'' ones. Getting all moist over dimensions is very misleading. However if that's your bag, I know of some 30'' woofers.

We all like different presentations at the end of the day. There is no single system which can be hailed as the best in the world. I guess the best system is the one which puts the biggest smile on your face.

All this chat about numbers can get a bit dull. I think numbers use wears out unless your measuring something very simple and hard to dispute, like frequency extension for example. If you want the best spec sheet / lab readings for a product, then I guess you may as well go and buy a Mark Levinson reference system for the price of a small house. I don't think it will be the best musically though, or the most fun.

 

Wow, and you are meant to be a doctor, you will be telling us that we all have the same eyesight next. Are you sure that you are a doctor?

 

Only if you want me to pretend to the forum that you are both wise and right.

If you want to settle the issue, I will buy a Rel Strata 11 and arrange for it to be measured by AVT at my expense.

When you see the distortion figures, look at your claim of the "wow" loudspeakers you constructed using the Rels for the bass and try to reconcile that with your rantings on this thread.

Simply put, you have constructed a case based on objective measurements, and exaggerated their severity and significance in order to drive home your agenda on an internet forum. When confronted with measurements that bring your judgement into question, you refuse to accept their significance. That for me is political manoevering rather than useful information and sadly typical of so many internet forums these days. Anything to save face.

So Thorsten, forget the points scoring. I do get it. I'm leaving you to it. Life's too short to waste arguing with people more concerned with looking good than discussing the facts.

 

Agreed Paul. That's called distortion ;-)

 

The point I am making is that no-one has "golden ears".

 

Actually bub they do - as evidenced clearly in subjective listening tests I conducted during my time working for the MOD.

 

I have heard of people with exceptional smell sense before. They can smell a perfume and actually break down the individual ingredients, just like how a dog's nose works: they don't smell the end result as a whole, they smell individual elements all at the same time. In fact these rare people often work in perfume manufacturing companies and get paid a fortune for a very easy (to them) job.

Therfore I would expect some rare people would have extra ability with hearing.

In fact I sometimes wonder if I have extended hearing ability. When I walk into my girlfriends house I can tell if the tv is on, even if it is on mute and upstairs in another room. I can hear the high pitched tube sound you see. My girlfriend can't believe it. Anyway my party trick is no use now, as we now have plasmas instead. Anyone else get this?

 

'The world can be divided into two types of people. Those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't'.