So Thorsten has broken cover ...

I have plenty of reason but of course if I post anything about it, Isaac will only get upset so I'll have to disappoint.

La Gorn Na

 

I've been to Nick's flat and wouldn't call it small. The main living room is actually pretty large for a London flat.

 

Such a common occurance, I wanted to repeat it.

To end an arguement with a closed thread is to make some people happy, whilst upsetting others who feel they haven't finished making their point.

The best course of action I can really reccomend to anyone who finds a thread not to their taste is not to participate in it.

Arguements tend to be localised to one thread, and there are always many other threads going which do not have the same arguements in them.

 

Agreed.

Shinobiwan hasn't told us about his ATC-busting super-duper whatsits yet. Those duffers at ATC better watch out.....it's......SHINOBIWAN!!!!!

 

Bub - the point is that having done so you then start the same old blather over the new deck not having learnt from your mistakes.

S&M - you have no basis in fact whatsoever you are just looking for mud to sling as part of your rather silly carry on. A few dubious web searches and an over active imagination dont add to the truth I am afraid. All this nonsense having a dig at T because he is trying to make something for himself rather shows you in a bad light old chap - you dont seem to have got the joke.

 

Here's a post I made highlighting some of the problems that exist:

http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showpost.php?p=177591&postcount=78

I don't manufacturer speakers at all just an enthusiast who builds his own stuff for pleasure:











You'll see that they use ATC drivers for mid and bass. They use FIR filters on the crossover along with phase/time alignment. I cross the mid at 3.2Khz and 400hz using 96dB/oct slopes. ATC use 24dB/oct at 380hz and 3.5Khz which is wholey inadequate at those frequencies since there's a breakup a 4.5Khz and drivers resonance is 320hz(lots of distortion there and big impedance phase problems). I've done a lot of experimenting and the ATC mid sounds harsh when following ATC's footstep and considering the measurements its easy to see why.

I've also got a +/- 0.5dB in-room response from ~180hz to 20Khz+, in that same range the ATC implementation is more like +/-3dB in-room if your very lucky.

Why didn't ATC do a better job? The ATC SB75-234SC doesn't run up very high and they couldn't push the bass/mid crossover point to 600hz which is what you really should be doing with 24dB/oct slopes on the ATC mid. Kinda defeats the object of running a pure midrange when you raise the XO point slap bang in the middle of an important frequency range.

The FR is largely uncorrected because they're using analogue active electronics. Its completely impractical to offer the flexibility to perfect in-room response. The same goes for the phase/time alignment.

God only knows why they didn't drop the XO point of the mid/treble. Maybe someone likes the lower treble a little confusion - interestingly these very findings are backed up in the SCM70 review:

http://ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/5

 

Tw@

 

:respect:

 

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say about the crossover points for the ATC mid (indeed the experiments I was party to suggest the 150 is preferrable to the 150S from an SQ POV), your posts indicate you are using a DEQX for all crossover and time alignment duties.

I have to say that I've yet to hear an interesting system that has employed that box, there's just something subjectively wrong with the end result to my ears. I know the measurements are superb (I formerly owned a full TACT system) but it just seems to strip the music of all essence and life.

So I have to say that regardless of the measurements you have managed to come up with (and I would concur with), I am likely to find the end result produced by the ATC package more musically pleasing going by past experience.

Nice looking units BTW.

 

Hi

I could go into detail about the several passive XO and analogue active XO I've tried with these. Each to his own, but the DEQX and PCXO setups I've been using in the later stages of development were revelatory SQ wise compared to the rest. I guess some like spice with their chips, I prefer a sharp, distinct and flawless presentation rather than anything that's been glossed over. I agree musicality does suffer with naff recording because you get out what you put in. Its a different kind of presentation, closer to the source and whatever the partenering equipment is putting out for some this isn't a good thing. Everything else I've heard recently sounds boxy, bloated and disproportionate to a greater or lesser extent.

There's a fair amount of history to these designs and they've been completely redesigned twice, a few driver changes, 5 different partenering models of amps to run active and a general evolutionary process spreading out since March last year and they've only recently been completed to a state that I'm really happy with and redefines what I think a highend speaker should be.

In comparison to ATC's own implementation, I've only heard the SCM50ASL 30th Anniversary and these are certainly my preference, I built them exactly for what I wanted, if I didn't like how it sounded it got changed until I was happy, hence why they've taken well over a year to build. Not bad considering ATC is asking £13k for a pair.

I've also had both the standard and super version of the ATC mid in these speakers. Super is definitely the better performer, the standard is slightly muted in comparison, more muddy on the lower end of its passband and measured THD is higher but strangly enough it doesn't have the 4.5Khz problem.

 

God knows what you are babbling on about, but if it's taken you over a year to make your little speakers, then it's almost a given that you will believe them to be good. And your opinion is what counts. Whatever you do, don't get a home trial of the 100s - you can pick these up for less than £4k s/h.

 

Oh please, do you write for TV or something.

I'm betting 99% on here would take these over uninspired fablon covered rectangular SCM50's. Actually I'm betting the guy that designed the crossover also did the cabinets

Here we go again. Blind faith just because a manufacturer is a recognised name is so fool hardy that even idiots try to avoid it, clearly you've not yet reached that rung of the ladder. If what you said held water then clearly Bose must also be unquestionable in performance.

You also seem to take everyones original argument and add a sprinkle of 'drama queen' to it. I never said ATC were bungling fools and I never said ATC sounds pants. If I had so little faith in ATC, why in the hell would I spend ££££'s on their drivers? I'm stating facts based on measurements and related opinions from listening impressions. If you think ATC have got it all going on, then fine. I know different.

And finally, your extremely boring, you spout the same rubbish every time someone puts facts in front of you. You provide nothing to enrich the debate, its just more of the same bland, tasteless and forgettable rhetoric.

Why do you even bother? I've been here for a month or two and its clear nobody takes you seriously. Your the Zerogain clown.

 

Are you retarded?

They took over a year exactly because I kept refining until I believed they were the best I've heard or could make, if I wasn't happy I'd still be doing it now. I documented much of it in these threads, including accounts of me moaning about poor performance and praising the stuff that was right:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52876

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62391

Realise that when I was unhappy I swapped, ripped apart or redesigned until I was happy. I could have been finished long ago but until I had reached what I wanted I kept refining.

These look familiar:

ATC 15" SB75-375SC:



Used in the 150's. Sold them within a couple of months like many other drivers I've tried - that should tell you what I think of them. The big ATC drivers sound bloated and slow in comparison to the better drivers.

 

Nice looking boxes shin - is the tweeter a revelator?

Bub buys everything according to the "naim" and doesnt question the established brands - after all they are the best right and everyone knows they are the best so he has to have what everyone knows to the be the best. That way noone will laugh at him ... ever again. He rarely if ever does comparisons with other equipment. After all if he relied on his own opinions and testing rather than just buying what the guy out of pink flloyd did then he might not end up with the best

Did you know he has Phase 15 mana under everything?

 

Believe Bub when he says he doesn't know what you're "...babbling on about". Any technical discussion goes right over his head as far as I can make out.

Strange that he has chosen to attack the two members of this forum who have the technical knowledge to actually make some very impressive looking gear.

He'll be quoting Dave Gilmour's use of ATC's as all the evidence he needs next. Predictable.

 

we can hardly criticise bub for buying well known brands.

nearly every one of us has non DIY products.

For every excellent DIY project that sounds great, there will be a hundred duffers.

 

Shin,
When you were finialising the design, we you using Chord amplification then?

 

I'll just pre-empt it now and mention that Mr Gilmour, having spent a large amount of time in close proximity to insanely loud PA systems will have damaged his hearing in the 30 something years since he replaced Syd.

 

May I recommend a little light reading? "Watching the English", by Kate Fox. You are having the mickey taken because you are breaking a fundamental rule of English behaviour. Have a read.

The most important thing is that you are happy, I am happy, everybody is happy.

 

Nothing wrong with buying the best known brands of itself - however Bub buys them just because they are well known brands and everyone says they are the best. Which is a bit sad.