And its equally sad to assume that because a manufacturer builds its own drivers and implements them into its loudspeaker system then it automatically guarantees the best results.

I'm armed with all the important measurements as well as listening tests and experience of both ATC's own implementations and also my approximation of ATC's implementation used on the speaker I've shown here. As well as an XO that negates much of the problems with the ATC mid.

The drivers have clear limitations and flaws that are undeniable. I'm using the same drivers as you and your subject to those same limitations. ATC didn't bend the laws of physics its just that you haven't heard anything other than ATC's take on how things should be done and you have no practical experience working with the ATC drivers - you've only listened to them in one particular XO setup so how would you know if things can get better? How can you be so arrogant as to be so sure that ATC got it right with zero evidence other than you've listened to them, like them and then defend them at any costs including your self respect. ATC got it OK but there's more to be had.

Considering all that, who's better equipped to judge the bigger picture? You or I?

Also isn't the 30th Anniversary meant to be a better design than the SCM50 anyway? If that's the case then things look a little worse.

This is going round in circles now since you've asked me that same question pages ago. I've provided you with evidence that others have agreed upon and that anyone with a reasonable understanding of loudspeaker design would concur with. If you wish to dismiss then its hardly the end of the world.