advertisement


Upgrading to ATC SCM40 loudspeakers

I found it bright and closed in. By that I mean it wasn’t natural or open. The 2 speakers sound like they’re very separate distinct points. Ie with eyes shut it’s obvious exactly where they both are. Rather than a natural sounding, cohesive soundstage. Or if sat to one side slightly it felt like 90% of what I could here was coming from the speaker in front of me, and the other channel wasn’t as present.

Can’t confirm as sold all the naim kit but felt like I was getting really poor off axis response too. Changed to something much cheaper and much happier with what I have so all good
 
Neil Gilbert said:
Is that with 40s
Click to expand...

No, with kudos s20’s & nap 300. probably a similar level speaker wise to passive 40’s. Ended up with active speakers but Dutch & Dutch have been ordered instead of atc. Prefer the look and simplicity compared to atc actives. I’d quite happily have 100’s instead from what I’ve heard as they’re really good, but don’t have space and they’re double the cost so...
 
Ok
I guess it’s the 272 you really didn’t get on with then.

I always thought the 272 could probably be bettered but tried preamps from Conrad Johnson and Burmester and still preferred the 272 even with vinyl.

I find it really useful at keeping the box count down as I need my preamp to do vinyl, streaming and av bypass
 
A good active should always beat the same speaker used passive provided that no errors in implementation are made.
Active just has so many advantages, and no disadvantages other than cost.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
A good active should always beat the same speaker used passive provided that no errors in implementation are made.
Active just has so many advantages, and no disadvantages other than cost.
Click to expand...

What do you believe are the main advantages?

Cost doesn’t have to be an issue, and I believe more manufacturers will go down this route in time. Look at the hypex fusion plate amps. There’s some very high end kit available to diy’ers, and the hypex amps beat most manufacturers power amps I’ve heard
 
Paul Burke said:
What do you believe are the main advantages?

Cost doesn’t have to be an issue, and I believe more manufacturers will go down this route in time. Look at the hypex fusion plate amps. There’s some very high end kit available to diy’ers, and the hypex amps beat most manufacturers power amps I’ve heard
Click to expand...

The hi fi world is about the only area of high quality sound reproduction that hasn't gone over almost entirely to active... most pro studio monitors are active and have been for quite a while.

I almost added much the same thing as you say to my last post actually... ie that expensive brand name power amps may cost as much for a stereo amp as diy or non overpriced amps would be for 6 channels.

Advantages, in no specific order of importance:

1/ Crossover done at low power levels and with close tolerance components. This means no distortion from non air cored inductors, caps can all be film types, and that channel matching and crossover point are more accurate as 1% parts can be used rather than 10 or 20% ones used in passive xover.

2/ Xover can have much more complicated functionality than possible with passive. Steeper roll off rates, time alignment and EQ to correct driver anomalies can all be done without loss of power or damping factor and with far greater precision. DSP can take this much further still!

3/ A power amp per drive unit, connected directly to the driver with no xover in the way is probably the biggest advantage! We use thick speaker cable and try to keep it short in order to minimise resistance and hence maximise damping factor.... but that passive xover in the speaker is probably the equivalent to having 30' of thin bellwire (or worse!) added...
A passive xover can only attenuate the signal. This means that to achieve the bass boost ("baffle step correction") needed to give a flat response from a woofer or bass/mid driver all we can do is allow full power through at the lowest frequencies and gradually throttle it back as frequency rises...
In a simulation I did the other day in another thread on the JR149 I worked out that if 50W was applied at 30Hz it would all get to the bass unit but if the frequency was then to increase to 2KHz (IIRC, somewhere around 2KHz) then only 7W made it to the drive unit! Much worse is the implication this has to the control of the drive unit.. equivalent to putting a 30 Ohm resistor or so between the amp and the drive unit!

With active the amp is connected directly to the drive unit and can "grab it by the balls" (that's a technical term:D) in a way a passive version could only dream about!

There's more... it continues to "grab it by the balls" at all frequencies and so can help to control out of band resonances....

and more... if the bass amp clips it can't feed high frequency distortion to the tweeter and blow it!

... and if a huge bass transient comes along it's only handled by the bass amp and its power supply and doesn't effect the mid/tweeter amps

An active speaker with say 100W bass amps, 50W mid amps and 30W tweeter amps will often have similar max SPL to a passive version driven by a 500W amp!

All this generally leads to far better dynamics, tighter bass, greater transparency, less muddiness and subjectively being able to start and stop on a pin head.

So why is it not more popular with audiophiles? Conservatism and a misplaced (IMHO) belief that they need to be able to "get their sound" from the characteristics of some favoured make or model or style of power amp... (" I only like SET's/Naim/whatever and I can't afford 3 of them/don't believe the amps that come with the active speaker are good enough/to my taste").
In fact amp specs can be relaxed in some ways as eg the amp used for the bass doesn't need to have fantastic airy treble and the amp used for the tweeter doesn't need to display tight bass control etc etc plus they can generally be less powerful and the mid and tweeter amps can get away with smaller power supplies.
:)
 
My local dealer says they have never sold so many active speakers in all the time he's been in the shop (nearly 40 years!). I think the wheel is turning on active speakers as they marry very well with modern systems (pre-amp with inbuilt DAC & balanced outs). I think they will become very prevalent over the next 10 years.
 
I used an 82/Hi/250 with my (original model) SCM40s until I bought the ATC integrated, partly to reduce box count. The naim amps worked fine, although the 250 did get a bit hotter than it used to with my previous speakers.

Let us know what you think about the demo - I expect you'll either love them or hate them, there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
The hi fi world is about the only area of high quality sound reproduction that hasn't gone over almost entirely to active... most pro studio monitors are active and have been for quite a while.

I almost added much the same thing as you say to my last post actually... ie that expensive brand name power amps may cost as much for a stereo amp as diy or non overpriced amps would be for 6 channels.

Advantages, in no specific order of importance:

1/ Crossover done at low power levels and with close tolerance components. This means no distortion from non air cored inductors, caps can all be film types, and that channel matching and crossover point are more accurate as 1% parts can be used rather than 10 or 20% ones used in passive xover.

2/ Xover can have much more complicated functionality than possible with passive. Steeper roll off rates, time alignment and EQ to correct driver anomalies can all be done without loss of power or damping factor and with far greater precision. DSP can take this much further still!

3/ A power amp per drive unit, connected directly to the driver with no xover in the way is probably the biggest advantage! We use thick speaker cable and try to keep it short in order to minimise resistance and hence maximise damping factor.... but that passive xover in the speaker is probably the equivalent to having 30' of thin bellwire (or worse!) added...
A passive xover can only attenuate the signal. This means that to achieve the bass boost ("baffle step correction") needed to give a flat response from a woofer or bass/mid driver all we can do is allow full power through at the lowest frequencies and gradually throttle it back as frequency rises...
In a simulation I did the other day in another thread on the JR149 I worked out that if 50W was applied at 30Hz it would all get to the bass unit but if the frequency was then to increase to 2KHz (IIRC, somewhere around 2KHz) then only 7W made it to the drive unit! Much worse is the implication this has to the control of the drive unit.. equivalent to putting a 30 Ohm resistor or so between the amp and the drive unit!

With active the amp is connected directly to the drive unit and can "grab it by the balls" (that's a technical term:D) in a way a passive version could only dream about!

There's more... it continues to "grab it by the balls" at all frequencies and so can help to control out of band resonances....

and more... if the bass amp clips it can't feed high frequency distortion to the tweeter and blow it!

... and if a huge bass transient comes along it's only handled by the bass amp and its power supply and doesn't effect the mid/tweeter amps

An active speaker with say 100W bass amps, 50W mid amps and 30W tweeter amps will often have similar max SPL to a passive version driven by a 500W amp!

All this generally leads to far better dynamics, tighter bass, greater transparency, less muddiness and subjectively being able to start and stop on a pin head.

So why is it not more popular with audiophiles? Conservatism and a misplaced (IMHO) belief that they need to be able to "get their sound" from the characteristics of some favoured make or model or style of power amp... (" I only like SET's/Naim/whatever and I can't afford 3 of them/don't believe the amps that come with the active speaker are good enough/to my taste").
In fact amp specs can be relaxed in some ways as eg the amp used for the bass doesn't need to have fantastic airy treble and the amp used for the tweeter doesn't need to display tight bass control etc etc plus they can generally be less powerful and the mid and tweeter amps can get away with smaller power supplies.
:)
Click to expand...

I sit here as someone who currently uses a god knows how old pair of Meridian M2s and every time I listen to them I wonder how I get such a good sound from a pair of active speakers that only cost £300.
 
A friend bought the passive ATC 40s not long ago because of their divine mid range and silky transparent treble. Then he heard the active version and just had to have them as they were so much better in the bass and still had that lovely mid and top end. Now I have bought a pair of the active 40s as well.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
The hi fi world is about the only area of high quality sound reproduction that hasn't gone over almost entirely to active... most pro studio monitors are active and have been for quite a while.

I almost added much the same thing as you say to my last post actually... ie that expensive brand name power amps may cost as much for a stereo amp as diy or non overpriced amps would be for 6 channels.

Advantages, in no specific order of importance:

1/ Crossover done at low power levels and with close tolerance components. This means no distortion from non air cored inductors, caps can all be film types, and that channel matching and crossover point are more accurate as 1% parts can be used rather than 10 or 20% ones used in passive xover.

2/ Xover can have much more complicated functionality than possible with passive. Steeper roll off rates, time alignment and EQ to correct driver anomalies can all be done without loss of power or damping factor and with far greater precision. DSP can take this much further still!

3/ A power amp per drive unit, connected directly to the driver with no xover in the way is probably the biggest advantage! We use thick speaker cable and try to keep it short in order to minimise resistance and hence maximise damping factor.... but that passive xover in the speaker is probably the equivalent to having 30' of thin bellwire (or worse!) added...
A passive xover can only attenuate the signal. This means that to achieve the bass boost ("baffle step correction") needed to give a flat response from a woofer or bass/mid driver all we can do is allow full power through at the lowest frequencies and gradually throttle it back as frequency rises...
In a simulation I did the other day in another thread on the JR149 I worked out that if 50W was applied at 30Hz it would all get to the bass unit but if the frequency was then to increase to 2KHz (IIRC, somewhere around 2KHz) then only 7W made it to the drive unit! Much worse is the implication this has to the control of the drive unit.. equivalent to putting a 30 Ohm resistor or so between the amp and the drive unit!

With active the amp is connected directly to the drive unit and can "grab it by the balls" (that's a technical term:D) in a way a passive version could only dream about!

There's more... it continues to "grab it by the balls" at all frequencies and so can help to control out of band resonances....

and more... if the bass amp clips it can't feed high frequency distortion to the tweeter and blow it!

... and if a huge bass transient comes along it's only handled by the bass amp and its power supply and doesn't effect the mid/tweeter amps

An active speaker with say 100W bass amps, 50W mid amps and 30W tweeter amps will often have similar max SPL to a passive version driven by a 500W amp!

All this generally leads to far better dynamics, tighter bass, greater transparency, less muddiness and subjectively being able to start and stop on a pin head.

So why is it not more popular with audiophiles? Conservatism and a misplaced (IMHO) belief that they need to be able to "get their sound" from the characteristics of some favoured make or model or style of power amp... (" I only like SET's/Naim/whatever and I can't afford 3 of them/don't believe the amps that come with the active speaker are good enough/to my taste").
In fact amp specs can be relaxed in some ways as eg the amp used for the bass doesn't need to have fantastic airy treble and the amp used for the tweeter doesn't need to display tight bass control etc etc plus they can generally be less powerful and the mid and tweeter amps can get away with smaller power supplies.
:)
Click to expand...

Yes can agree with pretty much all of that.

The cost and complication of active with something like a naim system is one of the reasons I’m glad I never got round to doing it, naim delaying the kudos snaxo did me a favour there.

Components can be pretty well match in a passive xo, 10-20% tolerances aren’t something I’d use personally. But it does get expensive, and quickly I know, esp if using film!

There’s def plenty of advantages to active, also the system performance at higher spl and crossover/voice coil heat transfer. Not looked too much into that yet, and probably won’t, there are so many benefits that if it’s a choice between active and passive there should only really be one winner really. Lack of choice between brands of speakers is prob the only/main downside, but that’ll change soon no doubt
 
Fourlegs said:
A friend bought the passive ATC 40s not long ago because of their divine mid range and silky transparent treble. Then he heard the active version and just had to have them as they were so much better in the bass and still had that lovely mid and top end. Now I have bought a pair of the active 40s as well.
Click to expand...

ATC Soft Dome monitoring :cool:

Bad boys :)

ATC%20Drive%20Units%2004.jpg

ATC SM75-150 Soft Dome mid range drive unit

ATC%20Drive%20Units%2003.jpg

ATC SM75-150S Super Soft Dome mid range drive unit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top