I turn mine off before I go to bed, and whenever else makes sense, if I remember. I’ve occassionally thought about those smart switches, but done nothing. An in-line foot operated switch might be an alternative with less likelihood of interference. I left my 100ASLs on for years before I discovered how much they consumed in standby - at least a bit of global warming is my fault.
Upgrading to ATC SCM40 loudspeakers
- Thread starter tonyx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atc loudspeakers naim
johnhunt
pfm Member
I’ve got into the habit of turning mine off too. I just need to flick a couple of switches on the wall.
Overall they are handsome beasts and sound great . I’m now and again mucking around with the siting and the toe in. I had both amps serviced recently and am plucking up courage to do the new tweeter. Mine are in the picture
Overall they are handsome beasts and sound great . I’m now and again mucking around with the siting and the toe in. I had both amps serviced recently and am plucking up courage to do the new tweeter. Mine are in the picture
John Phillips
pfm Member
That's my experience too.
I did find that when my ATCs arrived I was setting the volume higher than normal. Perhaps because ATC loudspeakers typically do play loud very cleanly. And in general the bigger the bass driver the greater the available dynamic range. I gradually reverted to normal volume as I became more accustomed to how they performed. And they continue to sound just as good to me.
I wonder if it's their being able to play cleanly at higher levels than many loudspeakers that gives rise to this notion.
Patu
pfm Member
Thanks for the replies. I guess only way to find out is to buy two of the remote controlled sockets. Some of them work with dedicated remote control but some you can control via iPhone. There's also very cheap solutions available through hardware stores but maybe in this case I'm ready to invest slightly more. To me it also feels wrong to keep the speakers always on with rather high power consumption.
I've noticed that I play active 40's slightly louder than the passive ones. Actives also sound better at low levels but for some reason, it's much easier to crank these up than the passives were. They just sound so clean and effortless that I enjoy slightly louder levels with them.
I've noticed that I play active 40's slightly louder than the passive ones. Actives also sound better at low levels but for some reason, it's much easier to crank these up than the passives were. They just sound so clean and effortless that I enjoy slightly louder levels with them.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
I personally use regular socket switches rather than a remote switch. I also use regular extensions (though without switches, or even indicator lights). No need for anything audiophile but minimal does no harm, when practical.
Musicraft
Trade: Musicraft
Please have a look at one of my recent ATC posts #391 as to how our client is using his SCM40A's. Might be useful -
https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/atc-reviews-at-musicraft-derby.75474/page-20
Musicraft
Trade: Musicraft
Use the 32.5/HiCap's output that you're using to feed the 250 instead with a single 4 pin din > 2 (L + R) XLR cable.
Dealer will probably have these already made up
Fourlegs
Trade: WAVE High Fidelity digital cables
Thanks for that. I have some of the Van Damme 268-026-000 XKE (Starquad) so I will try it against the one you mention. (update - I have ordered some 268-001-000 which is the black version of the ultramarine version you mention, I assume the black version will sound darker
)
Last edited:
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
In the interest of balance, here's a German review that compared the passive 50ies with the active versions and (slightly) preferred the passives, but only on very expensive amplification:
http://www.studio-hifi.com/images/ATC_SCM50_aktiv-passiv-Stpl-4-2011.pdf
From that article, translated:
"Despite the convincing arguments of Woodman for the active technology (see below) there are no measured advantages to be seen. The frequency response of both loudspeakers is similar, their step response is indistinguishable. Not even the maximum level of the active SCM 50 is higher."
http://www.studio-hifi.com/images/ATC_SCM50_aktiv-passiv-Stpl-4-2011.pdf
From that article, translated:
"Despite the convincing arguments of Woodman for the active technology (see below) there are no measured advantages to be seen. The frequency response of both loudspeakers is similar, their step response is indistinguishable. Not even the maximum level of the active SCM 50 is higher."
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Just goes to show what a lot of bollox many reviews are! I would expect an active speaker with cheap amplification to thrash the same speaker used passively with the "worlds best amplifier"
vln
Shuns mooks. And MQA.
Re
"And is that not conclusive proof that ultimately measurements are not the be all and end all?"
and
"Just goes to show what a lot of bollox many reviews are! I would expect an active speaker with cheap amplification to thrash the same speaker used passively with the "worlds best amplifier""
I am actually quite a big fan of measurements and I am surprised about their findings too, particularly about not seeing a difference in the step response, as this is where I thought the difference between active and passive should be most obvious. It seems to me with their 'conclusion' (passive better but only with *very* expensive power amps) they wanted to keep both camps happy, passive and active.
I own active ATC 100s BTW, but going through a bit of a transitional period courtesy of an Accuphase Class A power amp that somehow materialised in my living room. These days I consider active *analogue* speakers a bit of a halfway house, and would prefer active speakers with a *digital* XO but most of these have their own issues WRT future proofing (IMO).
"And is that not conclusive proof that ultimately measurements are not the be all and end all?"
and
"Just goes to show what a lot of bollox many reviews are! I would expect an active speaker with cheap amplification to thrash the same speaker used passively with the "worlds best amplifier""
I am actually quite a big fan of measurements and I am surprised about their findings too, particularly about not seeing a difference in the step response, as this is where I thought the difference between active and passive should be most obvious. It seems to me with their 'conclusion' (passive better but only with *very* expensive power amps) they wanted to keep both camps happy, passive and active.
I own active ATC 100s BTW, but going through a bit of a transitional period courtesy of an Accuphase Class A power amp that somehow materialised in my living room. These days I consider active *analogue* speakers a bit of a halfway house, and would prefer active speakers with a *digital* XO but most of these have their own issues WRT future proofing (IMO).
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Actually, you can see with actives the distortion at almost all frequencies above the 380Hz lower crossover region is lower and the frequency response is more even too. Also off-axis response is more even in the important range lower mid-10kHz (I guess phase-corrected crossovers have some part in this). All this despite a very powerful amplifier being used with the passives. Given the cost difference for actives, it's remarkable most of the frequency range is better. It's all in how you choose to interpret the measurements I suppose.
I certainly don't agree with their summary "there are no measured advantages to be seen" - as stated I'd say this isn't true from their own graphs!
Having owned a Krell KSA-100 I know that some amps have exceptional bass control into passives - that's just a fact of life! Anyone who's experienced it knows! But I find the actives bass is "Krell-like" - but for a fraction of Krell money. And mid/top is just better anyway. IME actives are the best way to achieve high fidelity in the real world.
Last edited:
John Phillips
pfm Member
We also have the final paragraph of the article. Approximately translated:
"Thus, the comparison ends almost undecided: Because I have access to the world's best amplifier, I continue to favor the passive SCM 50. But the advantages of active technology are unmistakable. For those who do not own a truly outstanding power amplifier, the SCM 50 A is strongly recommended."
It's particularly interesting to note that in the 20 to 40 Hz octave the ATC's internal amplifiers maintain a higher output level than "the world's best amplifier". However the differences reported seem in practice to be sufficiently small that it would be good to trust one's own ears rather than the reviewer's.
Peter McDermott
pfm Member
I've enjoyed reading this thread and have been looking at the SCM19As as a result (just reviews on-line etc). I'm wondering what the advice is regarding pre-amps? ATC have a some options but the CA2 is still pretty expensive and the CDA2 even more. I can see that they are both pre-amps but then offer different routes re DAC/CD/Neither. Any suggestions for a pre-amplifier that would work with the SCM19As under £1,000 (if I was choosing between a phono stage or a DAC included I think it would be with phono stage, if that helps).
Back in the days of CD players I had an SCA2 to go with my 100ASLs, but as soon as I started using a DAC/Pre - in those days a Benchmark DAC1 - I dispensed with the SCA2, as it had no point. Didn’t have vinyl to worry about though. In your situation I would still try to find a DAC with phono inputs - there aren’t many, but I think the Mytek Brooklyn DAC plus does, though new it is over your budget, s/h you might be tempted. Enjoy your speakers!