Just as a start, they use the rather rare Trans Nova architecture.So please tell us what is special about ATC amps.
So why ask the question when you have such great expertise?No he hasn’t. Neither have you.
What’s special about them?
(What’s actually highly amusing here is that they do use a different topology to almost everybody else with their grounded source output stage. But that just demonstrates that you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about).
They go pretty well with naim & obviously their own amps. I don’t believe they are fussy in this regard.With shop demos with passive ATCs what amplifiers ae normally used? My ATC integrated has a very specific sound and I suspect would drive passive ATCs optimally. I know the actives would be better but cannot accept the added weight . 20 kg is my upper limit.
Just as a start, they use the rather rare Trans Nova architecture.
I have done some investigations to understand a bit about why they are different from usual and how they meet the requirements of their purpose and market. I don't think I could easily summarise the rest of my findings in short enough text for this forum, though.
Perhaps that's not what you meant by "special", although I think it is what @evand was writing about. IMHO they are definitely designed for their purpose and target market. As an engineer that impresses me and counts as special in my book.
Naim amplifiers sound different to my 150 wpc integrated with Harbeth C7s. Exposure amps definitely have a different sound signature in my experience.They go pretty well with naim & obviously their own amps. I don’t believe they are fussy in this regard.
When taken out of context those words do seem ridiculous. However, initial comparisons between my old system and the ATCs suggested that they were more similar than different in terms of my key fidelity attributes and that the distinction related mainly to the character of presentation: primarily frequency response. Thus with DSP to adjust the response curve and a higher-quality crossover (agreed, no guarantee of a sonic improvement) the character of the two systems could be more closely aligned and sound similar. Conjecture yes but then you haven't heard the old system.“indistinguishable from the ATC system” (his very words). And then again …
Snobby? And yet you had to explain your absolutism to try and revise it.What an incredibly snobby post I think you’ll find I was talking about the digital domain.
Key or a key? I ask because the same absolutist myth that plagues speakers-are-everything also plagues the parallel belief that rooms are primarily important. They are not primarily important.I have a very nice TT thanks & the rest of my system is pretty good. The interface between speakers & room has always been key.
I've bookmarked your remarks link for handy future reference.There are quite a few on here who share my views. I used to be quite source first in outlook but I’ve changed my mind as technology has advanced..
I readily accept that inferior beliefs on inferior audio exist. The fact remains that in the better tiers of audio reproduction, intense attention to everything upstream of the speakers - which is to say that any competent speaker will pass its proximate sound - is not only common, it is accepted practice. This observed, confirmed reality is not going to disappear just because a cohort denies it exists. It even (or especially) exists among speaker people.Maybe in the archaic world of turntables this is true, and of course was the convenient mantra of Linn in the 1980s. But it is simply not true in the digital domain. The difference between cheap and expensive digital sources is small. Very small compared to the world of turntables where there are/were vast differences in SQ. And hence today it has become much more about the amp and speakers, and of course the room, as we have been discussing here.
I ask because the same absolutist myth that plagues speakers-are-everything also plagues the parallel belief that rooms are primarily important. They are not primarily important.
I don’t doubt that but I thought I was answering a particular point about ATC speakers. Different can be better or just, err, different.Naim amplifiers sound different to my 150 wpc integrated with Harbeth C7s. Exposure amps definitely have a different sound signature in my experience.
Wow, what a pompous person you are.Snobby? And yet you had to explain your absolutism to try and revise it.
As regards the digital domain, over the same 40 years I mentioned it has amply proved itself less of its original, advertised Perfect Sound Forever than any other. Audibly and through any set of competent speakers. It is 2024 after all and just look at it.
Key or a key? I ask because the same absolutist myth that plagues speakers-are-everything also plagues the parallel belief that rooms are primarily important. They are not primarily important.
I've bookmarked your remarks link for handy future reference.
I never interpreted your post as anti anything it just that if anyone dares to say it could be something other than the speakers the usual happened.When taken out of context those words do seem ridiculous. However, initial comparisons between my old system and the ATCs suggested that they were more similar than different in terms of my key fidelity attributes and that the distinction related mainly to the character of presentation: primarily frequency response. Thus with DSP to adjust the response curve and a higher-quality crossover (agreed, no guarantee of a sonic improvement) the character of the two systems could be more closely aligned and sound similar. Conjecture yes but then you haven't heard the old system.
"Indistinguishable" was the wrong word but hopefully the paragraph above explains the thinking.
Like I stated from the start: this is "not an anti-ATC post".
Subsequent listening and adjustment has of course revealed more subtleties between the two systems.
Not only have I carefully bookmarked your ongoing audio commentary as valuable reference material, I'll be sure to keep an eye on it for its equally incisive and astute character assessments as well.Wow, what a pompous person you are.
He forgot to mention all the "air"Here’s a review of ATC SCM50 Active vs passive driven by a full Monty naim rig.
“The short answer is that the actives won on solidity of soundstage, neutrality, and ultimate detail retrieval..."
I remember how much detail my Quad 57s recovered, sounds very similar.Here’s a review of ATC SCM50 Active vs passive driven by a full Monty naim rig.
“The short answer is that the actives won on solidity of soundstage, neutrality, and ultimate detail retrieval—that ability to hear the lowest-level subtleties of a mix. The Naim combination offered more bass slam, fractionally quicker transient response, and slightly more drama. With the Naim rig, I got the sense that the sound was slightly larger than life, whereas the ATC active configuration was more neutral. I will be honest here—in over 20 years of reviewing, I have never been so unsure of which presentation I preferred. ”
“In summary, the ATC SCM50 is a benchmark design and a world-class loudspeaker, whether driven actively or passively. In the active configuration, it represents an incredible bargain in the high-end audio field—and that would be my choice if I were laying my money down. In my experience, there’s no other loudspeaker that comes even close to its immense power, neutrality, bandwidth, speed, and sheer visceral impact at anywhere near the price. If you choose to go the passive route, expect to budget significantly more than the $8000 difference in cost between the active and passive SCM50 variants for your amplification. The big Naim combination powering the passive SCM50s offered stunning sound—at significant cost—and the transparency of the ATC loudspeakers allowed all the virtues cherished by Naim enthusiasts to really shine“
I’ve used IsoAcoustic GAIA II with 40A’s and tested GAIA I on 50ASL. Now I use Stack Audio Auva 50’s with 50ASL but for a long time had spikes + Linn Skeets on top of a 3cm thick granite slabs.@Patu what loudspeaker/floor coupliing/decoupling methods have worked well in your set-up?