I’ve never heard much difference.Only potential ‘problem’ is that you’re loosing a possibility of balanced operation for actives as all older Naim designs are single-ended
They are pretty much double the price!Is there a big step to the 50A?
I had a pair of both in the same demo room for a morning before taking the 50A home to try. For a domestic system I would say there is not as big a step between the two as some write about.Is there a big step to the 50A?
Nail on head. I’ll end up with 50s just because I want a pair. They will not be twice as good.I had a pair of both in the same demo room for a morning before taking the 50A home to try. For a domestic system I would say there is not as big a step between the two as some write about.
Compared to the 40A the 50A dig deeper into the bass (38 Hz vs 48 Hz at -6 dB). They have lower distortion as the volume goes up (clearer low level detail is maintained) because the 50A's SL drivers have stronger magnetic motors as well as reduced magnetic hysteresis.
For domestic listening the 40A may be good enough if you like the ATC presentation, and maybe even better for not being too revealing. I even encountered someone in another online forum who downsized from 50A to 40A in a new house and was perfectly happy. If you want the deeper bass adding a subwoofer would, I think, be a less costly way forward.
Rationally I should have bought the 40A but how rational is this hobby?
You know it is inevitable. Just give in.Nail on head. I’ll end up with 50s just because I want a pair. They will not be twice as good.
I recently bought an expensive road bike so the funds need to be topped up. Always choices to be made.You know it is inevitable. Just give in.
Is there a big step to the 50A?
They’re not the most efficient of speakers so it’s a big ask of any amplifier to drive them passively.That Soundstage review was an excellent read, thanks.
I guess if you were running passive SCM50 (or bigger) with amplification not delivering the needed current to control the driver you could find the bass slightly boomy - as alluded to in the review.
It's my understanding that ATC implement the ported design slightly different than most (not to increase extention) but to dampen the driver in a way not too dissimilar to a closed design? There's always swings and roundabouts obviously - not saying they are identical.
I hope the OP has had enough input, including mine that I think the SCM40As are superb and I think he need not worry too much about what has been later discussed about their bigger brothers.That's what they say , but I can't find any measurements to support this. They don't explain how they achieve this either, not sure if they damp/obstruct the port somehow, or if it's just an EBS alignment. Maybe an owner can have a look and see if the port tube is unobstructed?
I think better results are to be had by a pair of extremely well integrated and highly capable subs with smaller ATCs. I spent an evening (at home) listening to SCM7s in exactly this configuration and the sound was absolutely superb!
Yes. I did a quick peruse and went up the first part of a steep learning curve. Looking at the T/S parameters of the driver in a SCM50 and SBB4's enclosure requirements, SBB4 alignment or close looks like a plausible match. But I am certainly aware that a little learning is a dangerous thing.Thanks John.
As far as I can see the bass alignment in something like what Vance Dickason calls SBB4. His book basically says: rolloff is approx 18dB/oct which is similar to a closed box and the shape of the group delay curves are similar albeit with "much higher absolute delay" for the SBB4.
So ATC hasn't broken the laws of physics. This relative phase shift at LF is easily audible once you know what to listen for.
Anyway, the point of all this is to say that whilst ATC make excellent speakers, they are not perfect, and it might be possible to get a better compromise at lower cost. It all depends how you hear things and what matters to you.