advertisement


ATC SCM19 (Entry) vs ATC SCM20 (Classic)

Y

yunie_

pfm Member
Hi, I've been looking for information about the comparison between ATC scm19 (entry range) and ATC scm20 (classic range) but it seems like the internet compares either the PRO version of ATC SCM20 or the old hifi version of atc scm19. As such, to make things clear, the comparison is between these 2 as shown below.

The 20 is 50% more expensive than the 19 here in my country. Yet it seems like they share the same woofer, but different tweeter. Of course, I will assume the crossover is better and its more premium finishing, but is there significant improvement in the 20 to warrant the 50% increase in price?

Anyone with any experience?

ATC SCM19 (entry)
atc-scm19-black-1-600x944.png


ATC SCM20 (classic)
ATC-SCM20SL-Classic.png
 
I’ve only compared the 19 with the 20 pro and the tweeter is sweeter and the heavier cabinets made it feel a bit more controlled at higher hols but that’s it.. I could not justify the cost
 
Singslinger said:
The SCM 20 (passive) is better than the SCM 19 with better sense of scale and detail.

However, it isn't 50% better - then again, that's hifi isn't it? Diminishing returns sets in the higher up a range you go.
Click to expand...

Have you heard them before? I am not looking for 50% better, I am looking at substantial differences. Perhaps you can quantify that as 25% difference.

hifi-dog said:
I’ve only compared the 19 with the 20 pro and the tweeter is sweeter and the heavier cabinets made it feel a bit more controlled at higher hols but that’s it.. I could not justify the cost
Click to expand...

thanks for this. the distributor guy has been sincere in wanting me try the 20 against the 19. I never went around doing it because I don't want to put myself in the situation where due to all the trouble he has gone into setting the heavy speakers up for me, I end up not buying anything.
 
The cabinets are different and also bear in mind that the Classic range are made to order (by default more expensive) rather than the Entry series which are made on a larger scale with limited cabinet finishes, thus it is possible to lower the price points for each Entry model.

As said in another way - the 19s in my humble view will not sound 50% worse than the Classic 20s. I own the 20s and have had the 11s. I moved on the 11s as I had the 20s and wanted to have a Classic surround system. They are my surround speakers.

Honestly, if under a fair blind level matched test I wonder just what I would hear in terms of differences between the 19 and 20. Not saying differences don’t exist just wonder what they are and if I would perceive one as better over the other. I am sure both are going to have a very similar overall sound signature.

To put your mind at rest the best thing is to hear both side by side but I appreciate that might be difficult. When I bought my 20s in 1997 the Entry series was many years away. If I was buying again I’d properly lean to the 19s but would be very keen to demo both before committing either way.

Sorry not want you want to hear as such but at the same time I would not just go on what others have said, if they have compared.
 
appreciate the replies. it seems like atc19 is good enough. I don't expect the 20 to be 50% better, but good enough to hear the difference. But it seems like the opinions are mixed and one could easily enjoy the 19 as much as the 20, depending on personal preferences. now let me try to head down and compare both of them at the dealer.
 
Bear in mind that the quality of the drivers in ATC speakers even at entry level are excellent; far better than from some other brands which cost more.

I run active 40s, they are great, will probably upgrade to 50s when funds allow as I do like the aesthetics of the classic range stand mounters. My dealer reckons the classic range has a bit more ease & clarity but they are twice as much money pretty much.

I don’t think you will go wrong either way assuming you have a reasonably powerful amp.
 
The two ATC product ranges are very much alike in sound presentation, but very different altogether. The Entry series are more forgiving (and more suited for small rooms), while Classic series are truly studio monitors (and more suited to bigger rooms), they will ruthlessly expose bad recordings. So, beware of what you want: to hear nicely music, or to hear nicely recorded music?
 
saureign said:
The two ATC product ranges are very much alike in sound presentation, but very different altogether. The Entry series are more forgiving (and more suited for small rooms), while Classic series are truly studio monitors (and more suited to bigger rooms), they will ruthlessly expose bad recordings. So, beware of what you want: to hear nicely music, or to hear nicely recorded music?
Click to expand...
Your comments are very valid! I am actually selling my SCM7s and matching C1 sub as I found they made 90% of my music sound thin and lifeless. Only the occasional (and old) record and bbc radio 3/4 sounded good- very good in fact. But I don't listen to BBC radio 3 or 4 and most of my records I buy new so they sounded poor and gave me listening fatigue. I have gone for a pair of B&W 705 signatures instead (same price), and all my rubbish record pressings sound significantly better.

The few great pressings don't sound as good but if 90% of my collection does, then it's OK by me.

I would say though for those with a powerful amp, and a bright/ digital sounding system, the ATCs would be an amazing match!
 
kowalski99 said:
Your comments are very valid! I am actually selling my SCM7s and matching C1 sub as I found they made 90% of my music sound thin and lifeless. Only the occasional (and old) record and bbc radio 3/4 sounded good- very good in fact. But I don't listen to BBC radio 3 or 4 and most of my records I buy new so they sounded poor and gave me listening fatigue. I have gone for a pair of B&W 705 signatures instead (same price), and all my rubbish record pressings sound significantly better.

The few great pressings don't sound as good but if 90% of my collection does, then it's OK by me.

I would say though for those with a powerful amp, and a bright/ digital sounding system, the ATCs would be an amazing match!
Click to expand...

What is the amp that you are using? Atc is really amp dependent. I suspect its not the atc scm7 that is the problem but rather your amp.

I've used a rotel 100w and it just doesn't work that well. But the hegel rost at 75w works much better.
 
saureign said:
The two ATC product ranges are very much alike in sound presentation, but very different altogether. The Entry series are more forgiving (and more suited for small rooms), while Classic series are truly studio monitors (and more suited to bigger rooms), they will ruthlessly expose bad recordings. So, beware of what you want: to hear nicely music, or to hear nicely recorded music?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. Now I really know what to buy if anything. The entry that is!
 
...and in ATC entry line: scm7 - good for small rooms, intimate listening, needing big amp to really sing at low volume, also; scm11 - good for small-medium rooms, friendly with amplifier; scm19 - a taste of Classic line, almost linear from top to bottom, can fill a large room, if needed (but with big amp) - its active version is even close to Classic range; scm40 - suited for big rooms, very open, very articulate, big soundstage, the active 40 is the best version.
 
yunie_ said:
What is the amp that you are using? Atc is really amp dependent. I suspect its not the atc scm7 that is the problem but rather your amp.

I've used a rotel 100w and it just doesn't work that well. But the hegel rost at 75w works much better.
Click to expand...
A Rega Hal with two rega Eon mono blocks.
 
I do like the SCM20 looks better, maybe its available active ?
Your amps are very old and may need recap before ready to run these ?

As for SCM19, I actually preferred the slightly smaller SCM11, the room used was rather small though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top