halvis
pfm Member
I have been fortunate enough recently to have all the following pass through my listening room in the past month or so -
- ATC SCM 35
- Quad ESL 57
- Yamaha NS1000M
- ATC SCM 20SL
So, I thought it might be of interest to some here to note down my findings.
Incase you can't be arsed to read through all of my ramblings, a summary is at the bottom.
I have had the ATC 35's in my system for past 3 years, and have tried them with several amps inc. Krell KAV 250, Luxman L507f, ATC SIA2-150 and what I currently run them with - Michell Alecto Mono MK1's. Used with an Audiolab CDQ and Gyro in a 6x3m room firing across the width.
The three years I had the 35's I enjoyed them very much and had not heard alternatives to convince me to sell them. I did have some NS1000's prior to this and found them very bright and harsh in comparison, although they were a very old pair.
The ATC's played more evenly across the frequency range with Michell amps and there was great power behind the music. The midrange was great too.
However, a neighbour then asked me to try some ESL 57's that were serviced by One Thing Audio about 10 years previous, but were not used since.
They were an odd pair, with s/n's thousands apart, one with a Bulgin socket the other with IEC, so had to build up a lead before I could listen in stereo.
Wow, these things were spell-binding on early listening, the midrange sparkled, the sound was big and the bass was surprisingly, more than adequate. So fast and articulate when placed about 3 feet from the the rear wall and toed in a tad (see pic above). Imaging was as good if not better than the ATC's that were now standing in the background. The speaker did remind me of one huge Berillium driver found on the Yamaha NS1000's.
Tbh, the ATC's did sound flat in comparison, I could see why people love the Quads. However, as I worked through the more extreme parts of collection, I found that some material just sounded horrible. This was not because they were so transparent as to reveal bad recordings, as they didn't. Instead it was that some material just had no headroom and sounded like it was being squeezed through a transistor radio. Reverting back to a track that sounded great, well, it still sounded great. As the weeks went on, about 15-20% of my recordings just didn't cut it.
My neighbour who had asked my to try the Quad's quickly came to the same conclusion when he came over to listen to them. He wasn't messing about with this demo, The Cravats, some mad 70's Dub compilation and other stuff to try and trip them up. They were indeed tripped up.
The Quad's went back to my neighbour, and having since sold the ATC 35's he asked if I wanted to borrow the NS1000's. Sure, brilliant. These are much more recent serial numbers than what I had owned, and the drivers all look really nice and as good as new. 'Well, if you want them, I am sure we could come to some arrangement'. With the Michell amps now, I was expecting good things, as thought these amps would be much better suited to those I had owned in the past.
Of course, I was also looking around on here and other parts of the internet to find a replacement for the ATC SCM 35's. I had passed over several Quad options as I didn't want to risk the shipping from the UK to Ireland, Harbeth's were coming out too expensive but Lefty was seriously tempting me with another pair of ATC's he had for sale here. I had always wanted a pair of the 20's and these looked a fine example. I thought they would be better suited to my room as I did have too much bass from the 35's I used and it was (and still is) highly likely my system would have to move to a smaller room in the house.
So, anyway, to cut a long story short, I had to go for the ATC's prior to listening to the NS1000's. So with the ATC's already in the post, I went and switched the Quad's with the NS1000's.
It was late when I got to listen to them, and couldn't really bring them alive with any sensible volume. So the next night I gave them a proper listen.
I found the treble to be not nearly as bright as I remember and infact it was most sweet without any harshness or compression. The mid-range though was much greyer sounding than the Quad's and also what I remember of the ATC's soft dome of the 35's. Bass was not being articulated at all well either, perhaps it was my amps not feeding them enough watts? I had tried my old NS1000's with a hefty 250w Musical Fidelity A308 Power amp, which really did have the 12" woofer caving in your chest, but left the other drivers sounding far too dry, so no good for me in the long term.
So with the bass sadly lacking (and I didn't want to go changing amps) and the midrange not really impressing either, I was left a little uninspired by the Yams. BTW, their imaging was very poor also. To be fair though, I don't think they were actually sat on optimal stands. Whilst 12" high, they were not an open frame type, which I have read are the better type for the speaker.
With only two nights NS1000 auditioning, Lefty's ATC's show up and luckily the Atacama SL600 stands had done so the previous night.
Yamaha's dismantled and relegated to a spare room, ATC's were put in their place. At first listen, I felt the treble was a little hot and they sounded pretty boxy, however mid-range was clean, really clean. A little underwhelmed, I played around with positioning quickly before I was called out for a rare trip to the pub with some friends.
Three Guinness later and a whisky in hand, I tried them again. Not too much volume now as it was late. Again, mid-range really impressed, and it had real weight behind the voices too, something that was missing from the Quads. Bass was nice and tight too, no over hang like I experienced from the 35's.
Next morning, I fired them up again, with more volume this time. Wow, these things can rock, I never knew serious studio monitors could be so much fun. Having become more tuned into the tweeter, after a good nights sleep I realised that it was not at all bright or sqwarky, but just more extended than what I had been used to with the old ATC's and the Yamaha's.
The Yamaha's have not yet returned into the system as I am too besotted with ATC's. These things are addictive. Everything I play is so much more involving because each instrument is so much more coherent. Bass is so much cleaner it has more rhythm and drive than anything else I have heard ever, in any demo system anywhere. Imaging probably not that of the Quad's or my previous ATC's, nor is the weight of bass in a par with the 35's, which probably are not as well suited to the 6 x 3m room I had them in as the new 20's.
With the 125 Watts the Alecto's output the 20's go plenty loud enough, they really do. I might try them with more high power amps when the opportunity arises to see what effect this has, but its not at the top of my priority list by any stretch.
So, I will put the Yamaha's back in at some point and will report back, but at the moment, I am afraid to sound like many others on here and say that at the ATC's are currently top of the list.
Summary
1) ATC SCM 35's -
Bass - greatest depth but not the most coherent in my room. Much tighter with the ATC integrated, but a little dry for my tastes. ATC amp didn't give as much depth though as with the Michell amps.
Mid-range - Excellent but not as clean as the 20's IMO.
Treble - Probably the weak point of the 35's being a little rolled off and not as well integrated with the other drivers.
Imaging - Excellent, among the best here.
2) Quad ESL 57's -
Bass - Very fast and tight when used with either the Michell or Quad 606 amps. More weight than expected as well, but lacking the final bit of drive I got with the ATC speakers.
Mid-range - Spell-binding. Stuck the wife and I to the chair, infact anyone that walked in the room.
Treble - Never too hot, just great sparkle in the highs and making the music really lively and enjoyable to listen to. Never could be described as flat at all.
Imaging - Excellent, on a par with the ATC 35's.
3) Yamaha NS1000's -
Bass - I think the 12" driver needs a more muscular amp than what I have at the moment. Bass performance was sadly lacking.
Mid-range -Sounded grey to be honest, didn't pull my attention, just sounded, well not as good as the others.
Treble - Nice, need to go back to them really to give an accurate assessment.
Imaging - Not a strong point. Could be down to how I had them positioned for the two nights I used them. Will try harder next time.
4) ATC SCM 20SL -
Bass - Clean, powerful and really coherent. Not the depth of 35's but a good thing in my room.
Mid-range -Brilliant, not as brightly lit or in your face as the huge mid band of the Quads, but more drive behind it to really show it off. Love it.
Treble - Probably more extended than all of the others here. I have a feeling the volume needs to be up to get the two drivers singing together at their best, but more time needed with them to confirm this.
Imaging - Not as good as the 35's or the Quad's, and did sound boxy on occasion. Not sure why this is yet, or if I have completely overcome this yet. More time needed.
At the moment, i'm going back for more of the ATC 20's i'm addicted.
- ATC SCM 35
- Quad ESL 57
- Yamaha NS1000M
- ATC SCM 20SL
So, I thought it might be of interest to some here to note down my findings.
Incase you can't be arsed to read through all of my ramblings, a summary is at the bottom.
I have had the ATC 35's in my system for past 3 years, and have tried them with several amps inc. Krell KAV 250, Luxman L507f, ATC SIA2-150 and what I currently run them with - Michell Alecto Mono MK1's. Used with an Audiolab CDQ and Gyro in a 6x3m room firing across the width.
The three years I had the 35's I enjoyed them very much and had not heard alternatives to convince me to sell them. I did have some NS1000's prior to this and found them very bright and harsh in comparison, although they were a very old pair.
The ATC's played more evenly across the frequency range with Michell amps and there was great power behind the music. The midrange was great too.
However, a neighbour then asked me to try some ESL 57's that were serviced by One Thing Audio about 10 years previous, but were not used since.
They were an odd pair, with s/n's thousands apart, one with a Bulgin socket the other with IEC, so had to build up a lead before I could listen in stereo.
Wow, these things were spell-binding on early listening, the midrange sparkled, the sound was big and the bass was surprisingly, more than adequate. So fast and articulate when placed about 3 feet from the the rear wall and toed in a tad (see pic above). Imaging was as good if not better than the ATC's that were now standing in the background. The speaker did remind me of one huge Berillium driver found on the Yamaha NS1000's.
Tbh, the ATC's did sound flat in comparison, I could see why people love the Quads. However, as I worked through the more extreme parts of collection, I found that some material just sounded horrible. This was not because they were so transparent as to reveal bad recordings, as they didn't. Instead it was that some material just had no headroom and sounded like it was being squeezed through a transistor radio. Reverting back to a track that sounded great, well, it still sounded great. As the weeks went on, about 15-20% of my recordings just didn't cut it.
My neighbour who had asked my to try the Quad's quickly came to the same conclusion when he came over to listen to them. He wasn't messing about with this demo, The Cravats, some mad 70's Dub compilation and other stuff to try and trip them up. They were indeed tripped up.
The Quad's went back to my neighbour, and having since sold the ATC 35's he asked if I wanted to borrow the NS1000's. Sure, brilliant. These are much more recent serial numbers than what I had owned, and the drivers all look really nice and as good as new. 'Well, if you want them, I am sure we could come to some arrangement'. With the Michell amps now, I was expecting good things, as thought these amps would be much better suited to those I had owned in the past.
Of course, I was also looking around on here and other parts of the internet to find a replacement for the ATC SCM 35's. I had passed over several Quad options as I didn't want to risk the shipping from the UK to Ireland, Harbeth's were coming out too expensive but Lefty was seriously tempting me with another pair of ATC's he had for sale here. I had always wanted a pair of the 20's and these looked a fine example. I thought they would be better suited to my room as I did have too much bass from the 35's I used and it was (and still is) highly likely my system would have to move to a smaller room in the house.
So, anyway, to cut a long story short, I had to go for the ATC's prior to listening to the NS1000's. So with the ATC's already in the post, I went and switched the Quad's with the NS1000's.
It was late when I got to listen to them, and couldn't really bring them alive with any sensible volume. So the next night I gave them a proper listen.
I found the treble to be not nearly as bright as I remember and infact it was most sweet without any harshness or compression. The mid-range though was much greyer sounding than the Quad's and also what I remember of the ATC's soft dome of the 35's. Bass was not being articulated at all well either, perhaps it was my amps not feeding them enough watts? I had tried my old NS1000's with a hefty 250w Musical Fidelity A308 Power amp, which really did have the 12" woofer caving in your chest, but left the other drivers sounding far too dry, so no good for me in the long term.
So with the bass sadly lacking (and I didn't want to go changing amps) and the midrange not really impressing either, I was left a little uninspired by the Yams. BTW, their imaging was very poor also. To be fair though, I don't think they were actually sat on optimal stands. Whilst 12" high, they were not an open frame type, which I have read are the better type for the speaker.
With only two nights NS1000 auditioning, Lefty's ATC's show up and luckily the Atacama SL600 stands had done so the previous night.
Yamaha's dismantled and relegated to a spare room, ATC's were put in their place. At first listen, I felt the treble was a little hot and they sounded pretty boxy, however mid-range was clean, really clean. A little underwhelmed, I played around with positioning quickly before I was called out for a rare trip to the pub with some friends.
Three Guinness later and a whisky in hand, I tried them again. Not too much volume now as it was late. Again, mid-range really impressed, and it had real weight behind the voices too, something that was missing from the Quads. Bass was nice and tight too, no over hang like I experienced from the 35's.
Next morning, I fired them up again, with more volume this time. Wow, these things can rock, I never knew serious studio monitors could be so much fun. Having become more tuned into the tweeter, after a good nights sleep I realised that it was not at all bright or sqwarky, but just more extended than what I had been used to with the old ATC's and the Yamaha's.
The Yamaha's have not yet returned into the system as I am too besotted with ATC's. These things are addictive. Everything I play is so much more involving because each instrument is so much more coherent. Bass is so much cleaner it has more rhythm and drive than anything else I have heard ever, in any demo system anywhere. Imaging probably not that of the Quad's or my previous ATC's, nor is the weight of bass in a par with the 35's, which probably are not as well suited to the 6 x 3m room I had them in as the new 20's.
With the 125 Watts the Alecto's output the 20's go plenty loud enough, they really do. I might try them with more high power amps when the opportunity arises to see what effect this has, but its not at the top of my priority list by any stretch.
So, I will put the Yamaha's back in at some point and will report back, but at the moment, I am afraid to sound like many others on here and say that at the ATC's are currently top of the list.
Summary
1) ATC SCM 35's -
Bass - greatest depth but not the most coherent in my room. Much tighter with the ATC integrated, but a little dry for my tastes. ATC amp didn't give as much depth though as with the Michell amps.
Mid-range - Excellent but not as clean as the 20's IMO.
Treble - Probably the weak point of the 35's being a little rolled off and not as well integrated with the other drivers.
Imaging - Excellent, among the best here.
2) Quad ESL 57's -
Bass - Very fast and tight when used with either the Michell or Quad 606 amps. More weight than expected as well, but lacking the final bit of drive I got with the ATC speakers.
Mid-range - Spell-binding. Stuck the wife and I to the chair, infact anyone that walked in the room.
Treble - Never too hot, just great sparkle in the highs and making the music really lively and enjoyable to listen to. Never could be described as flat at all.
Imaging - Excellent, on a par with the ATC 35's.
3) Yamaha NS1000's -
Bass - I think the 12" driver needs a more muscular amp than what I have at the moment. Bass performance was sadly lacking.
Mid-range -Sounded grey to be honest, didn't pull my attention, just sounded, well not as good as the others.
Treble - Nice, need to go back to them really to give an accurate assessment.
Imaging - Not a strong point. Could be down to how I had them positioned for the two nights I used them. Will try harder next time.
4) ATC SCM 20SL -
Bass - Clean, powerful and really coherent. Not the depth of 35's but a good thing in my room.
Mid-range -Brilliant, not as brightly lit or in your face as the huge mid band of the Quads, but more drive behind it to really show it off. Love it.
Treble - Probably more extended than all of the others here. I have a feeling the volume needs to be up to get the two drivers singing together at their best, but more time needed with them to confirm this.
Imaging - Not as good as the 35's or the Quad's, and did sound boxy on occasion. Not sure why this is yet, or if I have completely overcome this yet. More time needed.
At the moment, i'm going back for more of the ATC 20's i'm addicted.
