Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
I can remember when I had a big pile of "bad recordings", that got smaller as my system improved.
Puzzling results with ATC SCM50ASLT loudspeakers vs. previous system
- Thread starter Matthew J
- Start date
irb
pfm Member
I read this initially as "Owned a pair of donkeys and liked them" ... 🫏
John Phillips
pfm Member
Interesting. If the measurement is done well then it does look like the integration of the drivers (esp. the B110) could do with being improved. I think the OP has the more modern Falcon crossover instead of the original so maybe that's what Falcon did.
Do you have a link to the HiFi Choice report?
The Falcon Acoustics replacement crossover does largely deal with the notorious B110 quack.
@John Phillips Yes, the Falcon Acoustics crossover does improve integration between the drivers, although they're 50 years old so who knows what their measured output would be. The R50s were never sold as a matched pair AFAIK and I expect that their mesaured output will have drifted during those years. However, the drivers themselves seem to be in perfect mechanical condition.
In all my searching for information about the R50s, I never found that - thanks!
"Cambridge Audio R50 A well-known design, it produced some excellent sounds at low frequencies but mid frequencies reproduced with considerable added coloration. Continual comments were made of 'AH' sounds, and this was noticed particularly on violin tone.
The anechoic recording of the harmonica sounded more like an accordion, but what was more serious in the listening tests was the presence of a serious vertical polar diagram problem, producing a totally different sound from the speaker, depend ent on the height of the listener's ears above the ground.
Pop music sounded well in the optimum listening position but classical music was generally unsatisfactory. Since the loudspeaker is rather expensive (£284 pp plus VAT), it cannot be recommended. However, two pop engineers found the quality fairly acceptable, and were not too troubled by the excessive coloration. Our power test, incidentally, showed severe audible deterioration at 104dBA."
No way I'd go near 104dB with the R50s. 90dB continuous seems to be the limit of comfortable listening (probably a personal preference too) and also the drive units are old and I wouldn't want to damage them.
Funny comment about the harmonica sounding like an accordion
jamjar784
Heavy Up
As you've probably realised by now an open question like this invites all the pro-ATC users to pile in blaming everything else but the speakers! I would strongly recommend you believe and trust your ears. You've made valid comparisons between ATC's and R50's with the same sources. I would suggest as some others have the ATC's have a frequency response which may not suit your preference and room. If you had asked ATC themselves they'll tell you to treat the room first. However this glosses over the fact that the speakers are designed to have a flat frequency response in a professional recording studio which means in the average room you get a treble tilted response. On very good recordings having not much treble content IME this produces superb results with excellent sound staging, dynamics and detail, but with average recordings compression and other artefacts become irritating because they are reproduced at a higher level than intended.
You have already got some helpful advice on this thread if you filter out the noise. I'd suggest you try and get a dealer demo of ATC versus Tannoy Kensington GR or similar to confirm the suspicion that ATC's are not your cup of tea, and check Acoustic Energy Corinium speakers which just might be! Also the "soundstage collapsing" problem isn't what I would associate with ATC so you might also want to try out the problem recordings with a better source. It could be the recording is actually poor and the R50's mask the issue while the ATC's shine a massive spotlight on it. But speakers first!
The Gramophone review was a bit more complimentary:
"The KEF units are well known for their freedom from colouration. KEF quote the frequency range of the B139 bass unit as 20 - 1,000 Hz, with the bass resonance at 20 Hz. In the R50 design, Bert Webb has arranged the crossover filter to cut off at 400 Hz and used the KEF BllO for mid-range frequencies up to 3 kHz. It is the mid-frequency range that often causes colouration but the B1I0, because of its freedom of movement, roll surround and care- fully doped diaphragm, gives a very clean output. Again the designer has restricted its frequency coverage to well within its capability —it is normally used up to 5 kHz. One might question the use of two tweeter units, splitting the band of 3 kHz to 25 kHz at 10 kHz, particularly as the KEF dome tweeter is itself quoted to extend up to 30 kHz. However, it helps to cover a wide area in the horizontal plane if one stacks high frequency units above one another. The spacing between multiple high-frequency units is highly critical, due to phase cancellation, but it will be seen from the frequency response curve (Fig. 1) that this combination gives a well balanced performance and the polar diagram at 10 kHz covers a usefully wide angle (see Fig. 2).
Compared with a completely sealed enclosure, one initially feels on single gliding tones that the RSO is lacking in bass but this is due to the smoothness of the bass register, and the fact that it does not cut off sharply below the main bass resonance. The solidity of construction of the enclosure prevents panel resonance, which often masks the true bass response. The integration between the four units is excellent so that, when one continues upwards with a gliding tone, it is difficult to tell when the signal changes over from one unit to the next.
Some people might think that an enclosure 41.5 inches high and rather deeper than most will be difficult to house but, if one can find the space, it has the advantage over most floor-standing models that the middle and upper frequencies are at ear level when one is seated in an armchair. I have used a pair of R50 enclosures for some months in conjunction with good equipment.
Whatever the signal source, I have enjoyed the effortless performance of the Cambridge speakers. The stereo image is solid and does not drift and, due to the good horizontal distribution at high frequencies, the stereo area appears wider than with some other good quality reproducers.
Power handling capacity is more than adequate for the largest lounge, whilst the conversion efficiency is higher than with most infinite baffle enclosures.
Particularly in the upper register, the Cambridge R50 has a delicacy of performance that is hard to define, and speech has a splendid naturalness due to the absence of any marked bass resonance. It is therefore a welcome addition to the available range of monitoring loudspeakers."
"The KEF units are well known for their freedom from colouration. KEF quote the frequency range of the B139 bass unit as 20 - 1,000 Hz, with the bass resonance at 20 Hz. In the R50 design, Bert Webb has arranged the crossover filter to cut off at 400 Hz and used the KEF BllO for mid-range frequencies up to 3 kHz. It is the mid-frequency range that often causes colouration but the B1I0, because of its freedom of movement, roll surround and care- fully doped diaphragm, gives a very clean output. Again the designer has restricted its frequency coverage to well within its capability —it is normally used up to 5 kHz. One might question the use of two tweeter units, splitting the band of 3 kHz to 25 kHz at 10 kHz, particularly as the KEF dome tweeter is itself quoted to extend up to 30 kHz. However, it helps to cover a wide area in the horizontal plane if one stacks high frequency units above one another. The spacing between multiple high-frequency units is highly critical, due to phase cancellation, but it will be seen from the frequency response curve (Fig. 1) that this combination gives a well balanced performance and the polar diagram at 10 kHz covers a usefully wide angle (see Fig. 2).
Compared with a completely sealed enclosure, one initially feels on single gliding tones that the RSO is lacking in bass but this is due to the smoothness of the bass register, and the fact that it does not cut off sharply below the main bass resonance. The solidity of construction of the enclosure prevents panel resonance, which often masks the true bass response. The integration between the four units is excellent so that, when one continues upwards with a gliding tone, it is difficult to tell when the signal changes over from one unit to the next.
Some people might think that an enclosure 41.5 inches high and rather deeper than most will be difficult to house but, if one can find the space, it has the advantage over most floor-standing models that the middle and upper frequencies are at ear level when one is seated in an armchair. I have used a pair of R50 enclosures for some months in conjunction with good equipment.
Whatever the signal source, I have enjoyed the effortless performance of the Cambridge speakers. The stereo image is solid and does not drift and, due to the good horizontal distribution at high frequencies, the stereo area appears wider than with some other good quality reproducers.
Power handling capacity is more than adequate for the largest lounge, whilst the conversion efficiency is higher than with most infinite baffle enclosures.
Particularly in the upper register, the Cambridge R50 has a delicacy of performance that is hard to define, and speech has a splendid naturalness due to the absence of any marked bass resonance. It is therefore a welcome addition to the available range of monitoring loudspeakers."
Cambridge Audio R50 - Page 7
Whats the low-down on these chaps ? They appear to use a classic driver lineup, transmission line loading & the cabinets are obviously built to a high standard Needless to say, there's a pair locally :eyebrows: I'm sorely tempted as I do love transmission line's when done right...
theartofsound.net
Columbo
pfm Member
This sounds eerily similar to my experience of going from some speakers which weren't the higher tiers of hi-fi but sounded good with nearly all music, and then moving to much more expensive speakers that did the audiophile stuff in a more superior way but made half my music unlistenable. I ended up not listening to rock music for a year before I realised pretty much what you just posted there. Messing around with amps and DACs helped a little but didn't change the fundamental nature of the speakers. And I wasn't prepared to put acoustic panels on every single wall to balance up that extra resolution/treble, which would've helped. In the end I admitted defeat and moved on to speakers with a smoother, more forgiving sound profile and everything is good again. Getting demos with some other speakers sounds like a solid plan then OP will have a much better idea of what's what.
I'd imagine this is a common story.
My loudspeakers previous to the R50s were Linn Keilidhs (all other components the same) and a good deal of my music collection was revealed as quite imperfect. This might may not please some people here, but I can say that the R50s, within the context of that system and room etc, were a seismic upgrade over the Keilidhs: every aspect was better (and yes, I know how that sounds).
I will say though that I had heard the Keilidhs on the end of a very expensive Naim system and they did sound very good.
I will say though that I had heard the Keilidhs on the end of a very expensive Naim system and they did sound very good.
alan967tiger
pfm Member
I owned the Orca and Alecto’s when they were first released. They were superb and cheap at their RRPs. I can’t comment on your CA speakers but your amps may have been considerably ‘better’ than you thought.
hifi-dog
pfm Member
same here, i had th emk2's and probably the best sounding amps i've had
And my Alectos are the mk2 versions, upgraded to 250w/channel spec.
What made you change them @alan967tiger and @hifi-dog?
Last edited:
alan967tiger
pfm Member
In my case the foolish need to ‘upgrade’ to more expensive amps that had to be better because of their cost! IIRC I moved to an ARC LS25 pre and VT50 pwr. Good amps but I lost some magical qualities that the Michell’s possessed. That was back in the day when I was a box swapper and I lost my way!
Patu
pfm Member
This sounds like OP is having problems with acoustics. Maybe the 50ASLT's are waking up room modes which obviously muffles the sound when things get busy. My 50ASL's are extremely nimble, fast and resolving, even with the busiest material. Then again, I've measured my setup, positioned the speakers carefully, have few bass traps around and even use a gentle DSP to fix the worst room mode I have. My space is 4,75m x 7,11m and the speakers are asymmetrically on the long wall, right speaker quite close to the corner.
Many people say it's about the preamp. I agree to some extent. If you use a DAC with a digital volume control, then I'd recommend to use a proper analog preamp. But then again, there are DACs with very good preamps, like T+A DAC200 I use, with a relay controlled analog volume and proper preamp section. I still have Holo Serene preamp around and sometimes have it plugged in but mostly I like to listen to without it in the mix. Both options have their strengths.
Can you post a picture of the room @Matthew J?
hifi-dog
pfm Member
if i had my own listening room them i probably would have kept them but when kids were crawling around they were in the firing line on the floor near the speakers!
cooky1257
pfm Member
Your system, though 'cobbled' together isn't exactly budget gear, the Alectos were £2k a piece in 1997- todays price allowing for inflation is anyone's guess but conservative estimate is £4 k so that's £12 k worth of amplification incl the Orca, factor in the 'new' price of R50s and you are well into ATC territory. So on reflection maybe you shouldn't be too surprised. Or disappointed
cooky1257
pfm Member
Directly on axis there is a slight treble lift but 15 deg off and In room averaged response paints a different picture Ie they aren't bright.
https://atc.audio/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Hi-Fi_Critic_SCM50PSL_WEB.pdf
darrenyeats
pfm Member
And for active review MC wrote "the FRs are a little tighter with better driver integration".
The passive FR is good though IMO, considering the good lateral dispersion up to 10kHz (around where it stops mattering for SQ as Toole says).
The passive FR is good though IMO, considering the good lateral dispersion up to 10kHz (around where it stops mattering for SQ as Toole says).