I did, but he’s right about brightness being related to mains noise and RFI etc, but it also isn’t going to help if a system leans towards bright or the room is sparsely furnished.
Puzzling results with ATC SCM50ASLT loudspeakers vs. previous system
- Thread starter Matthew J
- Start date
I don’t need any help thank you, I don’t have those speakers now. I had the sound I wanted when I had them, I’m trying to illustrate to the op that no advice is best until you’ve done your best in your own room.
I rather change things which actually have an impact on what I can test/measure ie: speakers, positioning them, etc.. .
I do own and use 100MHz oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers and some other gear and none of my boxes shows any worrying performance directly or indirectly pointing towards mains supply issues , I have moved within same building- same supply , my room has changed and yes is not furnished the same, sitting position/speakers position have changed not sure how mains could affect anything
tuga
Legal Alien
That’s where I’m headed as well.
In my old room I've had couple dialled very low - 55Hz if I remember correctly with not very sharp slope from there , I've used SVS with built in PEQ filters plus phase adjustment - worked quite well. Phase shift was quite beneficial in minimizing room modes and improved decay times fair bit.
tuga
Legal Alien
One can only reap the full benefits of using subwoofers with the mains running high-passed.
I use an integrated so I am currently trying to figure out the best way to do this.
I've done that as I have pre-out and power-in on integrated I used then but it means using DSP in the chain for full frequency range which I wasn't too happy with , I've tried bi-amping and running bass amplifier with DSP only but DSP latency created phase issues around crossover point and I gave up in the end as life is too short to spend all my free time measuring stuff.
These things do have a profound impact, but as you say, you need to get speaker positioning etc right first as those things are free.
It’s just not my thing, sorry.
@Matthew J , I'd try to install REW software to start with, try room simulator to give you an idea about issues you might have, it's just a simulator so not very accurate as it doesnt take into account room furnishing, material walls are made of, etc.. but it would give you an idea about offending room issues you might have.
Within the simulator you can move speakers around and predicted response would be updated, my offer stands if you want to borrow mic let me know when ready and we figure something out :
Within the simulator you can move speakers around and predicted response would be updated, my offer stands if you want to borrow mic let me know when ready and we figure something out :
tuga
Legal Alien
No worries.
I can add that he’s an expert in speaker design, room setup and acoustics and has also done some research in audibility and preference.
Should be a household name in audio.
I’m not really sure about that, starting a business & scaling it up is quite different to DIY. We used to have a certain audio engineer on here who always going on about his special designs
I don’t doubt there are talented people out there who realise some great projects but when you factor in the cost of labour etc they probably come in more expensive than a commercial product.
I admire skilled artisans but doubt I’d ever buy or commission a build from them.
Joe
pfm Member
I don't understand ...... take Schroeder tonearms for instance , make by one man and considered amongst the top arms available. The Supatrac arm...much written about on this forum....designed and built by one man and I imagine that it started out as a diy project.
Naim and ATC both started by a single individual and I would bet pounds to shirt buttons that they effectively started out by diy'ing an idea they had...probably made it on their kitchen table first until they graduated to a shed. Spendor BC 1's were in fact first made in a kitchen if I recall correctly because they needed their oven to melt the Bextrene for the bass cones.
Still.... you are effectively saying that you would never buy a piece of furniture from a cabinet maker nor a Saville Row suit or an original piece of art so I will leave this conversation.
I actually didn’t say any of that. Saville Row Tailors are an actual business, some have been established for over a 100 years. A cabinet maker, highly unlikely I’d ever commission a piece of furniture due to the cost & it’s not one of my areas of interest.
The two arm makers you mention are also actual businesses. DIY & starting a business are two rather different things, I’m baffled that you can’t see the distinction.
It is highly amusing to me when someone like yourself completely takes what I said out of context & then, rather high mindedly, announces that they are ‘leaving the conversation’.
The slavish devotion to frequency response as a speaker's sole voice is remarkable. More so among the supposedly scientifically-literate.
No disagreement here, however it's useful to isolate the schools of thought. If the aim is superlative, musical sound, I think the evidence confirms one over the other.
The cluster of beliefs that includes amplitude or frequency sovereignty, mostly inaudible sources and electronics, and rooms or spaces as the virtually sole remaining contributor doesn't have a strong track record. This school fancies itself the objective camp but its results tie erratically to that superlative, musical sound. Beliefs are not uncommonly like that.
The more open-minded school that allows for the audibility of virtually everything and that explores no end of influences, including sources, electronics, tuning, and all-domain behavior, tends to admit that surprisingly or even shockingly real playback sound. In loosely correlating long experience with the standing record of high-end reviewing this becomes obviously clear.
This is also the rational expectation. However it's the aggressive denialism of the first upstart camp against the latter long-standing camp that clinches the deal. Here again studies among professionals confirms the connection between best practice and best sound, while as far as I can see the objectivist movement hasn't that follow-on repeatability and correlation.
The good news is that progress continues and that the best sound is only a matter of finding it by ear. We don't have to always arrive at unreliable predictions that this sounds like that. We can and should go listen.
camverton
pfm Member
Funny enough I have heard a pair of B&W speakers, retired from use at Abbey Road, in a domestic setting and they sounded fine. They were an older model though and as someone who likes dipoles and omnis for the way they get me into the music I personally wasn’t that struck by their monitor style presentation - not a criticism of anyone that does prefer monitor speakers of course.
Perhaps the question is are the requirements of a recording engineer different to those of someone in his lounge enjoying the music rather than the sound, and that lounge may be very different acoustically to a recording studio.
One of the best sounds I remember(at least in a shop or show environment) was a pair of B&W N801’s driven by a Mark Levinson 383 integrated amplifier.
Later owned some N803’s, but they just didn’t work for me. I’ve been between PMC and ATC since.
mattjevans
Well-Known Member
I think the OP’s speakers are unrepairably broken and only suitable as ornaments. Fortunately for him I have been searching for some broken ATC’s to use as ornaments and I would be delighted to take them off his hands for £300 and end this sorry saga.