advertisement


Puzzling results with ATC SCM50ASLT loudspeakers vs. previous system

Oh first time I've heard that. Do you have a source? I think the latest is mk4 which hasn't changed design since around mid noughties - I think Ben or Rich said they reviewed mk4 and decided not to change anything, around the time they did the SE.
The original amp pack came out in 1985 and got a significant update in 1992. I am not sure if that's the MK2 as it's called "MK11" on ATC's website, but maybe these mean the same. There have been revisions since and the latest amp packs I have seen are marked "AMP/PACK-15". I have just a few more details from when I did my pre-purchase due diligence (and for plain curiosity) to check out the technology, its maintenance issues and its reliability issues. But perhaps that's not for now.

The SE amp pack replaced NE5532/4 op-amps with discrete equivalents, in various consumer anniversary and special edition 'speakers. As I guess would be expected by the target customer base.
 
2m from the front wall is really inconvenient and obtrusive IMO.

Also, how does this reconcile with ATC’s recommendation to soffit mount in studios 🤔?
You have to read about the effects of SBIR:

 
I personally don’t like the look of the anniversary models, I was even less impressed by the prices.
I can't be ar$3d to upload and post an image right now but I have heard and absolutely-if-metaphorically drool over the EL150s. They wowed me at one of my first real hifi shows. I think it was actually a Wam show and the owner had them driven by only a laptop - no DAC, no pre - and they sounded absolutely gorgeous. Oh, and the looks: if I win the lottery...
 
It's a matter of where the distortion is. Transducers distort much more than other hi-fi components. There is some logic in source-first especially for record players because the record player is also relatively high distortion. Amplifiers are low distortion as are digital sources making the loudspeakers relatively much more important. There is also the question of rooms and room effects that are discussed I would say too little by hi-fi enthusiasts as that too makes a big difference to the sound.
Distortion, frequency response accuracy, dynamic range, noise floor, impulse response accuracy, phase accuracy ..... All are measurably worse for a turntable front end, and all are as near as matters to perfect* in digital front ends and modern solid state amplifiers.

Turntables/arm/cartridge combinations of even the best achievable had several of those performance characteristics that were well within the domain of audibility, thus turntable front end "quality" mattered, and it mattered a lot! The gulf just in frequency response accuracy alone between a bottom of the range cheap all in one turntable and a high end turntable combination was huge and easily audible to anyone. The differences were of the same order as can be heard between speakers. So the source first mantra made perfect sense because there was a massive difference in the amount of information retrieval possible between a low end and high end turntable.

That is just simply not true for digital sources, where digital sources that are unable to retrieve 10, 20, 30% or more of the information stored in the format just don't exist. Similarly such amps don't exist. Speakers however, despite being far less variable than they were 40 years ago, still have the potential to do exactly that.

On top of that speakers are (just like turntables) physical engineering devices, and that is what cost the most money to develop and manufacture at a high level. So absolutely in todays world, if you're using digital sources the majority of your money (or at least a good proportion of it) is best spent on speakers, followed by the amplification (especially if it's traditional class A or A/B stuff), and finally the digital source. IF your goal is accuracy of retrieval of the information in the source format. IF you have different aims for your system, do what sounds best to your ears.

*Perfect with respect to human ability to detect any of the above listed characteristics of audio reproduction.
 
Why is this?
Because there's no accounting for taste. Simple as that. Exactly the same reason some people love paintings rather than photographs or 50's sports cars over objectively superior more modern ones. Superior objective performance has no bearing on whether all people think it sounds better or not. Some people will always prefer the sound of a turntable system played through a tube amplifier driving horn loaded speakers, in a live listening room environment, despite all the audible distortion and colouration that such systems have. There's no critisism in that statement, just an objective fact.
 
I personally don’t like the look of the anniversary models, I was even less impressed by the prices.
And even less impressed with the sound… (I heard special edition passive 50s and thought they were awful - I liked passive bookshelf ATCs).

Mind you I heard the ATCs with McIntosh amps…. Didn’t leave me with a good impression of them either!
 
So much for all that talk about an expensive DAC and expensive pre-amp then! :D
I know! Seriously... while I'm sure they could have given even more of their magic with the right attention to upstream stuff, there was just so much that was right here. I guess that's what decades of experience of not only matching drivers to amps but making sure the crossover is on the right side of the amps gets you. Genuinely unforgettable.
 
Because there's no accounting for taste. Simple as that.
Let's begin with the basics. People prefer better, more musical sound (my original premise) because ... they prefer interior sound. This is the upshot of your formulation.

And you know this how, exactly? That question is the core of my own formulation, one that works on all of the pertinent levels.

But let's begin there first: According to you people prefer what they consistently find, confirm, collaborate, contrast, experience, etc, etc as musically authentic sound because in reality they prefer inferior, or less musical sound. And you know this to be true, correct?
 
Let's begin with the basics. People prefer better, more musical sound (my original premise) because ... they prefer interior sound. This is the upshot of your formulation.

And you know this how, exactly? That question is the core of my own formulation, one that works on all of the pertinent levels.

But let's begin there first: According to you people prefer what they consistently find, confirm, collaborate, contrast, experience, etc, etc as musically authentic sound because in reality they prefer inferior, or less musical sound. And you know this to be true, correct?

No idea what you are talking about
 
I don’t see how anyone with a normal sized room could accommodate 2m from front wall. My speakers are about 30-40 cm out.
Yes, this is a problem and the reason why I now have my speakers very close to the front wall and use EQ to compensate for the boundary gain.
If you add subwoofer(s) AND high-pass the speakers the problematic range of distances is greatly reduced (see red distances in the tables below):

ChEFmSM.jpeg
 


advertisement


Back
Top