advertisement


Thinking about a pair of ATC SCM40

99% of speaker grills/covers are just cosmetic...they don't protect the drivers from any impact. The steel grill solution is mainly a professional idea, as in PA systems and stage cabinets and the like.Its a look that is hard to translate into a domestic environment . Even Yamaha NS1000's with each driver having a separate mesh grill had the option of cloth grills covering the whole of the front.
 
Comparisons done, and yes the actives do sound superior to the passives. And that was using the Hegel as the pre. So the question for me is straight forward(ish). Do the ATC's active or passive sound significantly better than my PMC's? Better? No. Different? Yes. If I had to characterise the difference, I'd say the ATC's are cleaner across the spectrum. Less emphasis on bass, more on mids and a similar top end (to my ears, 63 years young). They are probably marginally quicker too. I guess that's the sealed cab doing its thing.

This has been a very useful exercise for me and I'd like to thank the guys at Basically Sound for their patience and coffee. There's an ATC event happening there today (You can call to book a place, I think there's 3:00, 5:00 and 7:00pm slots). Check their website.

Thanks to everyone that's commented on this thread.
 
For what it’s worth, my thoughts on PMC ( recent twenty5 23i/24i/26i range) is that they have a powerful bass and & a hot top end, where as the SCM40a’s gave a more even emphasis throughout the frequency range & the mids, vocals etc in particular are better. The PMC’s may be better for “rocking out” to & for those that want deeper bass from a relatively small cabinet. However their price rises over the last couple of years do make them look a bit pricey, I think.
 
DavetheBass said:
Comparisons done, and yes the actives do sound superior to the passives. And that was using the Hegel as the pre. So the question for me is straight forward(ish). Do the ATC's active or passive sound significantly better than my PMC's? Better? No. Different? Yes. If I had to characterise the difference, I'd say the ATC's are cleaner across the spectrum. Less emphasis on bass, more on mids and a similar top end (to my ears, 63 years young). They are probably marginally quicker too. I guess that's the sealed cab doing its thing.

This has been a very useful exercise for me and I'd like to thank the guys at Basically Sound for their patience and coffee. There's an ATC event happening there today (You can call to book a place, I think there's 3:00, 5:00 and 7:00pm slots). Check their website.

Thanks to everyone that's commented on this thread.
Click to expand...
It was good wasn’t it. Wish I could house and afford 50’s!
 
DavetheBass said:
Comparisons done, and yes the actives do sound superior to the passives. And that was using the Hegel as the pre. So the question for me is straight forward(ish). Do the ATC's active or passive sound significantly better than my PMC's? Better? No. Different? Yes. If I had to characterise the difference, I'd say the ATC's are cleaner across the spectrum. Less emphasis on bass, more on mids and a similar top end (to my ears, 63 years young). They are probably marginally quicker too. I guess that's the sealed cab doing its thing.

This has been a very useful exercise for me and I'd like to thank the guys at Basically Sound for their patience and coffee. There's an ATC event happening there today (You can call to book a place, I think there's 3:00, 5:00 and 7:00pm slots). Check their website.

Thanks to everyone that's commented on this thread.
Click to expand...
Sorry, speed-reading, but did I miss the bit about whether you decided to stick or twist? :)
 
TheFlash said:
Sorry, speed-reading, but did I miss the bit about whether you decided to stick or twist? :)
Click to expand...

For the moment, stick. I'd like to find something that's a good step up from my current speakers....that is proving harder than I thought. The ATC's are subjectively 'better' but not by the margin I'd want for the extra outlay.
 
DavetheBass said:
For the moment, stick. I'd like to find something that's a good step up from my current speakers....that is proving harder than I thought. The ATC's are subjectively 'better' but not by the margin I'd want for the extra outlay.
Click to expand...
Understood, your money and your ears and all that!
You have referred a couple of times to “the ATC’s” as if the passives and actives could broadly be grouped together. As a former owner of the passives and current owner of the actives, I would have expected the passives to be different but the actives to be clearly (subjectively and objectively) better. I’m just trying to understand what you experienced
 
I’m very familiar with the Twenty5.22’s. Great speaker & a decent bass from a standmount.
For me, the SCM40’s & especially the 40a’s are in a higher league.
If the leap from your PMC’s to the SCM40’s isn’t a big enough upgrade, I think the problem will be that the only way to get a bigger step up will be by spending a LOT more.
For around say £10k, you’ll get “different” for sure. Russell-K’s, Focals, ProAcs, Kudos Titans, B&W’s, the list goes on. But “ better” than the ATC’s, hmm that’s a toughie. I auditioned a lot before settling on mine. Maybe the Twenty.5 23’s or 24’s are the obvious choice?
 
Hello
Active vs passive : regarding ATC : the 50’s are in a different league vs the 40’s
However , the 40’s really boast of having TREMENDOUS mid range
Then it’s a question of taste and money
Cheers
 
maro73 said:
Hello
Active vs passive : regarding ATC : the 50’s are in a different league vs the 40’s
However , the 40’s really boast of having TREMENDOUS mid range
Then it’s a question of taste and money
Cheers
Click to expand...

Would you say that the 40's have a better midrange balance/coherence than the 50's? I've heard the 50's and 100's a fair bit and the 40's at shows (where i thought they sounded great but impressions were a bit limited being in an unfamiliar space).
What do the 50's give a more corporeal, real bass?
I know one bass reflex and the other infinite baffle. Who's has compared them back to back?
 
Space is the Place said:
Would you say that the 40's have a better midrange balance/coherence than the 50's? I've heard the 50's and 100's a fair bit and the 40's at shows (where i thought they sounded great but impressions were a bit limited being in an unfamiliar space).
What do the 50's give a more corporeal, real bass?
I know one bass reflex and the other infinite baffle. Who's has compared them back to back?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that all the drivers on the 50s are SL standard, so all frequency bands will be of higher quality. Also the 50s are vented rather than bass reflex so it's more like natural bass rather than augmented.
 
Allaboutmusic said:
My understanding is that all the drivers on the 50s are SL standard, so all frequency bands will be of higher quality. Also the 50s are vented rather than bass reflex so it's more like natural bass rather than augmented.
Click to expand...

Whats the difference between the drivers (mid and treble obviously, as the bass is different) different construction or better matching?
 
TheFlash said:
Understood, your money and your ears and all that!
You have referred a couple of times to “the ATC’s” as if the passives and actives could broadly be grouped together. As a former owner of the passives and current owner of the actives, I would have expected the passives to be different but the actives to be clearly (subjectively and objectively) better. I’m just trying to understand what you experienced
Click to expand...

Actives definitely a step up from the passives. More dynamic, better separation and I think they go a bit deeper (to my ears). It's a different presentation to what I'm used to I suppose. As some have said, perhaps a home demo is only way to get a true reading. I'm in no rush ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top