Unfortunately the other ATC thread I started went rapidly downhill after I made the mistake of mentioning M*** stands. My fault.

I would like to have a Mana-free discussion of the relative merits of the SCM20A and SCM50A if anyone has done a serious comparison. I just took out a measuring tape and discovered from the spec sheet that the 50s are really pretty large - more especially, they are rather wide. On the other hand I think the stands are fairly discreet (are they supplied free with the speakers or are they extra?) whereas I find normal tall speakers stands pretty ugly.

So, has anyone compared the active 20 and active 50? And how much of a difference have the various revisions to the drivers made to these speakers over the years? I was thinking of buying second-hand and have seen some active 50s for £2,200 which seemed pretty good but I wondered if the "old" ones should be avoided. There seems to be some stuff going on with the "SL" woofers, as far as I can tell, but this may just be marketing-speak.

Thanks

Andrew

PS. the 100s and the 150s are DEFINITELY too big and ugly for my room/ domestic harmony, so don't go there

PPS I know I should have a dem but I don't like to take up too much of dealers' time when I'm not planning to buy from them. I'd rather buy cheaply and sell them on again if necessary. But having said that I notice that the 50s weigh nearly 50kg each - that's a lot of weight to lug around!

Check your Private Messages...

Any chance of continuing the discussion in the thread, rather than via PM? :)

I'm also interested to hear opinions of the SCM20's, particularly the 20-2.

Cheers,
Rich

I have heard active 50s, 100s and 150s. They all seem to sound more or less the same, i.e. they have no particular "sound" of their own, as far as I can tell.

I would guess the 20s are similar. The 50s strike me as being the best compromise if room is tight, and I wouldn't regard them as being over-large.

1. The SL update to the bass driver was made in about 1997

2. The tweeters on all of the speakers was updated from the old Vifa tweeters to the new 25mm soft dome ones at some point after 1997 (I believe that these new tweeters, which are built by SEAS to ATC's specifications, were introduced with the SCM70 in 2000 and probably to the other models at about the same time). Older 20s and 50s will have the Vifas. The new SEAS ones are allegedly superb.

3. The 20s and 50s both have wonderful HF and mid-range (even though the 50s are 3-way so have a separate mid-range driver which is meant to be extra-special, in practice the 20s seem to be as good, perhaps because they don't need to use a crossover at 350Hz like the 3-way models?).

4. The 20s aren't bass-shy - in fact I have a 2003 review of them from one of the hi-fi rags which has a measured in-room response which is down just 6dB at 42Hz. This is partly because they are pretty large speakers for 2-ways: 47cm x 28.5cm x 39.5cm (H x W x D).

5. ATC are moving towards space age looks for their domestic speakers: the SCM70 (which are basically the same tri-amp and drivers as the 50s but in a bigger, floorstanding box) are determinedly modern, as are the latest active 10s and 20s (the review I referred to above was for the 20-2s). I don't know whether they will bother to update the 50s since someone who wants a modern-looking 50 can just buy a 70 (provided they are rich).

6. The amps seem to be used for groups of models; ie. the 10s and 20s seem to have the same 2-channel amp; the 50s, 70s and 100s seem to have the same 3-channel amp.

In the UK the new prices are roughly:

SCM20A-2: £2,700

SCM20ASL Tower: £4,900-£5,700 depending on finish

SCM50A SL: £7,500-£8,000

SCM70A SL: £13,800

SCM100A SL: £8,300 - £9,000

There are also pro versions and passive versions of most of these speakers.

Please feel free to correct the information if you think I've got it wrong.

Andrew

Andrew

ATC are currently making a limited edition of Magnolia veneered speakers at a considerably higher price. I have to confess, they did look rather good. I happen to have a rare Magnolia tree in my garden and I must admit I was biting at the bit.

I have difficulty in understanding how anyone could have the black versions in their house, they were hidious.

Regards

Mick

The black ones are gorgeous, Mick. You really ought to come up & admire them.

I think the wood-finish ones look a bit "pouffy".

Bub

The word pouffy is not very pc now a days. You will incurr the wrath of the gay community.

I have seen black ATC's and thanks but no thanks.

The magnolia did have a somewhat exotic look about it.

Regards

Mick

Well at least a veneers digression is less harmful than a stands flame war...

I have one more question for ATC owners: I have read a couple of reviews which have said that ATCs are great at playing loud but they aren't quite as spellbinding when you listen to them at lower levels - do any of you find this to be true? Since I have three small kids I am not always able to listen at high levels and would like to think that I wouldn't be missing my SBLs when doing so...

Thanks

Andrew

Now you are being silly.

Mick

I think certain forms of 'un-pc abuse' (racial, sexual, sexuality etc) are acceptable if they come from the right person, in the right tone etc. So (for example) a Jewish commedian can make "Jewish" jokes, Julian Clary can suggest other men are not very masculine etc.

Also when you are in an environment where everyone is "post-pc" (i.e. all people present/speaking are never ever going to judge/look down on/cause detriment to a person becuase of race/sex/sexuality/colour etc) you can almost revert to telling the same jokes that would be potentially harmful/hurtful/damaging in the past / from different people because nobody in that group is ever going to believe for a moment that anybody would really think that.

I know Bub owns a terracotta gap T-shirt. Hence he is at least secure in his sexuality and maybe even have a very broad definition of what his sexuality is. Thus I think he can clearly claim to be 'post-pc' and reclaim his right to 'joke/josh' with the term 'pouffy' as from him it can never be classed as harmful.

I'm a black fan too. Industrial. No tea cosies a la Mrs Mick here.


More generally - has anyone heard the active 70s and can compare them to 50s and/or 100s - doe the post-space-age technology improve them?

Jonathan

Originally posted by Jonathan Ribee

I know Bub owns a terracotta gap T-shirt. Hence he is at least secure in his sexuality and maybe even have a very broad definition of what his sexuality is. Thus I think he can clearly claim to be 'post-pc' and reclaim his right to 'joke/josh' with the term 'pouffy' as from him it can never be classed as harmful.

I know I may sometimes appear to be a bit camp, but I really don't fancy blokes' cheesy dicks.

Don't know whether he is on the forum - but he has loads of Mana and some SCM70As.

Another hi-fi nut (http://www.hi-end-audio.com/criticas/atc-scm70-hnrr.php)

They are really large!! [edit: or else he is very short]

Andrew

Thanks Andrew - well he seemed to like 70s quite a lot more than 50s, lucky as he didn't actually listen to any before he bought them. The 70s "look" much bigger than 100s, but shallow. As ATC name their 'speakers by volume you'd kinda assume they must be very shallow and not all that case is actual volume. Must be an integral stand/amps. I wonder how low they go if he needs a sub?

Bub - does that mean non-cheesy would be OK? As a matter of pure intellectual curiosity you understand.

Jonathan

Even clean, they appear cheesy. It's a "yueuch!" reaction, rather like SBLs.

PS, do you like my ATCs? If so, could you tell Dev and Alex?

[if not, obviously don't tell anyone, please]

According to the specs they are 1.27 metres tall, with overall dimensions that calculate out at 234 litres...

The dimensions of the 50s calculate out at 104 litres and the 20s at 53 litres.

So imagine they are excluding that portion of the enclosure that is used for the amps.

Andrew

Bub

I guess such inbuilt reactions are evolutionary useful if you are a species. Um, can one "be" a species?

I like your ATCs. I actually rather like the overall presentation of your system, and can see where all this clarity stuff you go on about comes from. Sounded better than a cds3/552/500/sl2 on frame stand - but hardly fair given the large 'speakers and acres of angle iron you've got. Those little sl2s were good though. I expected sbl-ish and got much more... ...jeesh, starting to sound like Jilly whatsername winetasting.

Maybe I'll change my mind after hearing 150s?

Andrew

Yeah - it's the internal cabinet volume, it just looks weird having such towering things only 70 litres whereas 150s look much less imposing.

Jonathan

Hi Bub,

"I really don't fancy blokes' cheesy dicks"

Does that mean you fancy blokes' non cheesy dicks?

Always had my doubts that all this Mana and ATC boasting was a way to hide your latent homosexual tendencies. Go on, give in and come out. You know that everyone will understand that all this macho ATC crap was all a pretence!

Cheers

Spike

Originally posted by Spike
Hi Bub,

"Always had my doubts that all this Mana and ATC boasting was a way to hide your latent homosexual tendencies. Go on, give in and come out.

Everyone knows James is gay and to his credit he doesn't make an issue of it, except to invite people to listen his ATC's when we all know its a cover for a bit of man-on-man action.

I love it when you lot start up.

I have had an interesting day, with some correspondence with ATC over the history of the SCM50A improvements and an hour long demo comparing the latest versions of the SCM20A and SCM50A.

First, the facts on the SCM50A history:

1. The mark 1 version was produced until 1992 and had an earlier version of the amp packs. While saying that this was a good speaker (naturally), ATC do not recommend upgrading the drivers on these old ones to latest spec because it isn't worth it with those old amps.

2. The latest amp pack dates from 1992 and was "a major performance gain"

3. The SL bass driver dates from 1996. I'm not sure when the SEAS tweeter appeared but I think it was 2000.

4. Upgrading all 6 of the drivers costs £1,664.

Next, the speaker dem, which I had arranged at last minute when a lunch was cancelled on me.

Front end was a CDS3 which was unfortunately only into a 202 since they didn't have any other Naim pres in stock. Stands were Fraim. Room was about 18 feet by 12 feet and a bit bare-walled. Not good acoustically. I listened mainly to 3 "tracks" - "So What" from KOB, "Wonderwall" by Oasis and The first movement of Beethoven's Piano Concerto number 4. I hadn't brought my own CDs with me so I was trying to find ones that I knew well.

First off was the 20s (which were the 20-2, space age version). They were strikingly accurate in the mid and high frequencies - detailed without being scratchy or tinny or thin. There was obviously more of the soundstage thing than the SBLs. Dynamics were very good: really quick transitions. But the bottom end was lacking (just absent, rather than bad). This translated into a lack of scale or "slam" on the classical stuff when the orchestra came in. There were times when the music lacked the tonal subtlety I am used to with the CDS2/52/active SBLs but I am blaming that on the 202 for the time being. Worst fault was on the Oasis where they just seemed to lose the tune (on no, I'm sounding like Tony L. ) - I could hear all of the bits pretty well, although the kick drum wasn't convincing, but there seemed to be a disconnect between the rhythm section and the rest of the band, almost as if they were tripping over each other... or perhaps just tripping.

We changed to the 50s. Scale and "slam" were much better. Mid and high frequencies were still excellent. Bass was a bit slower but went much lower (despite the measured specs). Oasis were pretty much in time. The classical stuff was much improved although it had arguably lost a little bit of the speed at which the 20s could move from ff to pp. At least the orchestra was now a full orchestra. KOB was good but a little too gleaming (those preamp tonal subtleties again).

As far as looks go, the 20s are probably a no-no in my house: far too modern, especially in a black/silver finish on the silver stands, and quite imposing (they are BIG for 2-way speakers). The 50s are more discreet - still pretty imposing but the stands are low and the overall height is only about 10cm higher than the SBLs (much deeper though).

We tried moving the 50s right against the back wall - as much as the heatsink fins would allow - and they worked surprisingly well there. In fact in many ways they seemed better than they had when 2 feet out from the wall except there was a bit of a bass hump at 80-100Hz.

My overall conclusion was that the only way to really judge the quality of these speakers is to get them into my house for a few days. I don't think the 20s will work for me aesthetically or acoustically (unless I use a sub with them). The 50s have a lot of promise but I need to hear them in my (much better) room, with the 52 feeding them. Speaker dems in shops are pretty useless in reality, although I think I at least found reasonable grounds to prefer a 50 over a 20. I still can't explain why the 20s lost it so badly on "Wonderwall" - I suspect it was a combination of really poor (reverberant) listening room acoustics and a lack of bass extension to carry the drums/bass guitar lines through.

When I got home, I played the same tracks on my system and marvelled at the SBLs' paciness and natural bass extension (with the REL sub helping) and the 52's glorious delicacy. I believe the 50s, properly set up, could exceed the SBLs since there is no question they are higher class speakers in terms of the detail they can extract and the dynamics they can produce. I also think the ATCs are really really revealing, even compared to active SBLs, so my thoughts of selling the 52 for a cheaper ATC preamp have rapidly receded.

Since the 50s are £7.5k new I may need to wait a bit before being able to afford them, sadly. I wouldn't like to trouble the shop for a home demo unless I was definitely going to buy them new, so I will either have to wait for some cheap used ones to come up and take the risk or I will have to save up for a while and do it all properly.

Anyway, those are my honest thoughts, for what they are worth. Major disclaimers for poor pre-amp and poor room. CD player was OK. Nice cup of tea and very decent bloke called Joel doing the dem.

Andrew

PS. I saw some 100s while I was there - they are HUGE!!

Polarbear, the MFS are way too intrusive for my room. [Edit: sorry I was thinking of the MF9s!]

Fox, the SCM100A looked about a third bigger than the Briks I've seen. This may have been partly due to the fact that they were in a pale wood finish rather than a slimming black...

Andrew

Originally posted by fox
The other slimming effect is the vastly reduced box count. An Active Six (or three) pack system requires a lot of boxes, lotta wires and crossovers and PSUs the open space recovered by removing all that and getting a smaller amp rack should also be taken into consideration.


Amen to that...

I was happy to see the back of 3xLK280 + 3xSPARK + Aktiv/dirak, along with all the power cables, the interconnects and the shelves. It was a complete pain in the arse really. I've since concluded that the only real way to do active is to design the crossover, speakers and amps as a single entity..

Moreover, there was always the "russian roulette" of screwing up the wiring and taking the tweeters out. Or possibly wiring some of the connections out of phase (does this sound familiar to anyone I wonder??;))..

[QUOTE:]

It took a while to locate the production master for the single—the original four-track tapes haven't surfaced since 1967, and are presumed forever lost—but along the way someone turned up a box from Advision Sound Studios in London, dated "April 1967" and marked, simply, "Whiter Shade of Pale plus takes." (Charmingly, the label on the box credits someone named Procol Harrian.) Rather than a mixed and EQ'd production master, the box contained an original four-track tape. Careful playback revealed the contents to be three different, unmixed recordings of the song, each slightly different from one another and from the "official" single.

Knowing he had some special tracks in his possession, Hobson looked for an equally special setting in which to mix them. He found it just southwest of London, moored on the Thames: an opulent Edwardian houseboat named The Astoria—or, as present owner David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd, has rechristened it, Astoria Sound Studios. It's quite possibly the finest floating recording studio in the world, and reportedly one of the most well-run studios anywhere, regardless of where it sits. Gilmour's magnificent Neve console is supplemented by such esoteric audiophile gear as ATC monitor loudspeakers, special-built equipment stands from Mana Acoustics, and a number of custom bits designed and installed by UK design genius and all-around tube guru Tim de Paravicini.

In fact, it was Mr. de P whom Mike Hobson asked to cut all the Procol Harum lacquers, at the Exchange, the well-known London mastering house. And when Hobson secured a day at Astoria, he had de Paravicini there with him and producer John Leckie to create something that most people have never heard: a true stereo mix of one of rock's greatest singles.

[END QUOTE]

and it makes you wonder, as another great song goes....

Gilmour uses ATCs in his home system too, apparently. Strangely enough, I don't think Stereofool has ever reviewed any ATC speakers.

Andrew

Andrew B,

So Dave Gilmour uses ATC speakers...exactly what does this prove?

Regards,

Jon

Originally posted by JonR
Andrew B,
So Dave Gilmour uses ATC speakers...exactly what does this prove?


...it suggests the sound he gets in the recording studio is the sound he would like to replicate when at home. When you've listened to a recording over and over and over again as happens in the studio. To listen to what you have recorded played back on a totally different sounding system is quite disconcerting... The levels of detail/information you lose when going from 1st Gen studio recording to even a very expensive HiFi system is quite distressing.

It also suggests he likes the sound Astoria's ATC produce enough to want to bring into the home. Nothing more AFAICT

fox

I think we will have to agree that whether you prefer black finish or veneer is subjective.

Most of my furniture is mahogany, so I opt for the veneer.

The ATC's are a fine speaker and if ever Naim stopped trading, I could be easily tempted.

I would opt for the SCM50A because they sound almost identical to the 100's but are less imposing. They look just slightly smaller than Briks but it is a damn close thing either way.

I am popping down to the Bristol show this weekend to have a look at the Tannoy Prestiege range which is shown below

http://www.tannoy.com/Canterbury

I think I will settle for one of these or a good NBL.

Regards

Mick

Floyd, and Gilmour in particular, are well known for their interest in great sound quality. And they are all wealthy enough to buy whichever speakers they choose. And they are all musicians. So I think it is a relevant piece of evidence that supports the argument that ATCs are probably very fine speakers.

If the article said that Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts or even Britney Spears chooses to listen to ATCs then that wouldn't prove much at all, I agree.

But in the interests of balance I will say that one of the world's most famous mastering engineers (Bob Ludwig) monitors with these, which were designed for him:

Eggleston Works Ivy (www.egglestonworks.com/ivy.htm)

Now those really are big and imposing!

While we are on pro audio, the other brands of big monitors that seem to appear in control rooms pretty frequently are Dynaudio and B&W. Any fans of those on here?

Andrew

Fox and Andrew,

Thanks for the measured responses, and fair enough.

I'm sorry I had to ask because the way ATC gets pushed around here always makes me wonder if there's another agenda afoot.....

Regards,

Jon

Polarbear

I am prepared to audition speakers if enough people who seem sensible recommend them highly (and they fit into my living room aesthetically and into my budget).

I only buy speakers and electronics that I have been able to audition sufficiently thoroughly to know that I love them, unless they have been highly recommended AND I can get them cheaply enough second-hand to sell on easily without loss (which is what I did with my sub and the AAA5+).

I'm not a blind follower of anyone's recommendations and in the end I trust my ears. Strangely I have an almost purely Naim system at the moment but I bought it because it sounded great and was available second-hand with really solid residuals.

I do find buying speakers particularly tricky, since the interaction with the room is such an important factor and they have poorer residuals in general.

Andrew

Did it mention which ATC's he uses?

No it didn't.

But I know the DSOTM 5.1 remix was done on 3 SCM150As and 2 SCM50As plus an ATC sub, all of which were shipped out to the Bahamas to match the lead engineer's usual system of 5 x SCM150As.

I expect he has quite a big room and a very understanding wife ;)

Andrew

Big ATCs on Mana and in a boat. Now I wonder if the "vibration sink effect" (yeah, OK if that is how it works) gets an extra boost from sucking out the bad vibes into the deck and then into the water.. ..do you see ripples of removed vibration moving from the boat as the 'speaker dumps it's excess cab vibes.

NOTE: this is a sarcastic rhetorical question and doesn't need an answer.

Originally posted by Andrew B.
Polarbear

I only buy speakers and electronics that I have been able to audition sufficiently thoroughly to know that I love them,...

I do find buying speakers particularly tricky, since the interaction with the room is such an important factor and they have poorer residuals in general.

Andrew

When buying a system for the first time, how do you know what it is that grabs you? The source, amp, speakers?

You can of course swap each component in and out in turn to determine what is having what effect.

In practice you find that certain types of improvements are more likely to be produced by changes to certain types of equipment (in my experience). Within the Naim range at least, you find that if you want more detail and timbral subtlety you upgrade the pre-amp, whereas if you want more grunt and bottom end then you upgrade the power amp or add a power supply to the pre (assuming it doesn't have one already) which allows the power amp to use its power exclusively for its main job. Of course it isn't quite this simple and you have to take into account speaker interaction but I am assuming that you have enough amp power to drive the speakers properly.

Source component changes are able to have a radical effect on everything and loudspeakers will affect the overall voicing of the system - but a common mistake is to say something like "the SBLs don't have enough bass" and look at changing the speakers when in fact you would get what you are after by adding an XPS to the CDX (for example) or by moving from a 140 to a 250 or 135s.

Getting a bit off topic here but I have always found it better to add a power supply to a Naim pre rather than move up to the next pre in the chain looking for improvements when you don't have a decent independent power supply. And the upgrades I have enjoyed most have always been those to the source or the pre-amp - but that may be because I have always used speakers that are easy to drive.

Andrew

SBLs don't have enough bass.

Originally posted by stumo
Did it mention which ATC's he uses?
In the "Arena" Syd Barrett/PF documentary, you can see his ATCs on Mana stands over his shoulder. Judging from the shape, they are 100s, I think.

Originally posted by Blzebub
In the "Arena" Syd Barrett/PF documentary, you can see his ATCs on Mana stands over his shoulder. Judging from the shape, they are 100s, I think.

I'd say they are most likely 100's and not 150's because as far as I know, Mana does not make a speaker stand for the 150's, only 50's and 100's.

Originally posted by Blzebub
SBLs don't have enough bass.

Not sure if they do or not but I have to say that having enough bass really depends a lot on the selection of source, amps, setup, floors, walls and size of room.

Over the last 20 years I've used Quads, Kans, Tukans, NHT Super Ones, and ATC SCM-7's and all along never felt I was missing out on not having enough bass or having too much bass. I think most importantly with bass, is that you want quality, tunefullness, cohesion with the rest of the music and the ability to play the system loud without feeling a lack of bass or too much bass. I have yet to find music in my collection where I feel my speakers are not producing the bass notes correctly.

I have been experimenting the last week with a subwoofer in my two channel setup and have concluded that there is an overall improvement having it out of the system, so it's now back to just serving duty in the A/V system.

John

So what happens at an outside concert?

Originally posted by fox
John have you tried bass management at all or EQ-ing like Oedipus here has tried?

In which system are you speaking of? Hi-Fi or A/V? My comments about the subwoofer are in the context of using it in the 2 channel system. I like it for 5.1 DVD's.

In my A/V setup I don't use bass management, all speakers are set to large. Haven't experimented much with it but I have to mention that my L, R, Center and Sub were all designed to work together as a system without bass management. I like the idea of each speaker in the A/V system getting it's intended signal, I guess I'm more of a purist in that regard.
Originally posted by fox

has your opinion on undriven transducers in the living room changed at all? No

Originally posted by johngilleran
In my A/V setup I don't use bass management, all speakers are set to large. Haven't experimented much with it but I have to mention that my L, R, Center and Sub were all designed to work together as a system without bass management.


You should assume that the remarks in ATC's bass management whitepaper do not apply to your speakers. Mostly because your speakers are passive and have none of the circuitry that the active speakers have to save them from any wild bass signal that you send to them. [That said my Active 10's don't seem to protect themselves very well at high SPL.]

If you send a full range signal to a small speaker (be it active or passive), you haven't really got much hope of it doing anything positive with it - in fact you run the risk of having the bass drive the woofer ragged and greatly increasing the overall distortion versus doing proper bass management.

When ATC wrote that paper, they were thinking of the BIG speakers, because those speakers (a) can do something meaningful with the bass; (b) won't disort horribly and/or drive the bass cone into the end stop at high volume.


I like the idea of each speaker in the A/V system getting it's intended signal, I guess I'm more of a purist in that regard.


You can't be a purist in the A/V world, either get over it ,or buy much bigger speakers! :)

[BTW: If you were a real purist, you would have a matched SCM7 for the center channel;)]

Originally posted by oedipus
You should assume that the remarks in ATC's bass management whitepaper do not apply to your speakers. Mostly because your speakers are passive and have none of the circuitry that the active speakers have to save them from any wild bass signal that you send to them. [That said my Active 10's don't seem to protect themselves very well at high SPL.]

I have the user manual for the ATC AV products and avoiding bass management with all their AV speakers is something they strongly suggest. This includes the passive C1 center and SCM-7's which serves as the front and rear L/R speakers in their Concept One system. My system is used strictly as a A/V system playing 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS recordings and I have had no problem with any of the speakers handling the dynamic range of signal being sent to them with the bass management set to large.

There are a whole lot of reasons they list in the user manual for avoiding bass management, one I'd mention is the additional processing of the source signal that bass management performs and the undesirable artefacts it causes.

Originally posted by oedipus

You can't be a purist in the A/V world, either get over it ,or buy much bigger speakers! :)

[BTW: If you were a real purist, you would have a matched SCM7 for the center channel;)]
I pretty pleased with the overall performance of what I've put together. The system plays plenty loud and is very dynamic, the speakers integrate very well with one another and create a nice soundstage. The C1 center channel speaker is a purpose-built center channel speaker that resembles their more expensive C2/C4/C5/C6/C7 models that have twin LF drivers, I think that design serves better for a center channel speaker than say a SCM-7. The center channel speaker being wider and less tall than the left and right front speakers allows me to keep the screen position lower and at a more desirable viewing angle.

Oedipus, are you running a 5.1 setup with all ATC speakers?

Here's a shot of the ATC speakers in action along with some nice eye candy.

Regards,
John

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/2909/pict1232r1zn.jpg

Originally posted by Andrew B.
I have one more question for ATC owners: I have read a couple of reviews which have said that ATCs are great at playing loud but they aren't quite as spellbinding when you listen to them at lower levels - do any of you find this to be true? Since I have three small kids I am not always able to listen at high levels and would like to think that I wouldn't be missing my SBLs when doing so...

Andrew,

now that you've been living with your 50s for a while, what are your impressions on this particular aspect?

I find that I can listen to them very happily at what most people would consider very low levels (by which I mean around 70 dB A-weighted). They are better than the SBLs at this and at all levels. They do of course sound best at realistic levels - which I would say are between 90 and 95 dBA (I tend to mix live music so that most peaks are about 95dBA from the mix position). I don't often listen that loud and although it is thrilling I find the ATCs great at around 80dBA provided that there is not too much background noise in the house.

As I say though, they are very dynamic indeed so that the loud bits can creep up on you without warning. This is especially true on film soundtracks. There is no compression in the ATCs.

I have a group of PFMers coming over this evening to listen to the ATCs and the DAC1 and possibly compare them to a Chord DAC64 (and to try a homemade valve preamp that someone local has put together), so I expect there will be some alternative views of mys system emerging onto the forum this weekend...

Andrew

The guy with the 70's is an utter loon. They look pretty damn harsh in a home environment!

I have to say I think the 50's are the only size / shape that will suit most uk houses well. On the style issue, I plan to go for piano black. I've always loved it on piano's anyway. Plus my present wilson benesch's have the same sort of finish, which looks classy and contemporary to me.

P.S I see another ATC thread wanders off track, just a tad!

Andrew, thanks for posting all that info on the SCM series speaker history.

I am currently using ATC SCM35 passives but plan to move up to some 2nd hand SCM50 or 100's when space (and money) allows. All that info will be useful when I am looking at any of the older models.

Thanks to Andrew for hosting a fun evening of beer, pizza & hifi. Good to meet some hifi nuts and learn a thing or two. Loved that 7' cinema experience too. I've put one on my shopping list for sure.

I'm a bit of a newbie to the high end caper, but I will post my reactions to swapping over bits of kit within Andrew's system.

1. Transports

I couldn't tell a huge amount of difference between the meridian and the tag, although at a push maybe the tag was very slightly smoother.

2. DAC's

Again, not a significant difference between the chord 64 and the benchmark. I could happily live with either. Love the brushed black finish on the chord though :P

3. Pre Amps

The ATC ca2 sounded great until I heard the Benchmark dac1 acting as a pre amp. The dac1 has around twice the amount of bass - not a subtle difference. This fuller sound was far more enjoyable when listening to Miles Davis. Those double bass players seem to hush up on the ATC ca2. I was really settled on the dac1 until I heard a diy valve pre. All of a sudden the trumpets lept out of the speakers and the whole song came alive. This pre amp was awesome fun! Please make me one!

4. ATC 50 speakers

These sounded great all night really. When a track contains a thumping bass note, you'll be made aware of it! On the upper end they sounded really smooth to me. There was one section of music where an acoustic guitar sounded real. Not just the string detail, but the hollow wood cabinet was reverberating too, eminating feint bass tones. I've not heard this before. I also thought they sound fine up against the wall too. They looked really well finished as well. Now I can't decide between piano black, cherry or oak. Damn!

Thanks guys!

Sorry to miss an event like this, sounds like fun.

Indeed, the DAC1 preamp should sound better than the ATC preamp. Quite incredible to think when some people spend £12000 on a preamp (expensive filter) and a DAC1, headphone and preamp may simply top it!!!

One point though, you need to make sure you change the DAC1 variable to calibrated before making a fair/overall comparison, otherwise you effectively have two preamps in the loop.

So the valve preamp one the day? I really need to buy valves I think.

Originally posted by pauldixonuk

ATC 50 speakers

.... There was one section of music where an acoustic guitar sounded real. Not just the string detail, but the hollow wood cabinet was reverberating too, eminating feint bass tones. I've not heard this before.

Given a good recording (the majority) ATC active speakers sound just like a live performance. I've been saying this for years, but no-one believes me, apart from other ATC owners.

I've been trying to find valve amps online. Who do people rate highly? Surfing for AR, croft, EAr, Hovland, Rose, Art Audio, Border Patrol etc now...

We had a nice collection of kit and music running through the 50s last night, thanks to several forum members:

>Paul (supplied a Bjork album and 10 Kronenberg)
>Nick aka Colasblue (supplied a TAG DVD player and Chord DAC64, a jangly Bowie torture track - Aladdin Sane, I think - and an album from an improbably obscure Texas bar band - or something)
>Cliff aka cliffpate (supplied Pat Metheny and a squeezebox but no remote!)
>and a non-forum member called Andy J. who brought along his home made valve preamp, a hippy shirt and more Pat Metheny (as well as plenty of real music ;))

This was meant to be a bit of a kit comparison session rather than a pure "enjoy the music" evening, although I think everyone heard some new music too. We weren't very scientific about the comparisons although we (OK, I) did use an SPL meter from time to time when we switched boxes to check we weren't cheating on the levels. And we tended to use "So What" (from Kind of Blue) as our reference track across the different combinations.

We also spent some time watching Lord of the Rings on my 96" projector screen through a cheap prog scan Sony DVD player and the non-cheap, non-prog scan TAG DVD player, which was fun.

Some random thoughts:
- Using the TAG as a transport with its optical output into the Benchmark DAC sounded much the same as using either the optical or coaxial output from my old Meridian 206 into the Benchmark. I still have yet to hear a transport that makes much difference to the output from the Benchmark (but see the next comment)

- There was an AMAZING difference between the quality of the optical and coaxial digital outputs of the TAG into both the Benchmark and the Chord DAC: the coaxial one was very much worse, unusually. Nick had warned us that this was the case but the difference was hard to believe: I literally noticed it from the next room (the kitchen). I can't really explain this, although Nick thinks it has something to do with the double insulation of the TAG (ie there is no connection to mains earth)

- The TAG DVD player is a very stylish piece of engineering - looks like something a Stealth bomber designer made in his lunchbreak. It also proved to be an excellent DVD player, even without the (optional) prog scan board. My only reservations about it, other than price, would be that it uses a puck and the control interface is very s...l...o...w...

- The Chord DAC versus the Benchmark was interesting with no obvious winner. The Benchmark has a bigger soundstage and a tad more detail/apparent resolution; the Chord is smoother, more integrated but perhaps a bit less pacy. The Chord DAC buffers the music so there is a pause in which it continues playing after you think you have changed track, which is a little disconcerting. Again, it is a VERY much prettier piece of engineering than the Benchmark.

- We tried the Benchmark DAC as a preamp (switching over to variable output and running XLRs straight from it to the active ATCs). As Paul said, there is more bass running the system without a preamp in this way but to my ears - listening again this evening - there is less definition in the bass regions and less subtlety and delicacy across the whole frequency range compared to using its fixed outputs into the little ATC preamp. But it does make a cute little system used this way.

- We listened to Andy J.'s "GG" (grounded grid) valve preamp. This was a big hit with many of those present. Such a different presentation from the ATC preamp! Very full in the bass (too much "bloom" in my view) and very sweet AND accurate in the mid range. But sitting between the very neutral and precise Benchmark DAC and the neutral ATCs, the valve preamp certainly had a broad appeal.

I'm sure the others will chip in with their comments.

My next job at home is to decide where the speakers should live permanently and get them attached to the floor a bit better (it isn't entirely flat so if I casually slide them into the wrong place they have a tendency to start rocking!). I was pleased that the Benchmark/Meridian combination managed to hold its own in the face of all that stylish matt black competition. And I was left curious about valave preamps - but I really shouldn't be spending anything on hifi boxes for a while...

Andrew

- We tried the Benchmark DAC as a preamp (switching over to variable output and running XLRs straight from it to the active ATCs). As Paul said, there is more bass running the system without a preamp in this way but to my ears - listening again this evening - there is less definition in the bass regions and less subtlety and delicacy across the whole frequency range compared to using its fixed outputs into the little ATC preamp. But it does make a cute little system used this way.


I would agree there is slighty more accuracy with the atc, rather than the benchmark preamp. However I think this difference is fairly subtle. I found the HUGE difference in bass content far more alarming, thus the accuracy goes slightly more unnoticed. Overall I personally preffered the benchmarks fun presentation to the atc. If I were to give rackspace to another preamp box, it would be a tube based one. That really was an awesome combo.

I've been looking into the valve pre's online. Those Audio Research pre's look very purposeful in black :P

I asked Andy J. what valves he was using in the preamp:

the valves are ecc82 very common preamp valves, nothing special although in this case i was using 3 old mullard military spec bottles, at £20.00 a throw, but that said there is a lot of nonsense and myth talked about valves, more than anything else excluding bits of wire!

In case anyone is interested.

Paul, from what little I know about valve preamps, I think Tim de Paravicini is the name to conjure with.

Andrew

This is great stuff guys.

Firstly, I think the ATC's are excellent speakers, but having heard them on numerous occasions, I would say their bass response and presentation are very room subject, in a way totally different from my SBL's, which are more room dependent. ATC’s remind me of Marshall Amps with an electric guitar plugged in, very live and accurate, but the room itself can easily run away with any strongly reproduced frequencies, and maybe that’s why the Benchmark sounded like it produced too much bass and lost some definition in your room. Ultimately, it’s impossible to compare sources and preamps unless you have neutral pair of headphones or neutral speakers/room. I use Grado RS1’s with the Benchmark for comparison reasons, but they have their own preferences and prefer coaxial generally for example.

Which brings me on to my next point? Leads.

I recently upgraded my Hard disk optical and Meridian 206 coaxial lead to the Van den Hul “Optocoupler”, and “The First Ultimate” respectively. Both leads brought worthwhile differences, but I was really surprised by the smoother sound the Opto gave to my PC. There was always a hint of brightness with the cheaper optical, but now it’s as smooth as silk.

These differences are relatively small, so spending more than £100 on leads with the DAC1 seems to be a little pointless, which again just shows just what value the DAC1 actually is.

Which brings me on to the subject of value?

The Chord DAC64 MKII is nearly 3 times the price of the DAC1, and when I made the A-B comparison, I prefer the DAC1 by a pretty large margin sonically. Technically, I felt the DAC1 was far superior, especially not in having to use the buffer for maximum delayed performance.

Just shows how great the DAC1 purchase really is. Oh! And then you have the headphones.

Andrew,

Thanks for the Tim de Paravicini tip. It seems he's behind the reputable EAR line of products. Unfortunately these appear to be styled to suit Julian Clary's dressing table.

The advantage of going the DIY route is having control over the looks and sound. Unfortunately my skills with a soldering iron would be surpassed by a hedgehog. I really need to find a commercial solution. I want suitable valve audio performance with industrial bryston style.

Tim's designs are also used by some small UK tube manufacturer I saw mentioned on here recently. I can't remember the name, unfortunately.

Andrew

Edit: It was these guys, who Mullardman used to work for:

Papworth (http://www.papworthaudio.demon.co.uk/frames.html)

But the styling is not going to appeal to you either! Look at the PPA6 under "Other Products"

Originally posted by pauldixonuk
Andrew,
[snip]
The advantage of going the DIY route is having control over the looks and sound. Unfortunately my skills with a soldering iron would be surpassed by a hedgehog. I really need to find a commercial solution. I want suitable valve audio performance with industrial bryston style.

I'm sure Andy J. would build something for you if you found a design.

Andrew

Maybe, although he didn't seem overly keen on the idea of mass production for PFM.

Cliff's idea of a looped elastic band to simultaniously control the dual volume pots was amusing. Not something often seen in the high end, lol. Maybe a long bamboo pole could be used as a remote also.

My thoughts on the evening at Andrew B's

1) Chord vs Benchmark

For those interested my DAC 64 is a MK1 with upgraded OS. The MK 2 is supposedly better but I've never auditioned one.

We initially had the benchmark and Chord on different cabling and I only figured out that that might be an issue quirte late on in the evening. I think changing the cabling improved the soundstage and overall resolution a fair bit and made the DAC 64 acceptably similar to the Benchmark, which had previously seemed better.

We only really got to hear two pieces on a fair A vs B basis which were one of Cliff's Pat Metheney tracks and my Hot Club of Cow Town (impossibly obscure band who were on Jools Holland a year or so ago).

The only proper A v B quick changeover dem was done on the Pat Metheney track and the consensus was that particularly the intro "seemed to be" going faster on the Chord than the Benchmark - though in reality they must both have been running at the same speed. The Benchmark seemed to be able to deliver slightly more "clout" on the drums or so thought at least Cliff and I.

If I was in the market for a new piece of kit I'd certainly go for the Benchmark since at half the price of the Chord it must be a bargain. Its probably also technically better since it does its thing in real time - whereas the Chord needs to buffer and reclock 4 seconds worth of datastream to be at its best. also the Benchmark can work well with relatively inexpensive transports.
At least I can have the satisfaction of having achieved similar quility a couple of years earlier - albeit at greater cost !


I'd quite like the opportunity to do an extended audition of the benchmark in my system since I could probably change the DAC 64 for one at no cost - But I suspect it might be a bit like choosing between an Armageddon and a Lingo II - which took me a very long time and swung in both directions before I settled on the Lingo II. Are there any dealers who can offer one on a trial basis ?? Since its mostly sold through pro outlets rather than Hi Fi dealers the answer might well be no.

I'm not entirely sure we tried the Meridian transport on the DAC64. We certainly didn't connect it electrically since nobody asked me how to switch the input over or asked for the BNC to phono adapter.

Certainly on the Benchmark there was very little to choose between the Meridian transport and the much more expensive Tag when coupled optically.

The Tag's electrical connection is basically designed for a floating ground double insulated system - since virtually all contemporary AV equipment was double insulated and of Japanese origin. Hence Tag had to design for compatibility in this market. This seems to make it relatively incompatible with European equipment where signal and mains ground are tied. (or so explained the Chord folk at the Bristol show and some of them had recently moved there from Tag)

I use a Japanese AV double insulated AV processor - and using it there is no apparent difference between electrical and optical connections.

2 The ATC SCM50A

I'd never heard an ATC active system before and have to say Andrew's one certainly does the job very well indeed. In terms of presentation it seems to be more or less the same in his big room as I get on my 4 pack SBL system in my much smaller room. Its certainly very easy to make the transition from one system to the other - the character is so similar. In practice its probably that the best systems should all sound the same - irrespective of manufacturer, and when choosing lesser equipment its simply a queston of selecting the compromises which you can most happily live with.

For me the SCM50A's are clearly too big to go in my room and probably couldn't achieve a satisfactory result - but the 20's ????

In terms of VFM the ATC's are clearly well ahead. The whole lot including the CA2 pre only costs about 8K new. Compare that to the new price of any sort of active Naim setup, or even their half decent passive set ups. Note that a 282/sc/250/allaes sounds a lot less good than my old 82/2xHi/snaxo/hi/4x135 system and would cost a lot more than the ATC system - which I think is at least as good as my system. Its not that Naim can't make good equipment - its just that they can't seem to make it for a sensible price !

3) Andy's homebrew valve pre amp

My thoughts entirely follow Andrew B's on this - Fantastic md and treble, fantastic dynamics, imaging and "scale" but the bass clearly had a bit of a bloom to it which could present a problem on something fast which requires a lot of articulation (I'd have loved to try a bit of early Level 42 or something by Stanley Clarke). None the less a very listenable and enjoyable alternative presentation which it would be very easy to live with.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that valves do have something to offer in modern audio systems, and probably do some things better than transistors - though maybe not everything.

4) The AV bit

The number of DVD's my Tag has ever played may have moved on from ten to eleven now - video really isn't my thing at all but it was very interesting to see the Tag transport do its stuff on a big screen and projector.

It did seem to do a better job than Andrew b's £110 Sony DVD - but enough to justify the price - I'm not convinced !

the Brightness, contrast and colour all seemed a bit better on the Tag, but the thing it really seemed tp do better was the scenes with a lot of simultaneous movement - ie big pans and sweeps where it was noticably less jerky than the Sony. To me it seemed a lot easier to take the whole picture in at once when played on the Tag.

On the audio side there was no evident difference between the Tag and the Sony - but having said that we realised after the dem had finished that we'd done the whole thing with one of the SCA50's turned off - and nobody had noticed ! (in fairness only the people on the appropriate side of the room would have been well placed to)

Perhaps there are just too many speakers in the 5 channel set up, and certtainly the relative power of vision is sufficiently strong to decieve the ears, but you can see why the market for high end av audio is limited if a room full of audiophiles couldn't spot that one !

I think one area in which the ATC50s (but not 20s) are clearly ahead of active SBLs is in large scale orchestral or choral music, in which they deliver a realistic sense of scale that comes from their ability to move a lot of air in a very dynamic way. We didn't listen to any classical in our evening, which was probably a mistake but that didn't seem to be what people were into.

I don't think we did a comparison of different transports feeding the DAC64 - there were just too many possible combinations of kit to get through on the night! It may well be more transport-sensitive than the Benchmark.

Having the left speaker off didn't diminish the extracts from LOTR too much! The fact is that in a setup with a proper centre speaker (we were using a fullish range KEF job) something like 80% of the front three channels' sound is directed to the centre speaker (all of the dialogue and the majority of the effects). Which makes me think I really should look at getting a better centre speaker - but I don't think the sound on films is quite as critical as music: and it's a compressed system anyway. I might experiment with the opposite idea - running a phantom centre speaker (ie none) with all the LCR sound directed to the ATCs. I no longer use a sub (I route that channel to the ATCs) and that works fine. Ironically, my wife doesn't want me to sell the sub because she thinks it makes a nice side table!!!

Andrew

I think ATC active 50s are so far ahead of SBLs, that it's a bit of a strange comparison.

Bub, have you ever actually gone to the trouble of listening to an active SBL system?

I had a pair of ATC 50 A for the weekend (not on Mana stands tho). I thought they were very impresssive and not unlike my pair of SBL's in many ways.

I only had a short time (only a wkd) to evaluate, but in the context of my room and system - I thought they were very impressive. Not leagues ahead of the SBL, I thought they did scale a bit better but maybe not as fast, but certainly a good speaker.

Listening to the ATC's made me realise how good the SBL is though.

I don't want to say anymore, since this was only a brief listen. I'm trying out a few others and when I will do this I will write about it more fully.

regards

Dev

Tony Levin uses an all-Linn system for enjoyment and for mastering albums. I suppose he knows a thing or two about how bass should sound.

Originally posted by Blzebub
I think ATC active 50s are so far ahead of SBLs, that it's a bit of a strange comparison.

Bub

Much as I love my ATCs, I still believe that well set up active (not passive) SBLs in the right room (very solid wall behind the SBLs is mandatory) and with a high quality front end can sound VERY good. But they are still not up to the transparency, dynamics and particularly scale of the ATC 50s...

The problem is that a lot of SBL systems fail to meet one of those conditions - not active or wrong room or inferior front end. When that happens they can sound anaemic and dull.

Andrew

I felt the last demo was more focused on the image on that 7 foot screen anyway. I pretty much ignored the sound by then, as it wasn't particuarly loud. However it did cross my mind as not sounding too inspiring. IMO my straight stereo on film blows it away (bryston, wilson benesch, rel). You would be better turning the sub on and only using TWO atc's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I went to buy a tag or linn dvd player years ago but was left unimpressed that a 3.5k player was matched by a 1k cyrus. We watched a superb quality film (gladiator) on the best screen at the time (pioneer). Waste of money for films IMO.

I was also unimpressed with the full M&K surround system too. You spread your budget over three times the equipment (compared to stereo) and end up with lots of mediocre sound. The rears are only apparent for 2% of the time anyway. A top stereo plus sub is all that's required on movies. Mind you my volume is usually at ground shaking levels, so it's usually a bit of an adrenalin rush.

Originally posted by Andrew B.
Bub

Much as I love my ATCs, I still believe that well set up active (not passive) SBLs in the right room (very solid wall behind the SBLs is mandatory) and with a high quality front end can sound VERY good. But they are still not up to the transparency, dynamics and particularly scale of the ATC 50s...

The problem is that a lot of SBL systems fail to meet one of those conditions - not active or wrong room or inferior front end. When that happens they can sound anaemic and dull.

Andrew

Andrew

I could not agree more with you. Reading some of the comments here and my own experience (9 years in four rooms) with SBL's, I am sure that many have not heard SBL's with a good set up.

In my current room, I am enjoying a sound from the SBL that I used to think was the preserve of the DBL before. Every musical parameter (and I said music not sonics) is incedible. They show no favour as to the type of music but the emotional content is really high.

I know what SBL's do sound like when not 100% - I spent years in the wrong room trying to get even 50% of the performance that I get now, but I have to say that now they are stupendous. EVen the mighty Isobariks sounded ponderous and the Quads sounded a bit shut in.

I might be lucky in my room, but it's going to take serious money to get better than this. The only other thing that I have liked a lot (and that was after a lot of tweaking with set up and position) was the Neat MF7 - which is another thrilling speaker - a different flavour for sure but very good.

Who else here has got a pair of SBL's that sing? I'd like to hear your system.

regards

Dev

Originally posted by pauldixonuk
I felt the last demo was more focused on the image on that 7 foot screen anyway. I pretty much ignored the sound by then, as it wasn't particuarly loud. However it did cross my mind as not sounding too inspiring. IMO my straight stereo on film blows it away (bryston, wilson benesch, rel). You would be better turning the sub on and only using TWO atc's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I went to buy a tag or linn dvd player years ago but was left unimpressed that a 3.5k player was matched by a 1k cyrus. We watched a superb quality film (gladiator) on the best screen at the time (pioneer). Waste of money for films IMO.

I was also unimpressed with the full M&K surround system too. You spread your budget over three times the equipment (compared to stereo) and end up with lots of mediocre sound. The rears are only apparent for 2% of the time anyway. A top stereo plus sub is all that's required on movies. Mind you my volume is usually at ground shaking levels, so it's usually a bit of an adrenalin rush.

I think I would miss the surround speakers, since they add a lot more ambience than you would notice at first. With the levels set properly it is fairly subtle except when you have planes or arrows flying overhead - when it is fun!

I will give it another go in phantom centre speaker mode. My recollection of this was that it worked well when you were sitting in the sweet spot but was less good when you were sitting off-centre. We often have half a dozen or more viewers scattered around the room so this is a slight issue. The other alternative is to use one of my spare active 10s as a centre, usng a pre-out from my AV amp, since they are meant to be timbre matched to the other ATCs. Feels a bit like overkill though.

Andrew

Dev, if you're going to keep SBLs its high time you went active.

I just prefer straight stereo and sub combo. At the levels I listen to the sound seems to bounce around and totally fill up the room anyway. The room almost becomes energised in a sense. Watching a film like Aliens, T2 or Heat round mine it pretty intense, I have to say. The bass ripples through you, the volume and clarity is all there. You could achive the same (and better!) by simplifying your set up, Im convinced.

I have yet to hear any dealers surround demo to persude me otherwise. Most of them sound like they've scattered a selection of clock radio's around the sofa.

Another handy bonus is I don't have the excess boxes, speakers and cables everywhere too.

Originally posted by Alex S
Bub, have you ever actually gone to the trouble of listening to an active SBL system?
Not active, no. But just look at them. It's very old technology, Alex, and they are very small speakers, in the scheme of things. I suppose active might improve them a little, but they're never really going to compete with the ATC dynamics, scale, and transparancy.

Dev is known for playing loud and blowing things up. ATC would suit him down to the ground; 100s if the room will take them. If ATC put a "Naim" badge on the front, they'd sell like hot cakes at £20,000. They suit the character of a Naim system very well...

Originally posted by Dark Lord
The only other thing that I have liked a lot (and that was after a lot of tweaking with set up and position) was the Neat MF7 - which is another thrilling speaker - a different flavour for sure but very good.
So you won't switch over to the ATC?

Don't tell everyone how good they are. Would be a shame if they turned into a mainstream sheep brand.

Originally posted by Andrew B.
I think I would miss the surround speakers, since they add a lot more ambience than you would notice at first. With the levels set properly it is fairly subtle except when you have planes or arrows flying overhead - when it is fun!
Andrew
Having the surround channels and center channel makes the 5.1 source material more involving. You hear the recording the way it was intended to be heard. If you have the right A/V gear to process the source signal you will be feeding each speaker it's intended signal with the least amount of processing. I would think a sub would also be beneficial even when using a full range speaker.

Originally posted by Andrew B.

I will give it another go in phantom centre speaker mode. My recollection of this was that it worked well when you were sitting in the sweet spot but was less good when you were sitting off-centre. We often have half a dozen or more viewers scattered around the room so this is a slight issue.
Andrew

I agree, the center really becomes necessary for those sitting out of the sweet spot.

Originally posted by Andrew B.

The other alternative is to use one of my spare active 10s as a centre, usng a pre-out from my AV amp, since they are meant to be timbre matched to the other ATCs. Feels a bit like overkill though.
Andrew
Overkill, no way, not compared to using C6's, which are the center channel speakers that match with the 50's and cost about 2/3rds the price of a pair of active 50's.
Regards,
John
http://www.atc.gb.net/products/popup/C6pop.jpg

I don't know about you guys, but that film they're showing in the ATC picture looks utter class!

Dunc

OK I was there. Andrew's basic system was pretty good - Meridian CD transport, Benchmark DAC, CA2 pre and ATC 50's

The ONLY track that we played from my CDs was from a Pat Metheny Album, which I subsequently played on the home setup (CDS2 NAC52 NAP500 NBLs)

The ATC setup was clearly better at defining the tune from the bass instruments. The Naim system is still bloody good, but my vote goes to ATC for tonal accuracy. I guess for me this rules out getting more Naim gear to make a complete Naim AV system. The ATC active AV system is going to sound better, and its a lot less boxes too.

Incidentally I mailed Andrew the following day to say that I wasn't sure if his system was much better than Active SBLs, and I think thats still the case. Although my system is better than active NBLs in every respect [forgot to mention that was with 3*nap250 and supercap'd snaxo], I miss the fact that SBLs [supercapped snaxo and 2 * 250] don't try to do Bass in the really low octaves, but from about 60Hz upwards they are pretty stunning when set up well. But thats no good for a combined AV and Audio setup where scale and bass are required. I guess going active with NAP500 * 3 would cure my Naim problems, but that would be just too many boxes.

I think on balance and in the long run the ATC advocates have a point.

Cheers.
Cliff

Cliff, if I were you, I'd be considering a pair of active 100s to upgrade your 500/NBL rear end. I've not done a direct comparison with NBLs, but...well, you know.

You could hitch a lift with Dev & Alex.

Sorry Bub, what are you using? Is it CDS2-52-ATC 100s?

Yes, and it works pretty well.

Some ATC bashing going on over at zerogain. Wade through the crap and there are some points raised about possible alternatives like hyperions, meadowlarks etc.

pauldixonuk:
Please don't cross post with other forums on "argumentative" threads. It really does no one any favours to have arguments raging simultaneously across forums.
It would be good if you deleted the link and the invitation to "chip in" (which I understand is meant constructively).
In any case, most of those with any interest here will quite likely be well aware of any arguments going on over there :)

joel -- moderation mode

Ok, that's fine. Just trying to obtain a more balanced perspective from some actual owners. Rubbishing a companies reputation without solid basis is a little ott. Arguing wasn't the intention. I wanted to establish precisely why a poor conclusion had been arrived at : )

ATC100 active V PMC IB2 passive

Just spent the day listening to these wonderful speakers at Cornflake. It was my first visit there and I'm rather glad I made the trip. It's a tiny yellow shop in a quiet backstreet, just off totenham court road. The interior is rather lived in and has a very welcoming atmosphere. Scuffed walls, messy work benches, jeans and relaxed humour are the order of the day. Michael hosted the demo and proved to be very helpful throughout, even acting as my personal volume controller due to lack of remote! He's probably having an afternoon nap after lugging these massive speakers back and forth many times.

The system used was rather neutral to highlight the character difference of the speakers. We always used an Ayre D1X reference cd player (£6k), Bryston BP25 preamp (£2.5k), Bryston 4BSST power amp (£2.5k) for the passive PMC's, chord company odyssey cables. The listening room was roughly 18' square. One slight oddity with the room is that the bass output is reduced when seated close to the middle of the room. When you stand up the low end output rises markedly, and reduces as you sit back down. We tried various seating locations and ended up with our backs to the wall, placing us as far away from the front speakers as possible. This pretty much eliminated any problems, as the low end bass returned to normality. The music used refected my wide personal taste. We ran through particular tracks on nirvana - nevermind, phil collins - but seriously, prince - sign o the times, rolling stones - forty licks, madonna - ray of light, and the miles davis - so what.

First up were the PMC IB2's. These look great with light oak cabinets sporting slightly curved edges, with contrasting plain black drivers. Finish is rather good, but not exquiste, looking very purposeful. The cabinets are large and particuarly deep. They were positioned about a metre from the rear wall and slightly toed inwards. Upper drivers were positioned to the outside edge. The high and mid frequencies were very clear, smooth and totally natural. I couldn't really find anything to criticise here to be honest. I was happy to sit there soaking up the sound. The bass however was quite astonishing. I've never heard anything like it at all. The sheer low frequency volume, absolute extension and at the very same time exhibiting unreal control and range of tuneful notes, was simply breathtaking. Particuarly on track 6 and 10 on madonna's ray of light. I couldn't help turning the air blue, such was the shock. It made my RELQ400 sub sound like a slow, blurred, one note weakling. This is the only time I have ever heard high fidelity bass at proper high volume. The simultanious combination of such deep volume with sharp notes was a revelation. I laughed about it with Michael and sat there shaking my head in bewilderment. Truly a king of bass output AND control. Very shocking.

Next the ATC 100 active. This is an equally large brute. Styling is far boxier and very plain. Not such a nice object to have in your lounge really. They were positioned about a metre from the rear wall and slightly toed inwards. Upper drivers were positioned to the outside edge. As soon as the same songs came on it was clear the ATC's have superior upper frequencies. They are just slightly more open, detailed, airy and effortless around the voices. The music seemed to hang in the air with a very wide sound stage. The PMC's seemed slightly more closed in and only focused upon the centre spot. Although my description makes it sound like a large difference in the two, in reality it was only 15% or so. The much larger difference was to be found at the lowest bass frequencies. The ATC's by comparison lacked the same extension, low end volume, and to a smaller degree absolute control and tightness. The ATC's bass was very good indeed, but the PMC's were frankly, stupidly, bloody awesome. Annoyed at this bass difference I had the ATC's moved closer to the rear wall, at around 40cm, to try and beef them up. Immediately the lower bass volume picked up, closing the gap a fraction. However, now the bass was slower and a bit messy, by comparison. In fact it now sounded like my REL at home, struggling to keep pace.

At this point we stopped for a chat. I asked Michael if he would mind cutting both pairs in half to make me a 'cut and shut' model, using the best of both. I really wanted the open presence of ATC's highs, with that unreal PMC bass. Alas nothing else could be done to improve the ATC's bottom end. So the only remaining solution was to try and improve the PMC's upper frequencies, to try and match that of the ATC's. I asked for the best equipment to be dragged into service, money no object. Something must surely improve the PMC's upper range presence a touch. We had a ton of kit at our disposal - Mark levinson, AVI, Naim, Bryston, Rega, etc. So I'm expecting some seriously pricey gear to be selected. But Michael suggests a tiny little gizmo called a Whest, looking like a dac, but it's not. It's just £1k worth of filter that works on an unbalanced in & output, slotted between the cd player and preamp. Now I think he's having a laugh, and I expect we're about to waste our time. Anyway, in it goes and we sit back for a listen.

The PMC IB2, using a Whest gizmo is in a different league altogether. All of a sudden the music pops out of the speakers and floats in the air. The sound stage is now just as wide as the ATC's, quite remarkably. I couldn't believe I was hearing such a difference. It was akin to using a valve preamp instead of a dull & flat solid state pre. How or why this Whest achieve's it, I don't know or care. Quite simply I need one and that's that. So is this new PMC setup a match for the awesome ATC high's? No. It still isn't quite as good, but we are now talking only a 2%ish gap, instead of the previous 15%. Now the differences are that small I can live with them to be honest.

In summary we have two awesome speakers, that excel in different areas. These are the finest two models I've ever had the pleasure to demo. I could happily live with either, and will recommend both to anyone who asks. However, to be fussy....

The ATC's are still unmatched for upper most clarity. These are the high fidelity supremo's in my experience, even if it's only by a tiny margin. However the PMC IB2's are truly amazing all round in the right setup. I can live with their tiny 2%ish dip in upper clarity for that tremendous bass experience. These PMC's are so much fun on rock, pop, and even on more sensible double bass, miles davis type tunes. For me personally I had more enoyment listening to the PMC's. However if you mostly listen to classical music then I would reccommend the ATC's as having the slight edge. As my music collection is mostly newer, louder, beat driven and not as sensible as many of you guys, I will be ordering some IB2's shortly. Now I just need to listen to some valve preamps with the IB2's to try and gain even more from the upper reigons. If I had the money and space for two rooms it would be nice to have both pairs, for different moods.

Very suprised, Paul.

Nice write-up, Paul.

Did you try the Whest thingy with the ATCs?

Interesting dem Paul - sorry I couldn't make it in the end.

I think you should try demoing the speakers at your house before you lay down the cash. I found that Cornflake demo room quite misleading when listening to the 50s. My experience with the 50s was that the bass was wallowy and unbalanced, although it improved a bit when we moved the 50s closer to the back wall. Obviously it's very different in my house, as you've heard. So I would be a little wary of buying the PMCs over the 100s without hearing them in your room - they might well sound a lot thinner in your living room, and the apparently less controlled ATCs might sound just controlled enough. Really hard to say with shop dems in general and that room in particular.

Did you listen to 50s, by the way, or did you stick with the larger speakers?

Andrew

PS Whest review here:

http://www.whestaudio.co.uk/pdfs/WhestDAP10.pdf

We didn't use the whest with the ATC's as it only has unbalanced connectors.

I only listened to the 100's in the end, as I already know your 50's quite well.

I may sound a little too excited looking back in retrospect. Something to do with cranking out some great loud tunes I guess! I will not buy anything for a few weeks and mull it all over anyway.

I repeat, I could happily live with either. ATC and PMC are both AWESOME! Love them both - a lot :)

Paul.

From the description, it looks like the Whest adds a bit of second and maybe fourth harmonic, always a good recipe for livening up the sound a bit.

Remember there is no right and wrong. No speaker was better than another. It just so happened that I had more fun, in my mood at the time, with my music, in that particular room with the PMC's. I could feel differently in another mood / room etc.

Andrew, remeber when we swapped the CA2 with a valve pre in your system? The west sounds like that - all open and fun, live, natural, less harsh. But the bass remains unaffected. Very odd indeed.

Originally posted by pauldixonuk


Next the ATC 100 active. This is an equally large brute. Styling is far boxier and very plain. Not such a nice object to have in your lounge really. They were positioned about a metre from the rear wall and slightly toed inwards. Upper drivers were positioned to the outside edge.
They sound better (IME) the other way around.

I just took the reccomendation of Michael to be honest. They were so cumbersome we couldn't keep moving them too much. I guess both speakers will sound so different in various rooms, to each individual's taste anyway. All of the above is only my personal reaction at the time.

The ATC manual recommends tweeters are placed inwards (ie closer to the centre).

By the way, ATC users, how much toe-in do you go for? I am constantly fiddling with mine between dead straight, slightly toed-in (one speaker aiming to the left edge of my sofa and one to the right) and completely toed in (speaker sides aim at my head). I think that I am tending towards the slightly toed-in option at the moment. The floor is getting a bit scratched. Lucky I'm not using Mana stands...

Andrew

Maybe turning the ATC's around and using the whest will leave the PMC's behind a little further, in the upper range.

Best with my 20s is just a liiiitle toe-in is perfect, with a little more if you prefer a more incisive, clearly defined sound at the expense IMO of a more natural, even balance.

Dunno how relevant that is to the big ATCs tho...

Dunc

I'm popping into Cornflake tomorrow to hopefully hear the ATC 50's again, but this time with the Benchmark DAC1. I'm planning on taking my 2 fuse blanks for the DAC1, especially after hearing the sweat analogue improvement in a Naim/ProAc setup last weekend. Mate, that DAC1 is some stunning VFM! I'll hopefully try to listen to the PMC's while I'm there, but were they really that good on Bryston amps? They used to have some nice Levinson at corny.

Then it's onto Derby for a listen to Kevin Scott's Living Voice OBX-R2's with some expensive valves in a few weeks, and hopefully gain an idea of what direction to take for HIFI/music heaven.

Keep feeding the ideas?

Please do listen to the PMC's to arrive at your own opinion. You may think the PMC's are no good at all, which is absolutely fine. Post up your thoughts though, as more reactions give a balanced view for other readers. It may yet transpire that I have no taste at all, having failed to fully escape my teenage car audio days. :)

I want that benchmark too. It's better than cornflakes £5.5k levinson 390s in my opinion. The £6k ayre cdp was good, although no better than the £3k ayre, to me anyway. You may need proper music to tell the difference.

Ive heard the 50's and they are amazing, they made an aniversery version that was a floorstander I believe it looks very interesting but i believe it was quite expensive. Although if your considering active SCM50's you must have some money!

Originally posted by Andrew B.

By the way, ATC users, how much toe-in do you go for?
None. But I'm on phase 11 Mana.

I should perhaps reiterate that the factory stands do ATC 50s and 100s no favours at all, and that the two worst shop demos I've ever had inflicted on me were using ATC 50As and 100As.

Will these mana have much effect on the PMC IB2's I wonder? Where can I borrow some for a home demo, in the south east?

PMR,

The bryston gear is designed with PMC in mind, hence the unusually good synergy between them. The levinson and krell £10k monster power amps may sound a *tiny* bit better around voices and high's - almost a tad more airy, if you like. However this 1% improvement is not worth a quadrouple price tag. Bryston are also immune to upgrading cables and powersupplies, which can save a fortune. The final nail in the coffin for me is the build quality. Many people have krell's repaired due to overheating issues. However no Bryston customer has ever paid for any repair in the companies entire histroy. Even those who's 20 year warranty expires!

Bryston power amps are the benchmark dac1 of amps IME: ie, a major cut off point in diminishing returns.

I want to try a decent valve preamp with a Bryston power amp to see what the result is like. (AR25mk2 is on my demo list).

Originally posted by pauldixonuk
Will these mana have much effect on the PMC IB2's I wonder? Where can I borrow some for a home demo, in the south east?
Would be worth a try.

Well, to start with, their room (the one at the back) has a few bass problems as mentioned by Paul I think, and to get a better idea of the overall ATC sound, you should be standing and ideally closer to the entrance door, rather than in their comfortable seating positions. If not, the mid-lower range seems to disappear a bit, not in a negative, but rather in a disconcerting way.

First things first, time to take out the DAC1, get it plugged in and blow away the Mark Levinson and Naim CDS3. Well, if only I had the chance! By time I had contemplated my attack, the DAC1 was reading the ML390S digital signal via my Van Den Hul “The First Ultimate” coaxial cable, using the DAC1’s preamp and XLR balanced connections, and it was time to listen.

First thoughts:

Since listening to the ATC 50’s about 1 1/2 years ago, I expected the usual very live, informative, bass tight, and slightly harsher sound than most systems I'm used too. Well, that’s exactly what I got this time, and after playing 10 different CD's from great to poor recordings (very impressively too) it was time to try the DAC1’s power lead which was not used when first setting-up. I guess the demo guy though it wouldn't make a difference!

Revelation:

I wonder how many people don’t have their ATC’s on dedicated mains. I also wondered how many people spend huge amounts of money on expensive power leads (used prior) when the fault is elsewhere in the system. Well, there’s no fault with the DAC1, because by the time my demo man replaced Cornflakes lead with the original supplied with the DAC1, the system displayed on the warm emotion you find on the best systems, plus all the accuracy, pace and speed you don’t.

Power leads seem to make a massive, huge, enormous difference with the DAC1, especially based on my experience today. Fuse blanks in the DAC1 provides an analogue smoothness, though relatively slight, and given a dedicated mains supply, I mean, I’d hate to think what 10mm dedicated spurs would do for the DAC1, let alone the ATC's??

The ATC 50 must be one of the most tweak’able speakers! They are so sensitive to the source information, cables and power supply, that one must really spend time setting-up and getting them performing correctly. You can just plug them in, and yes, great, but once you get them playing all tunes smoothly and likeably, they are stunningly good speakers and excellent value for money. They offer a performance that no Naim or comparable stack system can ever manage to compete with IME, especially in terms of their clarity, tonal accuracy, bass control, and in the effortless speed by which dynamics are produced. Are they musical? If it’s on the recording, you’ll hear it. It’s that type of speaker! And it’s not for everyone! Which is why I want to hear valves through the Living Voice OBX-R2’s, just in case I prefer the magic to the powerful stunts this duo performed.

My favourite tracks of the day were Smashing Pumkins “Spaceboy” and Davy Spillane “Darklight”, which both left me without doubt just how excellent these speakers can sound. Jane’s Addiction gave the system a hard time, but in comparison, most systems stop working. Pink Floyd “The Wall” sounded great; Jeff Buckley was in the room with me with “Everybody Here Wants You”, Jack Johnson sounded better than on my Grado RS1’s with “Taylor”, and The Flaming Lips were on fire with the recording ripped apart for bad production. You can’t win them all, but I really like Flaming Lips…oh bugger! Maybe I need a valve preamp?

I didn’t get a chance to listen to the PMC IB2, but I did manage to listen to the Vivid Audio K1’s or B1’s I think, about £7000 using Bryston amps, but in comparison to the ATC’s, you had a more tradition HIFI sound that was plain muddy in comparison. Still easily better than most floor speakers I’ve heard, smooth and very refined, but never a match for the ATC’s.

All in all, that’s £900 for the source (plus transport) and £7500 for the speakers.

Now, Naim a system you think is better? HOW MUCH!

Shame you didn't listen to the PMC's. I wondered if it was just me who enjoyed that sort of presentation so much. Did you try the Whest gizmo at all?

The Flaming Lips were on fire with the recording ripped apart for bad production.
Which album?

Hi Paul

I was so enjoying the music, time just flew. I saw the Whest gizmo is its long sleek case, but the top-end was so smooth, and to think Cornflake probably has pretty bad mains, I didn’t feel the need to use it. Wish I had now, just in case I was missing something.

The Flaming Lips album was “Yoshima Battles Pink Robots”.

Apparently, you should hear the ATC and big brother preamp with the Avid turntable! Wonders never cease.

We temporarily used the SCA2, but stuck with the bryston pre for the a/b.

The Whest not only made things smoother and more natural on the pmc's, more importantly it gave the soundstage a massive scale in the air. Without it I found the music trapped inside the speaker boxes, with a very narrow focus. The atc's howerver probably don't need it as their highs are spot on anyway.

Anyone heard meadowlark speakers here? I've ben told they're rather good and have huge sub bass extension down to 22hz.

Paul, I think you need to try and get to listen to some (meadowlarks that is). Some people think they are absolutely great speakers, others are not so enamoured with them.

Originally posted by PMR

The Flaming Lips album was “Yoshima Battles Pink Robots”.

Badly-produced?

The Flaming Lips just sounded totally compressed, harsh and fairly useless in comparison to Jack Johnson etc. Not so match a bad production, but rather a poor or over mixed/dubbed sounding recording. It left me running for the eject button on the ATC’s. Sounds smoother and more likable on vinyl (comes in red), but this is one album my iPod gets to enjoy only.

I have the pink vinyl version, and the production is superb. I suppose this is yet another bad CD.

Has anyone ever managed to integrate a sub into an atc set up, PROPERLY? I'm thinking along the lines of a velodyne or transmission line pmc design. I know some people use a tact gizmo to blend everything together. However this has the problem of not being able to use two products I really want; benchmark dac and a valve pre amp. Any other solutions that really work?

This is my alternative to buying a pair of pmc IB2's.

http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/sb100.html

http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/xb2.html

http://www.velodyne.com/velodyne/products/product.aspx?ID=4&sid=857h118x

Any other solutions that really work?
Solution to what problem? Unless you have a very, very large room indeed, there is no need for a subwoofer.

Wrong again, bub.

If you have a small/medium room a high quality sub with a high quality pair of main speakers is probably more desirable than having large speakers. Especially if you can EQ out room nodes to get a genuinely flat response from say 100 hz down to subsonics. Something not even your mighty system is capable of.

Again? When have I ever been wrong?

If you are obsessed with low frequency sound, that's OK. Personally, I think subs tend to introduce more problems than they solve. I'd rather have very good quality sound down to, say, 100 Hz, than crap sound with extension as low as 20 Hz.

From the REL site FAQ section (vested interest, obviously):

Q5. A sub-bass system is no good to anyone with a small listening room.
A5. It was this aspect of bass reproduction that started Richard Lord’s quest for a solution. The REL ABC will ensure that the sub-bass system matches your room. It drives your room at below its lowest eigentone (the lowest frequency affected by your room). By simple adjustment of the ABC it is easily and quickly possible to ensure that there is no "room boom" (the usual consequence of using any speaker with an extended bass response in a small room).

When have I ever been wrong?

Modesty isnt you forte is it bub!


Personally, I think subs tend to introduce more problems than they solve.

I would agree this is the case for a large majority of commercially available ones (unfortunaletly that includes RELs IMO), but there are some that do it right.


I'd rather have very good quality sound down to, say, 100 Hz, than crap sound with extension as low as 20 Hz.

So would I, but it is possible to have both. I suspect you arent going to 'get' this point until you have heard a system which does it right.

I spent the last few years tweeking the REL now and again. I ended up with it virtually turned off as any increase in volume made it sound all blurred. No matter what the dial settings or placement, in a couple of different rooms, it always sounded muddy. It would never come close to the crispness and articulation of the pmc's I recently heard. I gave up with it, and sold it on sunday night.

I either need a decent sub or those pmc's. What makes the guessing game fun is I'm moving to a larger room soon.

The ST series of RELs are much faster than the Q series that you had. Also the Strata (which I have) is a sealed box, not ported. It was quick enough to keep up with my SBLs but I haven't tried it with my ATCs since they go pretty low anyway. But I will give it a go.

As Neal said, you can in fact eliminate or reduce room modes at higher frequencies by introducing a sub at very low ones.

Andrew

I spent the last few years tweeking the REL now and again. I ended up with it virtually turned off as any increase in volume made it sound all blurred. No matter what the dial settings or placement, in a couple of different rooms, it always sounded muddy. It would never come close to the crispness and articulation of the pmc's I recently heard. I gave up with it, and sold it on sunday night

Paul,

I think this is the classic mistake many people make with subs. They have a pair of very high quality main speakers and then try and pair them up with a cheap sub with relatively poor quality drive units, amp modules and crossovers which produces high distortion and expect to be blown away by the sound.

It doesnt work like that IME. Getting high quality bass is very expensive, you need large high quality low distortion drivers and amps etc. And this wont come cheap, no matter whether you use large speakers or a sat/sub approach.

To give you an example, Some of the best bass I have ever heard comes from a pair of self build JBL subs, the drive units alone cost around £1500 each, let alone the cabinetry etc. If these subs were available at retail they would cost well in excess of £10K.

Originally posted by NeilR
...it is possible to have both. I suspect you arent going to 'get' this point until you have heard a system which does it right.
I may be in for a long wait.

Neil & Bub, I suspect you're right. A home sub is a tricky thing. When I bought my REL I just followed all the mag review hype and dove in. I think I'll keep it easy and just get the IB2's, as they seem to suit my music and warped requrements to a tee:D

sorry but can someone explain why a sub speaker would not work as it is just another driver and i can't get my head round why it would not work because it is a separate brand or unit can they tell what the rest of the system is or what music is being played ?
how is a sub different to a well extended bass driver in a 3 or 4 way system ?
please can the experts explain ?

Originally posted by NeilR
Wrong again, bub.

If you have a small/medium room a high quality sub with a high quality pair of main speakers is probably more desirable than having large speakers.
This sub is recommended to be used with SCM20ASL PRO. Not a bad combo, I'd recon, especially if you're dabbling in A/V as well, the combo is less than a pair of SCM100ASL's.

ATC Sub1/15 Pro (http://www.transaudio.com/atcsub115pro.html)

My old sub had a few problems, mostly it was far too slow. It could do one loud thump, or one long blurred sound. It couldn't make tuneful tight bass, or sub bass notes, which are obviously rather useful in music. I think what Neil is saying is that my old sub was a cheap pile of crap, and I shouldn't have expected anything better. Maybe you need a bloody large amp or a half decent design for these things to work properly - ie lots of £££.

Neil is right IMO and truly decent subwoofers for use in a music system really do seem to cost well in excess of £1K per unit - and ideally you want two of them.

Tricks to integration are many, although it must be said that the likes of the Velodyne DD series make the process no more time consuming that normal speaker positioning.

In my experience high levels of distortion are what give most of the subwoofers on the market away, and make them next to impossible to integrate properly in a two channel setup. Rel are a typical example here - huge levels of second and third harmonic making the overall presentation sound disjointed at respectable levels.

ATC speakers for example provide good low distortion bass by tuning the cabinet to roll off below the driver resonance sharply. Sadly this results in the fabled missing octave in most cases, and you really don't know what you are missing until you get that octave back with comparable quality levels. BTW the most obvious effect of this is usually an opening up of the midrange and treble and an ease of presentation.

Anyway, IMO it's worthwhile, but only if you are prepared to do it properly and that, sadly is damned expensive.

anyone tell me how you go about setting a subwoofer up as i have a strange feeling that a lot of you have read hi fi mags and not acoustic professional set up instructions so please explain the process from getting it from the shop and out of the box then what do you do ?
please explain in numbered steps for an ignoramus like me , thank you ....

Darryl, This is how you do the velodyne.

http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6660

Way too many variables I'm afraid. What are the room dimensions? What subwofer are we talking about? What main speakers are we using? The list goes on....

That is one of the reasons that the Velodyne DD series is so successful - simply because it allows you to see the effects of your positional/phase/crossover adjustments in real time on a TV screen.

If you want some starting points, I find that the mains should be crossed over to the sub(s) an octave above their F3 point and that the subwoofer should be capable of operating an octave above this point for best results. Start by placing the subwoofer one thrid of the way along the front wall and make sure the drive unit is within 50cm of the wall to ensure that the back wave is reflected off the wall in phase with the direct sound below 80hz. Corner placement will give you a 12db lift in output but will also excite all room modes and should therefore only IMO be used if the subwoofer is incapable of generating high levels of deep low distortion bass and with the application of EQ. Following these points should give you a good sttarting point. Then the time consuming part of fine tuning begins - or of course you could just buy a suitable EQ pack and save a lot of time and uncertainty.

That velodyne DD12 looks like it would partner some 50's on mana rather well. Sounds like an interesting idea.

One thing, does that velodyne sound natural?

All small, sealed, over powered subs I've heard sound rather forced. Kind of like they don't really want to play ball, if you like. By comparison the transmission line pmc sounds very natural, free flowing and airy - yet still tight. It's hard to explain. Do you catch my drift?

Totally natural and uncoloured. Due to the servo feedback mechanism It has less than 1% THD, lower than any speaker you can buy. Your ATCs will be more coloured in the bass than the velodyne.

With the ATCs, If you can stretch to it, I'd probably go for a DD15 (£3k) or a pair of DD12s.

Edit:-

Uncle eric (a UK Dealer for velodyne) has an ex dem DD12 for sale over here (http://www.avtalk.co.uk/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=12335&start=0&rid=0&SQ=0) You might be able to pick it up for a good price. And you'll be able to visit his 'batcave' AV dem room where he has 2 DD18s in operation. Should be quite an experience, I imagine.

Originally posted by pauldixonuk
One thing, does that velodyne sound natural?


Paul, a well set up subwoofer does not add any sound of it's own and the Velodyne is capable of this. I know what you mean, real bass breathes - this fascination with nun's chuff like bottom ends is wholly unatural in most cases.

To give you some examples, many people team the DD18 or DD15 with Quad 988/989's without compromise. If you listen to a sub properly setup in isolation, it will soon become clear that it really is not contributing anything to what we recognise as notes in music, all of that information still comes from the mains.

I guess what I'm hoping to achieve is to make the atc's bottom end sound like the pmc IB2's. The difference lies in the volume of bass and particuarly sub bass tones. So in essence I would want the sub have a fairly large audiable input. Are you saying this would be considered an incorrect setup? Are you saying I should only feel it, rather than hear it?

Unless you are really into AV and/or possibly church organ music, what is the point?

IME a well-integrated sub is barely audible. You only notice it's there at all when you switch it off. And two subs are better than one.

My experience of PMC bass is that it's pretty over the top, so much so that the midrange disappears. But it's all down to taste.

-- Ian

Not a big fan of church music, although there is plenty of sub bass information in rock, pop, dance, new beats type music. Even jazz and, well anything with a double bass instument would benefit from the full available range. It does come down to personal preference though. In the same way that some obsess with the upper range and buy supertweeters etc. Not really my bag, but each to their own.

Originally posted by Blzebub
Unless you are really into AV and/or possibly church organ music, what is the point?

Bub, a well set up subwoofer will open up the midrange, make it sound even more effortless and sweeten the treble. The gains are across the whole range and instruments such as acoustic guitar benefit from increased tangability. You really need to hear it though.

I didn't really notice the pmc's have a recessed midrange. Not to my ears on my music anyway. I did notice the atc's have more air around the highs though, with a smidge more treble detail.

I can definitely recommend ATC subwoofers, especially if your primary interest is music rather than movies. I had a Concept 4 (the big-box, 600-watt, 12-incher) for a while and it was extremely tight, dynamic, and clean, and went very deep (16Hz nae bother on test tones). If you have deep pockets, the 15-incher should do the same - only more so.

The only caveat with ATC subs IME is that they're not very well protected against insanely deep, loud movie LFE tracks that you sometimes get, most notably on THX-certified soundtracks mixed by the likes of Gary Rydstrom. The woofer surrounds is soft (i.e. not stiff like the big American movie subs) and the rolloff is shallow (infinite baffle), so with a couple of the big deep bass test soundtracks (e.g. Toy Story 2, Titan A.E., Attack of the Clones) there would be bits that would cause the sub to bottom out quite badly.

But anyway, never once had that problem with music, and not with the vast majority of movies either - was only when you have signals below 15Hz or so at very high levels. If you can live without movies like that at very high levels, the ATC subs are great. Not cheap, but very very good. None of this one-note boom box nonsense!

Dunc

P.S. - Forgot to mention, one of the downsides of the ATC subs is that they're not especially flexible, which is an area that RELs are very good at (Velodyne DDs even more so). The crossover points are limited, phase is just a switch (not infinitely variable), and they only have line level XLR inputs.

I just has an amusing quote back from cornflake. They want £2.5k more for the same pair of speakers in studio black, as the pro places like canfords.

Are you sure Canfords aren't quoting you the price excluding VAT? Caught me out once before...

Andrew

Would VAT total £3,000?!

Speakers are 7k with vat. Also cornflake are telling blatant porkies. They claim PMC just this minute told them they charge the same amount for studio black as oak finish PMC's. I give up with them now. Bunch of greedy *@&*. Someone else can pay their shop rent and commision.

Originally posted by merlin
Bub, a well set up subwoofer will open up the midrange, make it sound even more effortless and sweeten the treble. The gains are across the whole range and instruments such as acoustic guitar benefit from increased tangability. You really need to hear it though.
A likely story.