ATC Loudspeakers and Sound Levels

I haven't heard the actives, but perhaps Kuma will chime in.

Kuma was telling me about listening to the 19As (or the 40As?) at Axpona in Chicago and indicated that unlike the passive ATCs they were quite good a low volume levels.

Prior discussion with Kuma indicated, and my own experience with low efficiency Duntech studio monitors, that they typically need significant volume to come alive. 

Acoustics Guy posted:

I would be interested from those who own ATC SCM 40 or 40A (self-powered) loudspeakers to know how they sound at different volume levels. Nearest dealer to me is about 100 km away and I have not heard these loudspeakers. 

I generally listen to lowish levels (less than 80 dBA) to piano, chamber, opera, and when the pipe organ CDs come out, the volume control goes to 11....

Currently have Harbeth Monitor 30.1 loudspeakers. These  sound relatively consistent and low to higher volume levels.

One of my staff used to work in a studio with ATC professional monitors which were played at mind-numbing and ear damaging levels. His impression is great sound but come into stride at higher listening levels.

 

Apart from the speaker sounding good at lower listening levels, another factor is the tone of the piano or other instruments. I have heard the SCM 40 v1 many years ago and two of my friends who own Harbeth speakers have listened to the ATCs, an SCM 19 and a larger (recent) floorstand model. The tonal quality of instruments is different between the Harbeth and ATC.

Best is to listen and judge with your ears as the "correct" tone of instruments reproduced by the speakers particularly piano which I put a lot of emphasis on, will usually be dependent on the listener's preference, subjectively of course.

Acoustics Guy posted:

I would be interested from those who own ATC SCM 40 or 40A (self-powered) loudspeakers to know how they sound at different volume levels. Nearest dealer to me is about 100 km away and I have not heard these loudspeakers. 

I generally listen to lowish levels (less than 80 dBA) to piano, chamber, opera, and when the pipe organ CDs come out, the volume control goes to 11....

Currently have Harbeth Monitor 30.1 loudspeakers. These  sound relatively consistent and low to higher volume levels.

One of my staff used to work in a studio with ATC professional monitors which were played at mind-numbing and ear damaging levels. His impression is great sound but come into stride at higher listening levels.

 

Active ATCs are, IMO, the best way to experience what ATC has to offer. There are a variety of technical reasons for this - best explained on their website. 

I have not heard the 40s, however, ATC have a better house sound consistently found throughout their model range than most brands. A 40 really just provides more of what is offered in say, the 7, 11, or 19. 

I have heard the 7s, 10s, 20s, and 100s - all back in the early / mid 00s. Remarkable how consistent they were. For a bigger soundstage, more bass, and generally moving more air, all you have to do is go up the range.

The biggest difference; however, was when comparing between passive vs active. Here the musical vitality felt robbed on passives unless driven by some serious grunt (i.e. minimum of NAP250) and yes, they did typically seem to lose some cohesion even then at lower volumes. The actives cured this. 

I would imagine 40A's recreating classical music as sublime. 

Hi, I can't speak for the 40s, but I own passive 19s, and I have owned older 12s and 11s, and I can certainly say the current 19s work well at very low volume, and obviously well when the wick is turned up as well.. the new 19s are a significant improvement on low volume performance compared to earlier models which were somewhat challenging. Perhaps it's to do with the new HF driver and crossover which is now quite benign to amps. The. speakers do require extensive running in to fully open up, possibly 100s of hours. I drive mine with a Naim 250, and I am sure the regulated amp helps at providing the consistent performance across volume levels. If however you are consistently going to drive  at very high levels with top performance, then really active ATCs (as with any speaker) will be the way to go so as to reduce the effect of passive crossover/speaker response distortions but of course you will loose the character of your amp such as a Naim.

oh yes, although doesn't affect the 40s, the volume performance of the standmounts seems also quite sensitive to the stands used.. solid mass stands can appear to suppress low level detail and make for a duller low volume performance, but fine at volume, where as rigid open framed light mass stands provide a more agile detailed response across volumes.

Simon

ryder. posted:

Apart from the speaker sounding good at lower listening levels, another factor is the tone of the piano or other instruments. I have heard the SCM 40 v1 many years ago and two of my friends who own Harbeth speakers have listened to the ATCs, an SCM 19 and a larger (recent) floorstand model. The tonal quality of instruments is different between the Harbeth and ATC.

ATC speakers are excellent at reproducing the sound of piano.
Bill Woodman who started the ATC is an amateur piano player and one of the objective for his speaker design was to get the sound of piano right.

Many years ago, I recall when I was auditioning ATC, I was struck by how well they reproduce the resonance of piano, particularly lower frequency, just the way I hear out of the instrument.

When I got to talk to Alan Shaw of Harbeth, he told me that the primary emphasis on Harbeth is the faithful reproduction of human voice at a realistic level and their speakers reflect their objective. This was a few year back and he did touch upon ATC sounding better at higher SPL for large orchestra program.

I was pleasantly surprised at AXPONA how well 40A did at a lower volume. This was something I specifically wanted to hear. In the past, I found their passive floor standers somewhat wanting compared to their older utilitarian studio monitors. I do not know whatelse they did differently with the new 40A aside from the new in-house designed tweeters and a cabinet change, even with an entry level preamp and source, they sounded coherent and did not fall asleep at a low level.   I would imagine micro dynamics would be even better with a Naim source and most importantly preamp )

That said, if the OP likes the sound of Harbeth, he might be better off upgrading your source / pre or go to 40.2 with an appropriate amp.

It all depends on WHY he wants to change from his current set up.

The idea that low efficiency speaker sound dull at low volumes and the high efficiency speaker are good at low volumes is a myth.

It probably arose from early attempts to produce a high efficiency driver by drastically reducing the damping in the spider.

I happen to run the latest SCM40 v2 in my system which is a NDS/555DR/252DR/300DR. There had been mention that the new entry level series sounds fine even at low volumes. With the SCM40, I would say that it sounds mediocre at normal to average volumes and it would need to be turned up in order to sound its best. However there is a problem though with pumping up the volume as most of the entry level series (with the exception of the SCM19) runs the non-SL drivers. They do not really handle huge dynamic swings that well and will distort if pushed hard, and it is definitely possible to push it very hard with a 300 or 300DR and above as it is so clean at high volumes. I ran it with a 250.2 previously and the partnering was fine as the 250.2 wasn't clean enough to reach the volume levels that the 300 could.

We did briefly set up a system with a set of SCM40A's and a 272 here quite some time ago (I can't remember exactly why) and it was just in one of the meeting rooms so not exactly set up for critical listening but as I've always quite liked active ATCs (I had a set of SCM100A's for a little while but my neighbours were going to lynch me) I went down for a listen.

They did seem to work nicely at low volumes from what I remember which did surprise me a little as the SCM100A's definitely had a "take off" point where they started to gel and the 40A's didn't seem to suffer that trait...

Phil  

Phil,

That's very interesting as the one of the things I might consider as an upgrade to the  272 / Nait XS 2 / Spendor SP2s would be active ATCs (possibly more inclined to the SCM19A rather than SCM40A but I'd want to hear both).

It's an interesting alternative to  272 / 200 / Spendor SP2s, or 272 / 200 / SCM11s, or 272 / 250DR / SCM19s.

my scm11s (new version) work just fine at all levels. Love being driven by 250/2DR

Very interesting thread. I use the newest version of SCM40 with my Naim DAC/SN2 + HCDR combo. I guess they would benefit from beefier amp but SN2 does very good job with them. I've never felt that the sound would get sluggish or slow at any point. If it wasn't mentioned earlier, this speaker is extremely fast. It easily outperformed PMC 20.23 in comparison. If I unplug the HCDR from SN2, then the situation changes and SN2 can't quite keep up with the SCM40's. I live in an apartment building so I can't play loud. Of course pretty much every speaker out there sounds best when played louder but I think SCM40 is quite an even performer. When I sit down on the couch just to listen to music, I turn up the volume but otherwise my listening levels are quite moderate. I don't know if the decibel meter apps for iPhone are reliable at all but at the moment it shows little over 80dBA while music is playing. At these levels, SCM40 sounds fantastic. 

I've been contemplating trying ATC SCM40 with my 272/555/250DR.... but suspect I ought to add the active versions to the dem list.

What cabling would be desirable between N272 & SCM40A ??

Thanks to all who replied to my inquiry.

FWIW: There was a positive review in HiFi+ with 272 and ATC SCM40A.

Huge posted:

The idea that low efficiency speaker sound dull at low volumes and the high efficiency speaker are good at low volumes is a myth.

It probably arose from early attempts to produce a high efficiency driver by drastically reducing the damping in the spider.

Certainly not all low efficiency speakers sound 'dull' at low volumes nor as you say are all high effienciy speakers magically alive.  There are other factors at play than just the efficiency of the speaker: crossover, driver size, driver material, impedance curves, phase angle, time alignment, the room itself, the partnering electronics, personal expectations regarding presentation, and so on. Personal experience, for me and others in this thread shows its at least not uncommon to experience passive ATCs as not as 'alive' at low volumes.    As always, a prospective customer's ears will be the best judge. 

To the OP: Hifi+ did a review of the 272+SCM40A this year which is available on their website.  Oddly, the review is not on NAIM's website despite it being quite positive about the 272.

checked the Hifi+ review.... the lady likes the look of them in black.    best arrange a listen

Parlee-king posted:

I've been contemplating trying ATC SCM40 with my 272/555/250DR.... but suspect I ought to add the active versions to the dem list.

What cabling would be desirable between N272 & SCM40A ??

Din --> XLR. I haven't tried SL in this manner, and not sure you can get SL IC in this configuration past 1m in length.

However, I use humble Chord Cobra IC (2m) and it works well. I have mix of Chord (ICs) / Naim (power) and it works very well. 

With the components you're talking about, the Chord Signature TA might be the best match. Worth a demo. 

i have chord shawline between hugo tt and scm40a and its a rematkable cable for the cost. i compared it with some pro audio cables, mogami, van damme, and canare, and much preferred the shawline. the imaging and timbres are superb. im sure stepping up the chord range will improve sq but at the moment i feel no need. anyone thinking about connecting a chord dac to atc actives should read my previous post on custom rca to xlr wiring - it makes a big difference.

thanks guys Demo arranged for next week.

I recently had the opportunity to demo the ATC SCM40A with my DAC-V1 over the period of a couple of weeks.

My current setup DAC-V1, NAP 100, PMC twenty.23 is wonderfully Naim, but the speakers could take a bit more power. I’m quite convinced by the concept of active speakers. I’ve previously evaluated both Meridian and Linn. Most recently the ATC SCM40A and Dynaudio XD 600. I preferred the ATC, so perhaps I’m not yet ready for the Dynaudio’s digital amplification. I was also a little concerned that with the DAC also being in the speaker, upgrade options would be limiting in the long term. It’s also entirely possible that I just gel more with the PMC/ATC sound.

Anyway, I was very impressed with the SCM40A, they have a grip on music that is very difficult to define, because it’s not just muscle, it’s finesse. They are a touch more revealing than my PMCs, which depending on the recording is either a good or a bad thing, but I generally enjoyed. I did feel my PMCs have slightly better imaging, perhaps that’s a 2-way vs. A 3-way thing. I’m not sure.

There is a but. It’s hard to describe, but for me I think I can put it best by saying that it’s the rhythm part in PRAT. It was there, just not in the same measure as my DAC-V1 / NAP 100. Everything else was there, and perhaps with another DAC/Pre like the Hugo TT; I’m pretty keen it just be 1 box, it would be different.

The whole experience leaves me a little frustrated. I love the speaker, love the amplification and concept, and I want a genuine 3 box - 2 speakers and a combined DAC/Pre - system, but the last little bit wasn’t there for me.

Naim have the speaker and amplifier know how to pull of something amazing like the ATC SCM40A, just with that little bit of extra Naimness. Maybe one day.

What next. I’ve tried Meridian, and while I have great deal of respect for Linn, I can’t quite get fully behind the sound. I love my DAC-V1/NAP 100, so perhaps the solution; at least for now, is to put a bigger Naim power amp in my system.

Greg - the imaging bit is as you describe is almost certainly to do with the difference between two and three drivers in your room... but I get totally the point about the Naim sounds - for me despite what people say - its the Naim amps that give that character and bounce - not the NACs.... and so going active speaker (as opposed to crossover free passive speaker)  currently requires moving from Naim amps and losing that Naim sound. I guess if you were not used to the Naim sound it might not be such an issue - but if you are... and it is that that has paused me down that path - and no easy way to home demo..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Greg - the imaging bit is as you describe is almost certainly to do with the difference between two and three drivers in your room... but I get totally the point about the Naim sounds - for me despite what people say - its the Naim amps that give that character and bounce - not the NACs.... and so going active speaker (as opposed to crossover free passive speaker)  currently requires moving from Naim amps and losing that Naim sound. I guess if you were not used to the Naim sound it might not be such an issue - but if you are... and it is that that has paused me down that path - and no easy way to home demo..

I agree here with regard to the NAPs. The 250.2/TT pairing has been running some five weeks and has settled into an astonishigly good three box set-up (with NDX).

G

with imaging i found the scm40a actives to be a step up and more accurate than from my 20.23s. also once u put a chord dac into the mix (using rca outputs, chord shawline rca to xlr) a veil is lifted and everything becomes more real and three dimentional through the scm40a actives. for me it was revelatory.

Kuma, I appreciate your reply in that the ATCs are excellent at reproducing the sound of the piano.

By the way, I just recently listened to the Harbeth M30.1 and have to say that piano and guitars do not sound good to my ears. The sound is muted and dull. The tone of the piano and guitar sounds more live with the SHL5+ (and C7ES3). Of course, my opinion, ears, preference so YMMV.