ATC SCM40 stumbles the SN2?

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

Allan Probin posted:

Patu posted:

Allan Probin posted:

If we're posting images of active ATC's, would it be ok if I posted a couple of gratuitous images of mine? Please excuse the extreme mongrelness of my system, avert your gaze those of a faint nature.

 

Did you ever compare your 19A with 40? At one point I seriously considered the option of moving from passive 40s to 19A. They’d be enough in my rather small listening room. How to replace nDAC + SN2 and reach the same level of sq without paying a fortune is my biggest concern in this move. I’m afraid active 40s are slightly out of my reach. 

No, unfortunately not. Just passive 19 vs passive 40.

Thoughts on that comparison described here: https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...82#75342530637880182

 

Thank you, now I remember reading your comparison earlier. I have to give this another thought, though I still don’t know what would be the best option in front of active ATC’s. I don’t see 272 as a smart move from nDAC. 

Patu, with active ATCs, the sensible option would be 202 or 282 or keep SN2 as a preamp only

Stringerbell posted:

Patu, with active ATCs, the sensible option would be 202 or 282 or keep SN2 as a preamp only

I'd go for 19A's probably. 40A is little bit too much financially I think. Also in my studio apartment 19A's would be more than enough, especially the active version. But I'd love to retain the Naim sound, which I've loved for over 10 years now. This means that the front end should be Naim. I'm sure that 272 is very special and great sounding unit but can it compete with Naim DAC? NDX wasn't on the same level. Then it'd be nDAC + 202/282 and with 282 things would get pretty expensive already. Also I'd lose the headphone amp on SN2 and would need to replace that somehow. Things like new Hugo TT2 would have all the functions needed (DAC/pre/headphone amp) in one box, quite tempting but it's not Naim. 

Patu posted:

Thank you, now I remember reading your comparison earlier. I have to give this another thought, though I still don’t know what would be the best option in front of active ATC’s. I don’t see 272 as a smart move from nDAC. 

Patu.. I am sorry to quasi-hijack the thread (which has been a roller coaster of emotions so far! ha)

. If you had to choose between pairing a pair of ATC SCM50ASLT with a NAC N172XS vs pairing the same speakers but using a ND5XS and a NAIT XS as a pre.... what would you go for and why?

Ghettoyout posted:

It's taking me quite a bit of time jujst to read this thread. For those doing the typing it must be practically taking over your lives. It's becoming a bit like a soap.

Actually, Google is behind this. They're trialling Google Duplex on 'troll' mode.... 

ROOG posted:

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

Oh and this raises another issue, which balanced source should I consider using when demoing?

ROOG posted:

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

I wouldn’t get hung up,on the power. SCM40A’s most powerful amp (on the bass) is rated at 150w, which I assume is RMS. Based on common amp specs it probably has a peak power capability of around double that before clipping, so maybe 300w. Naim is unusual amongst amp manufacturers in having a peak power capability more than double the rated power, the 80w NAP250 claiming 400w transient capability, so in practice I suspect maximum power delivery playing music is unlikely to be noticeably different (though this says nothing about  grip on the speakers etc).

Patu posted:

Stringerbell posted:

Patu, with active ATCs, the sensible option would be 202 or 282 or keep SN2 as a preamp only

I'd go for 19A's probably. 40A is little bit too much financially I think. Also in my studio apartment 19A's would be more than enough, especially the active version. 

Pity, as the 40 is the base model bringing ATC’s sublime midrange unit to the party!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Patu posted:

Stringerbell posted:

Patu, with active ATCs, the sensible option would be 202 or 282 or keep SN2 as a preamp only

I'd go for 19A's probably. 40A is little bit too much financially I think. Also in my studio apartment 19A's would be more than enough, especially the active version. 

Pity, as the 40 is the base model bringing ATC’s sublime midrange unit to the party!

I know, I've used passive 40's (mkII) since 2014 and the midrange is their biggest strenght IMO. Combined midrange/bass unit on 19A shouldn't be a slouch either though. I haven't decided anything yet, just playing with options here. 

Alonso posted:

Patu.. I am sorry to quasi-hijack the thread (which has been a roller coaster of emotions so far! ha)

. If you had to choose between pairing a pair of ATC SCM50ASLT with a NAC N172XS vs pairing the same speakers but using a ND5XS and a NAIT XS as a pre.... what would you go for and why?

Alonso,
I owned nait xs and nd5xs, still own SN2. And before the 19a , I had the 19s passive. With those ATC , you really need a great source and a great preamplifier , or you are willing to listen to only half of our music collection. so if i had to choose i would take nd5xs and nait xs , as they leave room for upgrades. something you will need
very quickly with those 50a.

Stringerbell posted:

Alonso posted:

Patu.. I am sorry to quasi-hijack the thread (which has been a roller coaster of emotions so far! ha)

. If you had to choose between pairing a pair of ATC SCM50ASLT with a NAC N172XS vs pairing the same speakers but using a ND5XS and a NAIT XS as a pre.... what would you go for and why?

Alonso,
I owned nait xs and nd5xs, still own SN2. And before the 19a , I had the 19s passive. With those ATC , you really need a great source and a great preamplifier , or you are willing to listen to only half of our music collection. so if i had to choose i would take nd5xs and nait xs , as they leave room for upgrades. something you will need
very quickly with those 50a.

Thank you for your reply. The NaitXs/ND5XS allows what you aptly point (upgrade). I would not have the funds for my endgame straight away, so starting with a S\H SCM50A would be nice, (read huge) step from my current set up, building down the rest when/if funds allow. The ‘If’ is big here. 

ROOG posted:

ROOG posted:

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

Oh and this raises another issue, which balanced source should I consider using when demoing?

Balanced or unblanced sources could be used of course with the right interconnects. When I bought my 19A's I had two sets of cables made up, balanced to balanced and unbalanced to balanced so I could try both options at leisure with my Akurate DS. Both cable sets were relatively inexpensive and made from identical cable (Canare Starquad) and Neutrik connectors, apart from the phono's on the unbalanced to balanced set. I preferred the balanced to balanced arrangement so now I've upgraded to a 2m pair of Linn Silver balanced interconnects (XLR to XLR) as my permanent cables and that was a nice step-up again.

Alonso posted:

Patu posted:

Thank you, now I remember reading your comparison earlier. I have to give this another thought, though I still don’t know what would be the best option in front of active ATC’s. I don’t see 272 as a smart move from nDAC. 

Patu.. I am sorry to quasi-hijack the thread (which has been a roller coaster of emotions so far! ha)

. If you had to choose between pairing a pair of ATC SCM50ASLT with a NAC N172XS vs pairing the same speakers but using a ND5XS and a NAIT XS as a pre.... what would you go for and why?

I’d go for the first option since it’d feel silly to have Nait XS in the chain but only use the preamp part of it. That’s why I don’t want to keep my SN2 either i’d go for active speakers. 

Patu posted:

I’d go for the first option since it’d feel silly to have Nait XS in the chain but only use the preamp part of it. That’s why I don’t want to keep my SN2 either i’d go for active speakers. 

I'm totally with you Patu... it does feel silly, sort of 'limp mode' to have an integrated in the chain to use only the pre element of it... totally agree... but from a purely SQ perspective, would you agree with Stringerbell?

bear in mind that neither or the proposed options are seen as 'end-games', they are just until fund allow an improvement, having said that, it could be a couple of years

Alonso posted:

Patu posted:

I’d go for the first option since it’d feel silly to have Nait XS in the chain but only use the preamp part of it. That’s why I don’t want to keep my SN2 either i’d go for active speakers. 

I'm totally with you Patu... it does feel silly, sort of 'limp mode' to have an integrated in the chain to use only the pre element of it... totally agree... but from a purely SQ perspective, would you agree with Stringerbell?

bear in mind that neither or the proposed options are seen as 'end-games', they are just until fund allow an improvement, having said that, it could be a couple of years

If it's only a temporary solution then even more so, go for the one box solution until you have saved for the end game option. I'm sure Naim has 272 update in the pipeline to be released in 1-2 years with new streaming tech, color screen etc. I don't feel comfortable commenting on the sq since I haven't heard any of the components mentioned. My first Naim amp was the original SN + HC2 and then I upgraded to SN2 + HCDR later on. Nowadays it's SN2 + PSU from another manufacturer. 

Patu
Alonso already has nd5xs and naitxs. he can build on those two components by adding a PSU  or a external dac later. replacing that with a 172xs would be a step backward
in SQ and also in terms of upgrade options. that streaming preamp cannot be upgraded at all

Stringerbell posted:

Patu
Alonso already has nd5xs and naitxs. he can build on those two components by adding a PSU  or a external dac later. replacing that with a 172xs would be a step backward
in SQ and also in terms of upgrade options. that streaming preamp cannot be upgraded at all

Ok, I wasn't aware. Of course in that case you can just stick with what you have or maybe if you find used 172xs, you save some money by switching the current gear for that one. 

Stringerbell posted:

Patu
Alonso already has nd5xs and naitxs. he can build on those two components by adding a PSU  or a external dac later. replacing that with a 172xs would be a step backward
in SQ and also in terms of upgrade options. that streaming preamp cannot be upgraded at all

Stringerbell, thank you for clarifying this to Patu on my behalf, it was very kind of you. 

Yes... I have those two components already. Selling the Nait XS and the ND5 XS would not only represent the usual hassle but also materialising the monetary depreciation; only to get a streamer (NAC N172 XS) that ultimately is an (un-upgradeable) stop-gap solution

Innocent Bystander posted:

ROOG posted:

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

I wouldn’t get hung up,on the power. SCM40A’s most powerful amp (on the bass) is rated at 150w, which I assume is RMS. Based on common amp specs it probably has a peak power capability of around double that before clipping, so maybe 300w. Naim is unusual amongst amp manufacturers in having a peak power capability more than double the rated power, the 80w NAP250 claiming 400w transient capability, so in practice I suspect maximum power delivery playing music is unlikely to be noticeably different (though this says nothing about  grip on the speakers etc).

Thanks IB, yes I recall power ratings aren't the entire picture, I will audition

Allan Probin posted:

ROOG posted:

ROOG posted:

I have heard the passive ATC SCM 40's with my amp and with another demo'ed at home, but I can see that I am going to have to line up a demo with passive SCM 40's with a NAP 250dr against Active SCM 40's.

It is of interest to me that both amp speaker solutions add up to similar ball park costs, the passive solution being more flexible but potentially less power. Committing to the active speaker solution feels like a big step for me, but it would be neat!

Oh the decisions, the 1st world decisions!  :0)  

Oh and this raises another issue, which balanced source should I consider using when demoing?

Balanced or unblanced sources could be used of course with the right interconnects. When I bought my 19A's I had two sets of cables made up, balanced to balanced and unbalanced to balanced so I could try both options at leisure with my Akurate DS. Both cable sets were relatively inexpensive and made from identical cable (Canare Starquad) and Neutrik connectors, apart from the phono's on the unbalanced to balanced set. I preferred the balanced to balanced arrangement so now I've upgraded to a 2m pair of Linn Silver balanced interconnects (XLR to XLR) as my permanent cables and that was a nice step-up again.

Thank you for confirming this Allan, I did wonder if you could use unbalanced sources, do you know if this affects the gain and the overall available output ?

With my network streamer, the balanced outputs are 2x the voltage of the unbalanced outputs, i.e. 6db higher, meaning the volume control needs turning down by 6db when using the balanced outputs to achieve the same output from the speakers compared to using the unbalanced outputs.

Or, looking at it the other way, if you're using an unbalanced to balanced connection, your source will need to be turned up by 6db compared to using a balanced connection, which could be an advantage with an analogue potentiometer volume control as it keeps the volume setting higher up in the volume control range, helping to avoid channel tracking volume imbalance issues.

I have recently written to a certain Israeli amp mfg if it’s ok to use their preamp rca to the ATC 40A speakers. The reply was no problem with the length however due to the lower voltage of the rca output the ATC 40A amplifier power will drop. Is this the case? 

kaydee6 posted:

I have recently written to a certain Israeli amp mfg if it’s ok to use their preamp rca to the ATC 40A speakers. The reply was no problem with the length however due to the lower voltage of the rca output the ATC 40A amplifier power will drop. Is this the case? 

The convention for signal level is different for balanced and unbalanced, so if you are feeding one into the other the answer in effect is yes, by a factor of 6dB. But it would only be limiting level-wise if with rca-rca you would ever play with the volume setting near the maximum of its range.

The consequence is simply that you’ll need to have your volume control set 6dB higher for the same sound level. Not sure how much movement that is - as that depends on the specific VC design and what is your ‘normal’ setting, but at a guess less than 1 hour if you think in clock rotation terms. In most cases people’s normal listening levels seem to use the volume control well under half of its range, so there is plenty of spare capacity, and in fact it is beneficial as it means the range of settings  from zero to your max level is greater, so you can actually have finer control of volume.

Allan Probin posted:

With my network streamer, the balanced outputs are 2x the voltage of the unbalanced outputs, i.e. 6db higher, meaning the volume control needs turning down by 6db when using the balanced outputs to achieve the same output from the speakers compared to using the unbalanced outputs.

Or, looking at it the other way, if you're using an unbalanced to balanced connection, your source will need to be turned up by 6db compared to using a balanced connection, which could be an advantage with an analogue potentiometer volume control as it keeps the volume setting higher up in the volume control range, helping to avoid channel tracking volume imbalance issues.

I would be careful here... your personal example might be your balanced signal equates to twice the value of your non balanced signal... but that is absolutely not the general case. Typically balanced is the unbalanced signal twice but out of phase with each other, so the combined balanced signal is effectively zero, that is the whole point of balanced so as to reject external noise... zero x anything = zero. Consequently how the balanced signal is treated by the amp will vary on the amp design.

Also you have introduced the term dB as a relative measure between signal level and loudness and that can also be mis leading and  I hope you agree  care is again needed.

Doubling or 2x the  signal voltage (6dB) equates to 4x the amp power, which equates to 2x the sound pressure, which equates to approx 1.52x loudness level. In other words for most people’s perception of music loudness or volume  from their Hi-Fi system, to double the loudness, the signal would need to increase approximately by 3.16x (10dB)