ATC SCM40 stumbles the SN2?

Alonso posted:

"The specification has changed as we decided the 50W recommendation was too low in order for customers to experience the SCM40 at their best. The spec for the speakers has not changed, they measure exactly the same. From experience, I think that the SCM40 would perform better with more power that's available from your Nait XS.  I don’t think moving up to the 80W Supernait is a worthwhile improvement."

I’m not sure that I understand this statement. They seem to be saying that more power is needed, but a more powerful amp won’t help 

ChrisSU posted:

Alonso posted:

"The specification has changed as we decided the 50W recommendation was too low in order for customers to experience the SCM40 at their best. The spec for the speakers has not changed, they measure exactly the same. From experience, I think that the SCM40 would perform better with more power that's available from your Nait XS.  I don’t think moving up to the 80W Supernait is a worthwhile improvement."

I’m not sure that I understand this statement. They seem to be saying that more power is needed, but a more powerful amp won’t help 

They're saying that more power is needed (than what my Nait XS could provide) but moving up to a SuperNait would not be enough! - Hence the 'worthwhile improvement' so yeah, it's an 'improvement' but not worth it... 

but then this is the comment from WHF  (Naim Supernait 2 on 31st January 2014)

"But in use, through a range of speakers including ATC’s SCM 50s, Monitor Audio’s PL300s and KEF LS50s, there wasn’t a moment when we thought it needed greater loudness, dynamics or punch"

and this is about the SCM50!

All they are saying is that the extra power of the SN isn’t enough to make a worthwhile difference. It seems perfectly clear. 

Alonso posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Alonso posted:

"The specification has changed as we decided the 50W recommendation was too low in order for customers to experience the SCM40 at their best. The spec for the speakers has not changed, they measure exactly the same. From experience, I think that the SCM40 would perform better with more power that's available from your Nait XS.  I don’t think moving up to the 80W Supernait is a worthwhile improvement."

I’m not sure that I understand this statement. They seem to be saying that more power is needed, but a more powerful amp won’t help 

They're saying that more power is needed (than what my Nait XS could provide) but moving up to a SuperNait would not be enough!

Maybe they are saying that 80w up from 50w, which is only about 2dB increased headroom, is enough of an increase to be worth the effort/cost.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Maybe they are saying that 80w up from 50w, which is only about 2dB increased headroom, is enough of an increase to be worth the effort/cost.

That's what they're saying. I just was not sure about the numbers...  (mind you, that comment about the SN was regarding the SN1, the SN2 was not out yet when the email exchange took place. I am not sure what was the improvement in power from the SN1 to the SN1 though.

Hungryhalibut posted:

All they are saying is that the extra power of the SN isn’t enough to make a worthwhile difference. It seems perfectly clear. 

This aligns with my experience, my SU (don't know how close the amp in the SU is to a SN2) had poor control over the bass at enthusiastic volume levels 55-58 'on the dial'. By introducing a 220W amplifier (on loan Musical Fidelity M6Si) the bass control improved noticeably.  

If I opt for the SCM40 I will be looking for a 'bigger' amplifier.

I am currently considering alternative speakers, before I jump in  

Lot of love here for the SCM40's. I listened to the SCM40's in a back-to-back comparison with the SCM19's. The SCM19's sounded tight and bouncy, exactly as you would expect from a sealed box loudspeaker. The bass from the SCM40's sounded looser and free'er, a quite different presentation. Not even the slightest hint of boom or overhang from the 19's in a room about 3.5 x 4.5m, very clean and precise in the bass, but not as weighty or extended as the 40's. The 40's seemed to be hinting at some room issues, although I asked if this was the case and was told they were working fine in that room.

I got a sense that the acoustic suspension in the 19 litre enclosure had a firm grip on the mid/bass unit, but the similar sized bass unit of the 40's, working into a 40 litre cabinet, wasn't being controlled to the same degree. Another factor that might be in play is that the 19's are the only speaker in the ATC Entry range that have a Super Linear bass driver from the higher product ranges. It's actually the same one as used in the Classic 20 and SCM20 Pro. A case of less ambitious but higher quality ingredients perhaps? Or, it could just have been a room issue. However, in conclusion, on that occasion, my preference was for the 19's.

Hungryhalibut posted:

All they are saying is that the extra power of the SN isn’t enough to make a worthwhile difference. It seems perfectly clear. 

Well OK, maybe I was being a bit thick, but it didn’t seem like a very well worded statement. Also, out of context, it wasn’t clear which versions they meant, 60 or 70 watt XS, and 70 or 80 watt Supernait. 

Muttonjef posted:

Alonso posted:

Muttonjef posted:

I now have the active 40’s but prior to that the passive’s combined with 272 & 250DR.

In my experience the 250DR worked exceptionally well with the passives and it’s a combination I would wholeheartedly recommend. 

 

So what made you move to actives if the Passives +NAP250 worked exceptionally well? Box count?

Box count wasn't a driver in the move but a welcome benefit.

When the actives were launched I went for a listen out of curiosity more than anything. However, once heard in direct comparison (40's + 272/250DR v's 40A's + 272) for me it was a no brainer. The 40A retained the sound I loved but just added so much more. Every aspect improved which is a significant feat considering how good the passives are. 

Ultimately my audition led to a complete re think and with the offer of an excellent trade in, I've ended up with the Chord Hugo TT feeding the 40A's. 

My move away from Naim in my main system is in no way a knock, but the 40A + TT combination is wonderful and compelling.

Muttonjef's experience exactly mirrors mine, but with different Naim & ATC models.  "The active version retained the sound I loved but just added so much more. Every aspect improved" ...is just what I heard.  So I ditched (sold) my NAP500 and bought the active 100's, retaining the 'Naim' music experience I love. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this 'Naim experience' isn't crreated in the amplifier as many believe, it's a function of the pre-amp, be it 272 or 552, which is acurately reproduced by the ATC active model(s) that we're talking about.

Innocent Bystander posted:

posted:

 But my favourite comment of all is

"Most buyers with this sort of money will not want something that tears into recordings in such a way. "

Which is sort of aligned with the comments of some forum members that dont see ATC loudspeakers as their cup of tea because they focus on the 'recording' (I read this as too revealing) and they do not make music sound 'pretty'  

Interestingly sweeping assumption by the reviewer, and it is clear that there is a good body of forum member who do seem to like what ATC speakers do, generally and SCM40 in particular.

Personally I want the whole system to present the music as recorded and no ‘massage‘ it, or impose a house sound, or emphasise/de-emphasise anything - but of course reality is that everything imposes something of itself, speakers more than most components, however attempts to minimise that are desirable, which is what ATC seeks to do.

Which is what drew me away from my B&W 802Ds and toward my ATC SCM100As. 

I occasionally miss the slight midrange forward presentation of the 802's, but that's only when SWMBO is shouting at the television in the background  (football - Wycombe Wanderers - something I don't undersand fully).

ChrisSU posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

All they are saying is that the extra power of the SN isn’t enough to make a worthwhile difference. It seems perfectly clear. 

Well OK, maybe I was being a bit thick, but it didn’t seem like a very well worded statement. Also, out of context, it wasn’t clear which versions they meant, 60 or 70 watt XS, and 70 or 80 watt Supernait. 

Very possibly they weren’t aware of different versions of each - anyway, In terms of power driving loudspeakers there isn’t a huge difference between these, even the widest jump 60w to 80w only being combination being just 1.2dB, and no difference 70 to 70, so in terms of consideration of available power ATC’s statement seems reasonable

ROOG posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

All they are saying is that the extra power of the SN isn’t enough to make a worthwhile difference. It seems perfectly clear. 

This aligns with my experience, my SU (don't know how close the amp in the SU is to a SN2) had poor control over the bass at enthusiastic volume levels 55-58 'on the dial'. By introducing a 220W amplifier (on loan Musical Fidelity M6Si) the bass control improved noticeably.  

If I opt for the SCM40 I will be looking for a 'bigger' amplifier.

I am currently considering alternative speakers, before I jump in  

I used to have bass control issues with my SU too, but the SN2 should be better in that respect. For me, adding a 200 to the SU helped, despite its lower power rating, but what really cleaned up the bass was adding a 282. 

I've only done extensive side by side comparison with Spendor D7 and my SCM40's. I had D7 in home demo for ~two weeks and I was very close to buy them but changed my mind in the end. It's funny that in Hifichoice review, they also compare these with D7. I do have different opinion of the comparison though. In my system, it was the D7 which sounded super fast and agile compared to SCM40, which already is very fast speaker. D7 is clearly an easier load for the amp and it felt like SN2 had a walk in the park with them when with SCM40's it really has to work. I did get this impression that D7 digs even deeper into the recording than SCM40's, which is really impressive. Both speakers have exceptionally goof midrange. It's slightly more prominent with D7 while it sounds more natural with SCM40. What bothered me in the end was slight listening fatigue in long sessions. Over produced recordings were difficult to listen to with D7. Every now and then the sound got so edgy that I had to pause it. SCM40 has clearly more pleasant sound signature and it can even sound little dark and slouchy after D7. You also have to remember that SCM40 is much bigger speaker than D7.

Patu posted:

I've only done extensive side by side comparison with Spendor D7 and my SCM40's.....

Patu.... did you every try your SCM40 with anything more powerful than the SN2? - I apologise if you have answered this question already

Alonso posted:

Patu posted:

I've only done extensive side by side comparison with Spendor D7 and my SCM40's.....

Patu.... did you every try your SCM40 with anything more powerful than the SN2? - I apologise if you have answered this question already

No I haven't. Only SN2 with two different PSU's and without PSU. I have heard them with 282 + 250DR but it wasn't at my home so it's difficult to compare. Also the space was almost twice as big as my room. But I did like that setup a lot. Many times I've wondered if 250DR (300 is out of my budget) would clearly improve over SN2 but going that route would also mean new pre (this would also get too expensive) or source/pre (272) and I'm not too happy about either of these options. I don't want more boxes at this point and I seriously doubt 272's DAC section could match Naim DAC + PSU. I know NDX didn't.

At this point, if I'm gonna move to some direction, it will more probably be new speakers or then completely change my electronics to something else than Naim. Next thing I might try from Naim is NDX2. 

Patu posted:

Alonso posted:

Patu posted:

I've only done extensive side by side comparison with Spendor D7 and my SCM40's.....

Patu.... did you every try your SCM40 with anything more powerful than the SN2? - I apologise if you have answered this question already

No I haven't. Only SN2 with two different PSU's and without PSU. I have heard them with 282 + 250DR but it wasn't at my home so it's difficult to compare. Also the space was almost twice as big as my room. But I did like that setup a lot. Many times I've wondered if 250DR (300 is out of my budget) would clearly improve over SN2 but going that route would also mean new pre (this would also get too expensive) or source/pre (272) and I'm not too happy about either of these options. I don't want more boxes at this point and I seriously doubt 272's DAC section could match Naim DAC + PSU. I know NDX didn't.

At this point, if I'm gonna move to some direction, it will more probably be new speakers or then completely change my electronics to something else than Naim. Next thing I might try from Naim is NDX2. 

Thank you for your thorough reply Patu

i like your set up very much and it will probably be my next step (from ND5XS/NAIT XS/NEAT MOTIVE2), or at least something very similar to yours.

 Im my case, anything beyond a used SN2 or used NAP250 (non DR) is out of my budget. Obviously those choices carry different implications, both positive and negative; a SN2 would imply swapping my NAIT XS altogether and the NAP250 would mean using the Nait XS as a pre. 

Maybe the question should be, does one want the 'Naim sound' or does one want the way the ATC SCM40 delivers the sound.  If it is the latter then the choice of powerful amps of other brands for reasonable cost is a wider realistic choice.  If it is the former choice to get the best out of the ATC SCM40 with Naim one has to spend alot more money (beyond Supernat 2 price) to get that powerful drive.  I have only heard the ATC SCM40's once at a HIFI Show, but reading between the lines of persons who own or have used ATC SCM40's it seems there is no short cut, to get the best of the speakers particular talents one needs a powerful amp, as ATC advises to its customers.

Romi posted:

Maybe the question should be, does one want the 'Naim sound' or does one want the way the ATC SCM40 delivers the sound.  If it is the latter then the choice of powerful amps of other brands for reasonable cost is a wider realistic choice.  If it is the former choice to get the best out of the ATC SCM40 with Naim one has to spend alot more money (beyond Supernat 2 price) to get that powerful drive.  I have only heard the ATC SCM40's once at a HIFI Show, but reading between the lines of persons who own or have used ATC SCM40's it seems there is no short cut, to get the best of the speakers particular talents one needs a powerful amp, as ATC advises to its customers.

What do you define as, or how would you describe the ‘Naim sound’? 

Allan Probin posted:

Lot of love here for the SCM40's. I listened to the SCM40's in a back-to-back comparison with the SCM19's. The SCM19's sounded tight and bouncy, exactly as you would expect from a sealed box loudspeaker. The bass from the SCM40's sounded looser and free'er, a quite different presentation. Not even the slightest hint of boom or overhang from the 19's in a room about 3.5 x 4.5m, very clean and precise in the bass, but not as weighty or extended as the 40's. The 40's seemed to be hinting at some room issues, although I asked if this was the case and was told they were working fine in that room.

I got a sense that the acoustic suspension in the 19 litre enclosure had a firm grip on the mid/bass unit, but the similar sized bass unit of the 40's, working into a 40 litre cabinet, wasn't being controlled to the same degree. Another factor that might be in play is that the 19's are the only speaker in the ATC Entry range that have a Super Linear bass driver from the higher product ranges. It's actually the same one as used in the Classic 20 and SCM20 Pro. A case of less ambitious but higher quality ingredients perhaps? Or, it could just have been a room issue. However, in conclusion, on that occasion, my preference was for the 19's.

As the OP of this thread. I have got the ATCM19, C3C center to pair with the new Denon 8500 AV amp. 

I have my eyes set on the 40A to integrate into the HT with the upcoming 372 acting as a pre and HT bypass for 2 channels. Will also plan to get 3 pairs of ATC SCM 7s to complete the surround setup.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Romi posted:

Maybe the question should be, does one want the 'Naim sound' or does one want the way the ATC SCM40 delivers the sound.  If it is the latter then the choice of powerful amps of other brands for reasonable cost is a wider realistic choice.  If it is the former choice to get the best out of the ATC SCM40 with Naim one has to spend alot more money (beyond Supernat 2 price) to get that powerful drive.  I have only heard the ATC SCM40's once at a HIFI Show, but reading between the lines of persons who own or have used ATC SCM40's it seems there is no short cut, to get the best of the speakers particular talents one needs a powerful amp, as ATC advises to its customers.

What do you define as, or how would you describe the ‘Naim sound’? 

From my experience of owning Naim system (entry level), its like listening to music after one has drank a can of Red Bull.  Going into finer detail each Naim Amp injects its own character and I suspect going up the chain the sound gets more refined and richer.  As I read with ATC SCM40 speakers they will highlight the type of scource used and the components in the rest  the particular system.  Using brands other than  the Naim Audio with the speakers will obviously produce a different sound. I read that our other member Simon in Suffolk purposefully  uses a Naim power amp (Naim Nap 250.2) to for his ATC SCM 19 speakers rather then have ATC active system because it delivers all those benefits of a Naim Sound rather than a different fidelity sound.

Interesting simile  ...especially as when I have tried Red Bull I didn’t detect any effect on me, other than the lingering rather unpleasant aftertaste, I assume due to its artificial nature whether due to its active ingredient or its artificial flavouring.

The often vague hints more than direct statements about the ‘Naim sound” seem to suggest anything from an enhanced frequency band in the area covering the prime rhythmic information, to being ‘shouty’, to there being no house sound at all, while it has also been said to be different today from a so e years ago. This is what makes me prick up my ears when someone raises the subject of the ‘Naim sound’, trying to understand it better.

My own preference is for a natural sound.

kaydee6 posted:

Allan Probin posted:

Lot of love here for the SCM40's. I listened to the SCM40's in a back-to-back comparison with the SCM19's. The SCM19's sounded tight and bouncy, exactly as you would expect from a sealed box loudspeaker. The bass from the SCM40's sounded looser and free'er, a quite different presentation. Not even the slightest hint of boom or overhang from the 19's in a room about 3.5 x 4.5m, very clean and precise in the bass, but not as weighty or extended as the 40's. The 40's seemed to be hinting at some room issues, although I asked if this was the case and was told they were working fine in that room.

I got a sense that the acoustic suspension in the 19 litre enclosure had a firm grip on the mid/bass unit, but the similar sized bass unit of the 40's, working into a 40 litre cabinet, wasn't being controlled to the same degree. Another factor that might be in play is that the 19's are the only speaker in the ATC Entry range that have a Super Linear bass driver from the higher product ranges. It's actually the same one as used in the Classic 20 and SCM20 Pro. A case of less ambitious but higher quality ingredients perhaps? Or, it could just have been a room issue. However, in conclusion, on that occasion, my preference was for the 19's.

As the OP of this thread. I have got the ATCM19, C3C center to pair with the new Denon 8500 AV amp. 

I have my eyes set on the 40A to integrate into the HT with the upcoming 372 acting as a pre and HT bypass for 2 channels. Will also plan to get 3 pairs of ATC SCM 7s to complete the surround setup.

Yep, taking the active option with ATC is very compelling. The comparison I described above was with the passive speakers and immediately after I was on the verge of pulling the trigger on a pair of 19's, but then I thought about it, and thought about it a bit more, then one day I just said what the hell and bought a pair of 19A's instead. Unheard

I'd also listened to a couple of pairs of ATC Classic series speakers, passive and active. If I had the money and the space to accommodate them, I would have a pair of SCM100A's. I have no doubt. It was also a compelling enough comparison to realise that the performance gap between the passive and active versions was so great that for all practical purposes (i.e. without spending multiple times the value of the speakers themselves on power amplification) it would not be closed, never mind exceeded. Hence I was reasonably confident ordering the 19A's and now very pleased I decided to go that route.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Interesting simile  ...especially as when I have tried Red Bull I didn’t detect any effect on me, other than the lingering rather unpleasant aftertaste, I assume due to its artificial nature whether due to its active ingredient or its artificial flavouring.

The often vague hints more than direct statements about the ‘Naim sound” seem to suggest anything from an enhanced frequency band in the area covering the prime rhythmic information, to being ‘shouty’, to there being no house sound at all, while it has also been said to be different today from a so e years ago. This is what makes me prick up my ears when someone raises the subject of the ‘Naim sound’, trying to understand it better.

My own preference is for a natural sound.

You can’t really understand the Naim sound until you hear a properly set up Naim system.

it not about frequency response at all. It’s more about timing accuracy and emotional aspect of the music

analogmusic posted

You can’t really understand the Naim sound until you hear a properly set up Naim system.

it not about frequency response at all. It’s more about timing accuracy and emotional aspect of the music

so no other manufacturer produces equipment with timing accuracy and emotion. Interesting.

have you ever thought its just a simple matter of you having a preference for Naim. The brand?

many make comments on here about how the amps sound different to other but still blindly move up the ever costly chain. Each to there own i suppose but i would want to evaluate at each stage. Either the products have the same sound but provide more detail etc or they don't, the consesus seems to be they don't. Just my observations from others posts, but just look at comments made by the dr upgrade, makes a huge change to the sound signature.

One individual has just put an order down for the new Naim streamer without even hearing it. Whats that all about. £12K and not even heard it. Will they do any comparison with other products, lets see but i doubt it. You pays yer money and makes yer choice.

crazy hobby this, but by god don't it make interesting conversation 

Foxman50 posted:

analogmusic posted

You can’t really understand the Naim sound until you hear a properly set up Naim system.

it not about frequency response at all. It’s more about timing accuracy and emotional aspect of the music

so no other manufacturer produces equipment with timing accuracy and emotion. Interesting.

have you ever thought its just a simple matter of you having a preference for Naim. The brand?

many make comments on here about how the amps sound different to other but still blindly move up the ever costly chain. Each to there own i suppose but i would want to evaluate at each stage. Either the products have the same sound but provide more detail etc or they don't, the consesus seems to be they don't. Just my observations from others posts, but just look at comments made by the dr upgrade, makes a huge change to the sound signature.

One individual has just put an order down for the new Naim streamer without even hearing it. Whats that all about. £12K and not even heard it. Will they do any comparison with other products, lets see but i doubt it. You pays yer money and makes yer choice.

crazy hobby this, but by god don't it make interesting conversation 

Some very pertinent points here - and relates directly to the thread “Moving away from their signature sound”, started yesterday.