ATC SCM40 stumbles the SN2?

analogmusic posted:

 

It’s very simple : naim preamps cannot really drive long lengths of cable needed for active speakers unless modified by some method but I don’t know what that is... 

At last you have found what may be a valid point, though presumably the maximum length before noticeable degradation will in practice depend on the electrical characteristics of the cable, and of course there is the question as to whether the merits of the active speakers outweigh the demerits of the longer cable (which can only be determined by listening). Meanwhile from the system pics thread it seems far from uncommon for people to have the electronics midway bewteen the speakers, and not far from them...

Innocent Bystander posted:

analogmusic posted:

I’m on the search for those elusive SL2

with the aspiration for a Naim active system.... 

They crop up sufficiently regularly, though I don’t know how many potential buyers descend on each one. Most recent I’ve seen were advertised in March, possibly refreashed on 10th May though that is unclear. Still showing for sale (€3,500), but of course that doesn’t mean they are actually still available. From Italy (but if I was desperate enough for something I wouldn’t let the location stop me - I have sat on ferries for 7 hours and driven 700 miles to look at speakers, and bought an amp from Canada).

And they are indeed still available, so your search could be over...

analogmusic posted:

No you don’t have a mongrel system

the mongrel systems are those which interfere between the Naim preamp and Naim power amp or the Naim supplied cable used to link them. These are all designed to work as one unit. 

It’s very simple : naim preamps cannot really drive long lengths of cable needed for active speakers unless modified by some method but I don’t know what that is...

hope that clarifies ?

 

 

 

i don’t like personally the atc speakers, active or passive. But a lot of members like them, with a naim preamp for example, and it seems to work well. A member here went from active naim with a nac 552 and 3 nap 500 to a nac552 with active atc100. For him, this last combo is a real upgrade.  Long cable from the naim pre to the active atc seems to work very well for him.

Alonso posted:

Musicraft (Derby) posted:

Or the NAD C325BEE 50w/ch discontinued at £270. No issues over eleven years with 40's MK1 and 40's MK2's

 

From the NAP200 and SU2 ‘struggling’ with the SCM40 to NAD’s C325BEE and NAP100 having no issues with it

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, used sensibly then no issues using a C325BEE and a NAP100   and yes a Supernait 2 is significantly better, a NAP250DR offers another significant jump and so on  

Btw, we've also got clients who are happily using Solo Mini's with 40's

Musicraft (Derby) posted:

Yes, used sensibly then no issues using a C325BEE and a NAP100   and yes a Supernait 2 is significantly better, a NAP250DR offers another significant jump and so on  

Btw, we've also got clients who are happily using Solo Mini's with 40's

How refreshing! - A post that is not feeding the trolls!

I've been trying to reconcile these positions since you made the original post and reflecting upon it, I think the problem is what is that we define as 'sensibly' or 'having no problems with' - We all seem to understand 'no problems with / sensibly' differently - If one were to connect a 5i to a pair of SCM40 or even a pair of SCM150 nothing would "happen", they would still make music, it would still sound ok, there would still be 'no issues' . I guess the engine/chassis analogy helps here - Sure, a 3-cyl Normally aspirated 998cc fitted to an AM DB11 chassis will still take you to London and back at 70mph, it will get there with 'no issues' - the question is simply how much of the potential are we wasting by fitting such small engine to it? How much of the experience are we missing for not matching the engine performance to what the chassis can take... same with the SCM19/40/50 and the NAP100 and Naits and 5is I guess. 

Solo Mini/40's. Clients are fully aware that 40's will benefit from superior amplification. However for reasons such as space, budget, etc. they had to compromise. They like what they hear knowing that the door is open to upgrade. Clients have used the pairing for eight years

Btw, in 2010 a client bought 40's. demoed to him with amps such as a NAP250. Upgraded his amp in 2016 with one at over £3k. For six years he used 40's with an 80's 50w Philips Midi system

Musicraft (Derby) posted:

Solo Mini/40's. Clients are fully aware that 40's will benefit from superior amplification. However for reasons such as space, budget, etc. they had to compromise. They like what they hear knowing that the door is open to upgrade. Clients have used the pairing for eight years

Btw, in 2010 a client bought 40's. demoed to him with amps such as a NAP250. Upgraded his amp in 2016 with one at over £3k. For six years he used 40's with an 80's 50w Philips Midi system

Actually... you've hit the nail on the head. 'Space, budget, etc' - there are a few things that influence our purchase decision making outside the realm of what is purely sound quality /HiFi.... - I know it sounds obvious to you but it's something that puzzled me but yeah, you're right -

Sorry, I have not contributed much with this reply beyond a sense of realisation that everything is a compromise. 

I lived happy for years with a pair of Motive 3 and a 5si then at the shop they decide to hook an identical pair to a Krell Evolution 402e a customer had brought in... just for the giggles. it just blew my socks off and my jaw hit the ground .... ignorance is bliss they say... - I never knew what I was missing (although the Nait 5i / Motive 3 is a sensible match) How many of those customers with SCM40 hooked to smaller amps are happy because they don't know what they're missing (the ones who have not demoed their SCM40/50 with bigger amps before buying the smaller ones of course)

so what were you missing when you heard the Krell?

Below is an interesting article I found on Enjoy the Music. It's well worth a read in the context of the previous debate.

Active Versus Passive Loudspeakers

The performance benefits of active over passive loudspeakers is substantial. Even a system, which incorporates the best available stand-alone power amplifier, will never achieve the performance of a similar active system. Yet active loudspeakers are slow to be accepted for home use, when they are the only choice of the professionals who master your DVDs and CDs.

This is a strange anomaly that doesn't exist in other significant consumer markets. Take the motor industry for example. When buying a car, would you buy the chassis from Ford and the engine from General Motors. Of course not, the engine would have to be unnecessarily modified and overbuilt to be able to drive the many different transmission loads imposed upon it. Yet this is the accepted thinking in the market for residential hi-fi and home theatre installations, where the use of separately sourced amplifiers and loudspeakers, and the extra cost and inefficiency this entails, is not only tolerated, it is recommended! 

Why is it then that the obvious merits of Active loudspeakers long accepted as standard in the professional arena have been slow to be accepted for home use? 

Many Hi-Fi dealers pledge to sell customers the 'best system for their money', and yet they sell separates, when one of the many advantages of self powered active loudspeakers, is a considerable economy in cost, for any given performance level.

Why is this? The common complaint is one of inflexibility. Generally, you cannot upgrade an active speaker with new amplifiers, which limits consumer choice. This is a myth that relies more on the commercial sensibilities of dealers and their suppliers (the separates manufacturers) than on anything else. It is simply the fact that an active loudspeaker is an optimized coupling between amplifier and loudspeaker driver, and is the best solution, and an upgrade in the longer term is unlikely to be necessary. Thus an active system will always provide a superior result than its separate counterparts. Dollar for Dollar, in performance and value for money, there is no contest.

The Professional Approach
The demands of the recording industry were for highly accurate, ruggedly built speakers, capable of reproducing the dynamics and subtleties of the original performance, and frequently capable of being used on location as well as in the studio. 

The only solution to meet this need was to design and build the amplifiers and drive units as a single close matching entity in one enclosure. Hence, Active loudspeakers are today used by virtually every recording company, every major recording studio, and every major film studio.

What then are the main advantages of Active loudspeakers and 
disadvantages of Separates? 
Economics

Firstly, it costs a lot less to design and build high quality amplifiers and drive units in a single enclosure than it does to build similar quality separates. Equal or better performance at lower cost is a good starting point. The advent of DVD and Home Theatre has done much to take the 'black art' out of sound reproduction in the home. Gone are the wooden blocks, and green inks but crazily priced loudspeaker cables are still prevalent. Active loudspeakers only need a low cost, good quality microphone cable, to transmit the high impedance output from today's surround processors. Another major cost saving.

Crossovers: Electronic Vs. Passive
A major source of difficulty in designing a Passive loudspeaker system lies less in selecting the drive units or enclosure, but in designing and building the passive crossover. This device with its large capacitors and resistors receives the low impedance, full frequency output from the amplifier, and divides it between the two, three or more drive units. It is hardly surprising when taking a look at the size and complexity of these non-powered components that the passive crossover can absorb up to 20% of the amplifier's power output. And that's not the only problem! 

The magnitude of the frequency response of both active and passive loudspeakers can be controlled, with good design, to be within 1dB of one another. However, the phase component of the frequency response will always be better in an active system. The active filters produce better filter roll-off characteristics at crossover. Combine this with the inclusion of a variable all-pass filter at each crossover point to correct the phase response of the drive units through the crossover regions and the result is a loudspeaker with much better group delay characteristics. The benefit to the listener will be improved polar response and therefore radiated power response. Such an active loudspeaker will have a large stable sound field with stable imaging and source location. Very difficult and costly to achieve with a passive loudspeaker system.

A passive crossover will only operate correctly into the load impedance of a particular loudspeaker drive unit. However, the impedance of a loudspeaker drive unit will change with the amount of power input. This is because loudspeakers are very inefficient and most of the input power is dissipated as heat in the voice coil. As a result the temperature of the voice coil will rise and because copper has a positive temperature coefficient of resistance the impedance of the loudspeaker drive unit will rise. The result will be frequency response errors as the filters move from their designed response with increased input power. This effect does not occur in active loudspeakers where the filter response is maintained independent of input power to the loudspeaker.

Active Vs. Passive Amplifiers
The Separates amplifier manufacturer, has no idea what is going to be hung on the end of his product. Hence the need (as would be the case in the car analogy), to massively over-build to ensure that the amplifier will sound good with almost any speaker impedance and cable. It is not surprising that the massive amplifiers that typify the high end today are both costly and power consuming. 

These problems of efficiency, size and cost are much reduced in the case of amplifiers designed for Active loudspeakers. Here the designer has the luxury of designing an amplifier pack containing separate mono amplifiers that only have to power one drive unit, whose every performance characteristic, bandwidth, frequency range, power handling, and shortcomings, are known to the designer. 

Because the amplifiers in an active loudspeaker system are only required to operate over reduced frequency bands the intermodulation distortion products present in a passive system will be dramatically reduced, by typically 20dB, in an active system.

For a given amount of amplifier power, an active loudspeaker can be expected to produce approximately 6dB more level (twice as much) than the equivalent passive system. Furthermore, power for each drive unit may be more optimally specified in an active system. A tweeter, for example, requires much less power than a woofer to produce a balanced system performance.

A power amplifier designed specifically for the limited frequency range of an individual drive unit gains further benefits in efficiency, due to the fact that the wider the amplifier bandwidth, the less efficient it is. A well designed two or three way mono active power amp, for a given input and power rating, will always be capable of safely reaching higher peak SPL levels with less distortion than the equivalent single wide band power amp. This additional safety margin is now essential for coping with the wider dynamic range of DVD-Audio, SACD, DTS and Dolby Digital film soundtracks. In an active system the absence of both passive crossovers and long cable runs, together with a known amplifier damping factor, prevents the modification of the loudspeaker drive unit "Q" ensuring better controlled low frequency performance.

Companies such as ATC who design and build both amplifiers and drive units are able to achieve even closer system matching. An Active amplifier usually comprises two or three dedicated mono amplifiers on a plain chassis which is then bolted onto the rear of the loudspeaker enclosure. Thus, there is no need for the customer to pay for the elaborate aesthetics, heavy metal styling currently fashionable in stand-alone amplifiers, which does nothing to enhance performance.

The Future
With high bit rate multi-channel music now a reality, and DVD players like Pioneer's excellent Elite 57AI capable of playing both multi-channel SACD and DVD-Audio music, the Home Entertainment user of today has available sound quality sources never previously available in the home. Whilst there is much debate about the lack of digital interconnects affecting the quality of 5.1 SACD and DVD-Audio, the fact remains that the loudspeaker is still the weakest link in the reproduction chain. It surely makes good sense to install the most efficient transducer available, and that is the well designed and built self-powered Active loudspeaker. 

Those wishing to upgrade to multi-channel and home cinema or install a completely new system, owe it to themselves to seek out and listen to a good Active system, before making their purchase decision. Beware of dealers and installers who only advocate five or more stacked, costly separate power amps, and the expensive cables that connect them. 

Hopefully, the success of Active subs will perhaps lead the way to a greater acceptance of full frequency Active loudspeakers.

There are, of course, a number of well built passive monitors that give their owners a great deal of pleasure, perhaps where high SPLs and wide ranging dynamics are not required or practical. However, where the wide dynamics of DVD-Audio, SACD and film soundtracks can be replayed at realistic levels, the active loudspeaker comes into its own. After all, the SACD and DVD-Audio, DVD and CD you are listening to, were almost certainly monitored on them.

Jesus Analog you could copy and paste your posts from the old Hugo debate days. Does it matter a toss what label is on something, surely all that matters is getting the music to sound how you like it.

you talk about Naim as some sort of religion, they are just a manufacturer. You speak as though just cause Naim made speakers they will suite you, your room, your system. They may do, but then another speaker may also, and another speaker may sound more to your liking.

i hope when you have a full Naim system you arnt dissapointed.

If i can also add, you mention Naim SL2 speakers. Were these designed with the current DR'd amplifiers in mind. I don't know but i doubt it, so why would you believe these would provide any benefit over any other speaker manufacturers offerings.

oh because it has a badge that begins with N and ends in M on it.

i would like to know if you have heard said speakers in your system at home for a period of time. Or do we all know the answer to that one.

Muttonjef posted:

Below is an interesting article I found on Enjoy the Music. It's well worth a read in the context of the previous debate.

Active Versus Passive Loudspeakers

The performance benefits of active over passive loudspeakers is substantial. Even a system, which incorporates the best available stand-alone power amplifier, will never achieve the performance of a similar active system. Yet active loudspeakers are slow to be accepted for home use, when they are the only choice of the professionals who master your DVDs and CDs.

This is a strange anomaly that doesn't exist in other significant consumer markets. Take the motor industry for example. When buying a car, would you buy the chassis from Ford and the engine from General Motors. Of course not, the engine would have to be unnecessarily modified and overbuilt to be able to drive the many different transmission loads imposed upon it. Yet this is the accepted thinking in the market for residential hi-fi and home theatre installations, where the use of separately sourced amplifiers and loudspeakers, and the extra cost and inefficiency this entails, is not only tolerated, it is recommended! 

Why is it then that the obvious merits of Active loudspeakers long accepted as standard in the professional arena have been slow to be accepted for home use? 

Many Hi-Fi dealers pledge to sell customers the 'best system for their money', and yet they sell separates, when one of the many advantages of self powered active loudspeakers, is a considerable economy in cost, for any given performance level.

Why is this? The common complaint is one of inflexibility. Generally, you cannot upgrade an active speaker with new amplifiers, which limits consumer choice. This is a myth that relies more on the commercial sensibilities of dealers and their suppliers (the separates manufacturers) than on anything else. It is simply the fact that an active loudspeaker is an optimized coupling between amplifier and loudspeaker driver, and is the best solution, and an upgrade in the longer term is unlikely to be necessary. Thus an active system will always provide a superior result than its separate counterparts. Dollar for Dollar, in performance and value for money, there is no contest.

 

Ive removed most of quote for space.

i think this ignores one important aspect. What if you dislike the sound of the active amplifiers, but like the speakers.

Foxman50 posted:

Muttonjef posted:

Below is an interesting article I found on Enjoy the Music. It's well worth a read in the context of the previous debate.

Active Versus Passive Loudspeakers

The performance benefits of active over passive loudspeakers is substantial. Even a system, which incorporates the best available stand-alone power amplifier, will never achieve the performance of a similar active system. Yet active loudspeakers are slow to be accepted for home use, when they are the only choice of the professionals who master your DVDs and CDs.

This is a strange anomaly that doesn't exist in other significant consumer markets. Take the motor industry for example. When buying a car, would you buy the chassis from Ford and the engine from General Motors. Of course not, the engine would have to be unnecessarily modified and overbuilt to be able to drive the many different transmission loads imposed upon it. Yet this is the accepted thinking in the market for residential hi-fi and home theatre installations, where the use of separately sourced amplifiers and loudspeakers, and the extra cost and inefficiency this entails, is not only tolerated, it is recommended! 

Why is it then that the obvious merits of Active loudspeakers long accepted as standard in the professional arena have been slow to be accepted for home use? 

Many Hi-Fi dealers pledge to sell customers the 'best system for their money', and yet they sell separates, when one of the many advantages of self powered active loudspeakers, is a considerable economy in cost, for any given performance level.

Why is this? The common complaint is one of inflexibility. Generally, you cannot upgrade an active speaker with new amplifiers, which limits consumer choice. This is a myth that relies more on the commercial sensibilities of dealers and their suppliers (the separates manufacturers) than on anything else. It is simply the fact that an active loudspeaker is an optimized coupling between amplifier and loudspeaker driver, and is the best solution, and an upgrade in the longer term is unlikely to be necessary. Thus an active system will always provide a superior result than its separate counterparts. Dollar for Dollar, in performance and value for money, there is no contest.

 

Ive removed most of quote for space.

i think this ignores one important aspect. What if you dislike the sound of the active amplifiers, but like the speakers.

That's a very valid point.

Before I moved to the active 40's, I had the passive version with a 250DR. This combination sounded excellent in my view. However, for me, the active 40's were a significant step up which is clearly personal choice.

Clearly the choice of amp with the passives will have a significant impact as will personal preference. And for you the passives with a Vitus amp surpass the actives. I can't comment as I've not heard the combination which intrigues me.

Foxman50 posted:

If i can also add, you mention Naim SL2 speakers. Were these designed with the current DR'd amplifiers in mind. I don't know but i doubt it, so why would you believe these would provide any benefit over any other speaker manufacturers offerings.

oh because it has a badge that begins with N and ends in M on it.

i would like to know if you have heard said speakers in your system at home for a period of time. Or do we all know the answer to that one.

It’s very true that the SL2s were produced long before DR amplifiers or power supplies. But they do work very well together, as they do with SL speaker cables, which again were not around when the speakers were in production. The SL2 is the best speaker I’ve heard in my room, but I wouldn’t for one second say that others might not be better. That would be silly. 

Halloween Man posted:

I would trade the lot in for 40 actives and 272. You might find you have change left over.

Just started reading this post (5 pages still to go) & came accross this on page 1...

Just had to say Halloween Man has absolutely nailed it...   active ATCs and a 272 - Halloween Man knows what he's talking about 

I shall now read the next 5 pages, expecting to find many others saying the same, so apologies in advance for repitition.

As if by magic coinciding with the ignition of this thread my Active 40s arrived this afternoon and after a very quick set up are sounding superb from cold . Lots more to come once they open up I hope . 

Congratulations!

I'm sure you will love them but give them time to settle in.

Look really smart in Satin Black ! Excuse the mess as we’re in the midst of unpacking and rearranging after building works . The ATCs arrived earlier than expected but I’m not complaining, it’ll spur me on to finish sooner .. 

Muttonjef posted:

Congratulations!

I'm sure you will love them but give them time to settle in.

No he won't how can he he has a, what was it mongrel system ????

pete T15 posted:

Look really smart in Satin Black ! Excuse the mess as we’re in the midst of unpacking and rearranging after building works . The ATCs arrived earlier than expected but I’m not complaining, it’ll spur me on to finish sooner .. 

They look gorgeous, congratulations! My passive ones are the other black but I would’ve gone with the satin black if it was available back in 2014. 

Foxman50 posted:

Muttonjef posted:

Congratulations!

I'm sure you will love them but give them time to settle in.

No he won't how can he he has a, what was it mongrel system ????

Apologies.......I have not taken on board Analogues pontifications!! ????

As Analogue proclaimed, the ATC 40A's are a compromised design and clearly ATC have learned nothing since 1974!  

pete T15 posted:

Look really smart in Satin Black ! Excuse the mess as we’re in the midst of unpacking and rearranging after building works . The ATCs arrived earlier than expected but I’m not complaining, it’ll spur me on to finish sooner .. 

 

They are superb, welcome to the active club ! 

We ordered our 40a in Satin black....go well with the quadraspire reference X stands.

N272/555 job done time to listen and enjoy until something else tempts a replacement to the black boxes.  N372/ Hugo TT2/ KKDSM etc 

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.

They look fantastic in white!!

I'm just not brave enough at my great age for that contemporary look.