ATC SCM19 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[kaka89]

Many thanks ship your exemplar in for ASR analyze, that said if you have a player with covolution engine i can share below filter setting if you happen like to listen that correction, say it because your sample should respond well to filter and in that build actual look relative smooth in directivity index curve being free of multible intereferences other than one at 485Hz and think that is not bad sign if we compare many other analyzes and how many resonances is visible into the directivity index curve, else have best sales.
View attachment 73656

@BYRTT After EQ the directivity looks very well control from 200Hz (!) to 7000Hz!
They just need large toe-in

 

[richard12511]

For those defending ATCs with fervor on this thread , I am selling my ATC SCM19s, one of which was the review sample here. DM me if you are interested.

Somehow, I doubt you get any hits They know it's bad. They're just trying to defend it.

 

[stunta]

I already replaced my ATCs with JBL 708Ps a while ago. I can't be bothered to.measure them or correct for them even though I have Dirac live. I am very lazy with these things so anyone who buys them can have at it with DSP, post their findings here and demonstrate how good these can be.

Edit: I also don't have amps to drive them in that room anymore.

 

[stunta]

Somehow, I doubt you get any hits They know it's bad. They're just trying to defend it.

I don't think they are bad at all. They sound pretty decent to me even with no DSP. Remember that Amir is not your average listener.

 

[BYRTT]

@BYRTT After EQ the directivity looks very well control from 200Hz (!) to 7000Hz!
They just need large toe-in

Right or some universal filters as below for final ear tuning of tonality that can work for any system but probably best if system is first tuned the best as possible by a microphone to whatever level enviroment will allow including rules from other family ...

For SCM19 we cant EQ the sudden directivity mismatch 2,8-10kHz that cause early reflection/in-room/power response curves take a hump to the bright side but that universal filter in a HS 1kHz Q=0,3 can dial in a ballance tweaked by ear and listening window is set nice smooth called by CTA2034 standard to cover the avarage calculated response in steps of 10º out to +/- 30º for hor and +/-10º for ver, inside that 11 directivity steps of the listening window on axis fall out not being as good as the rest of the avarage so suggest angle SCM19 5-10º.

For final system ear tuning with universal filters as below suggest use mono and a SPL meter to set a 84-86dB level that track material often is mastered for to sound realistic relative to ISO226/2203 equal loudness, and seek a tuning that reveal system get genre/content independence, what i say here is not any cut out best practice but guidance what works for me, for examle whenever over many years i tried tune system by ear using stereo be it head phones or speakers there go few days or most a week and then mood is other way and filters get readjusted, but adjust filters in mono works so my settings can last for months/years.

Broad high shelve tonality filter @1khz Q=0,3, example is SCM19 with pre EQ filter in post 547 that target a smooth listening window..

ISO226/2203 equal loudness curves, in below filter is in most sensitive region expect in a better trimmed acoustic system that dial on that filter in tiny steps of 0,1dB is easy to hear and can sometimes help a ton for tonality or genre/content independence or give some clue for idea of where we are ..

 

[richard12511]

I don't think they are bad at all. They sound pretty decent to me even with no DSP. Remember that Amir is not your average listener.

Actually, I got these curves mixed up with the PMCs. They happened around the same time and generated similar levels of conversation, and I'm in USA, so I've never heard either. You're right, these actually look pretty neutral, and their biggest offense seems very EQable. Looking back, I'm actually confused as to why these generated so much criticism. The measurements look pretty good. I guess it's just the price.

 

[darrenyeats]

Agreed, but ATC recommends otherwise in the manual. If they had designed this speaker intentionally for setting close to the back wall they would have stated this in the manual and in any ad material.

Did you read the manufacturers recommendation these are to be placed away from walls an corners? You are pushing a false narrative. The spin data also shows front wall reflections to be even more unbalanced FR than the average.

ATC print the same advice in all the manuals I've seen ... regardless of speaker size.

Below is from the 50/100/150 manual (150s are 150 litres internally with a 15 inch bass!)
"Start with them positioned on appropriate stands around 1 metre from the side walls and 2
metres from the back. If the balance is bass-light,
the monitors can be moved towards the back walls." It's the same advice!

Since the 20s share the same advice with 15 inch behemoths, for 20s one should (must) read much less into the "start 2 metres from the back" part and much more into the "moved toward the back walls" part.

Their manuals are somewhat plain biscuit and homogeneous - yes that's an ATC sin.

You will get the most out of them by following /every word/ of the 'placement advice for all ATCs' - it seems clear in the case of these previous-generation 20s in most contexts, naturally would result in /close placement to the wall behind/.

Hopefully this clarifies a misunderstanding (though I can see why the manual is confusing without the context above).

PS: BTW, this is the old model. It was superseded by the current 20, years ago. Some posters here seem not to realise that?

 

[Ilkless]

ATC print the same advice in all the manuals I've seen ... regardless of speaker size.

Below is from the 50/100/150 manual (150s are 150 litres internally with a 15 inch bass!)
"Start with them positioned on appropriate stands around 1 metre from the side walls and 2
metres from the back. If the balance is bass-light,
the monitors can be moved towards the back walls." It's the same advice!

Since the 20s share the same advice with 15 inch behemoths, for 20s one should (must) read much less into the "start 2 metres from the back" part and much more into the "moved toward the back walls" part.

Their manuals are somewhat plain biscuit and homogeneous - yes that's an ATC sin.

You will get the most out of them by following /every word/ of the 'placement advice for all ATCs' - it seems clear in the case of these previous-generation 20s in most contexts, naturally would result in /close placement to the wall behind/.

Hopefully this clarifies a misunderstanding (though I can see why the manual is confusing without the context above).

PS: BTW, this is the old model. It was superseded by the current 20, years ago. Some posters here seem not to realise that?

No, SCM19v2 only superseded it 7 years ago. And even when this version was new, much better was attainable by actual engineering-first outfits. I had wanted to leave this thread alone, but there's a shocking amount of apologism for this speaker quite like PS Audio/totaldac.

 

[darrenyeats]

I didn't refer to 20 years ago (I'm talking about the 20 model hence the comma). So yes, years ago.

Not apologies - these are relevant facts about the manuals.

 

[ChrisUK]

The death throes of a company, the ultra expensive ‘limited edition’.
Keith

Are you not an ATC dealer? Glad your not representing my products!

https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/atc

 

[Purité Audio]

Used to be, ATC are solid enough ( perhaps not this particular model ) it is their steadfast refusal to innovate that puzzles me, hence the shift to domestic sales where myth still counts for more than measurements.
Keith

 

[richard12511]

PS: BTW, this is the old model. It was superseded by the current 20, years ago. Some posters here seem not to realise that?

Is there good evidence that the newer models are significantly more neutral? ATC is a pretty well established company. It seems unlikely that their engineering has drastically improved in the last 10 years, but I suppose it's possible. Would be more interesting to see the newest model, though, I agree.

Regardless, these aren't all that bad. A 4.6 Olive score is pretty good. They do have a big problem in a very audible range(500Hz-5,000Hz), but given that the directivity is good, it should be easy to EQ that problem away. The biggest sin the commit is really just the price. Ignoring the price, they're pretty good loudspeakers. Much better than the PMCs.

 

[kaka89]

I own a ATC 40 v2, their latest model, while it sounds really good, it doesn't measure ruler flat.
There is a dip in 3k crossover region, makes the speaker sounds a bit dark without EQ.

The ATC sounds better than other flatter speaker than I used to owned.

 

[Vintage57]

Regardless, these aren't all that bad. A 4.6 Olive score is pretty good. They do have a big problem in a very audible range(500Hz-5,000Hz), but given that the directivity is good, it should be easy to EQ that problem away. The biggest sin the commit is really just the price. Ignoring the price, they're pretty good loudspeakers. Much better than the PMCs.

I agree they aren’t all that bad, but they’re not all that good compared to the competition that exists in the active monitor market. It wasn’t considering price when I decided to sell my ATC 150ASL for the Neumann KH420. It was strictly SQ.
I agree with Keith. They refuse to innovate, however if they can sell a dressed up 20 year old speaker as special edition for $75,000. Who am I to judge.

 

[Chrise36]

I agree they aren’t all that bad, but they’re not all that good compared to the competition that exists in the active monitor market. It wasn’t considering price when I decided to sell my ATC 150ASL for the Neumann KH420. It was strictly SQ.
I agree with Keith. They refuse to innovate, however if they can sell a dressed up 20 year old speaker as special edition for $75,000. Who am I to judge.

Interesting decision would you care to describe their differences?

 

[DSJR]

Is there good evidence that the newer models are significantly more neutral? ATC is a pretty well established company. It seems unlikely that their engineering has drastically improved in the last 10 years, but I suppose it's possible. Would be more interesting to see the newest model, though, I agree.

Regardless, these aren't all that bad. A 4.6 Olive score is pretty good. They do have a big problem in a very audible range(500Hz-5,000Hz), but given that the directivity is good, it should be easy to EQ that problem away. The biggest sin the commit is really just the price. Ignoring the price, they're pretty good loudspeakers. Much better than the PMCs.

I wish I could find the white paper on the original 20. This driver, which has roots thirty years or so ago, used the infamous dome as part of the driver and also centre dust-cap, the mechanical crossover seemingly around 600hz or so, hence the little 'dip'' there. The SL magnet change did seem to alter this unit's performance, bumping up the frequencies covered by the dome a bit and I'm convinced, rather more than the previous version did although from the front, the units look much the same and it's years since I saw a response plot of the original passive SCM20 from the early 90's.

I maintain that for smaller UK rooms, the bass to mid performance can be ideal. Seriously, we can't all here pull the boxes two or three feet out from a rear wall and maybe fire down the length of a room to get some listening distance going. Some can and you'd usually buy larger boxes for this purpose. For me at the time (20's 1992 - 1993 and ASL Pro's from 2001 to 2009 (I had 100A's from 1993 to 1996 when I got married and had to sell them), the bass over-damping worked really well generally and in my case, it was the old Vifa tweeters in my ASL pro's that annoyed. I since discovered I could tame that annoyance with a driving preamp that didn't need several hours to audibly calm down (Bryston BP25P, which sounded much better after being left on overnight and stayed that way thereafter), but of course like many, I blamed the less problematic culprit and sold them first back in 2009). I have more bass now from my passive larger Harbeth SHL5s, it's just that 'everything else' has taken a severe back seat in terms of vividness (as you hear live) from which I've not yet recovered!

I honestly believe the upper-mid forward balance was deliberate and at least known about. Billy certainly know what he was doing in the 80's and nineties when I dealt regularly with the company and regularly visited the factory. Once a certain 'character sales manager' left in 96 or so, things started to change, I'm not sure how 'hands-on Billy was by this time and once I changed jobs in 1998, I no longer dealt with them and it was only hearing the current range eighteen months ago that my interest and love of the brand was resurrected..

Of course more recent brands and models have come along. I fell in love with a pair of Kii Three's I heard last year (sans bass stand/modules), which almost could be said to sound 'sweet' for class D amps and hi-tech design (Keith, can you help here? ). The 40A's are rather better than the 40P's in my experience (but audio peeps do want to play with all manner of amps and it's extra sales, so what the heck) and I'd love to hear some Neumann's, as I've said before. ATC do seem to be getting more online discussions going in recent times and if this is translating into more sales, then more money for R&D into current techniques for design and measurement (I read the full Klippel 'system' is a hundred grand or thereabouts but no idea otherwise) and although not confirmed here, I think the slightly more traditional driver in the 11 and I think 12 Pro, is pointing the way...

As for the slight recess at the upper crossover point, it does seem to be a 'thing' in many UK speakers for some reason and one or two European models (and a £2k Revel) that don't seem to do this, can appear to 'glare' when partnered with some gear on the UK market (prior experience tells me that more power from a good amp often tames this).

Sorry to keep posting, but not sure the 'Harman ideal' has been a high priority for UK speaker designers in the past.

 

[darrenyeats]

I agree they aren’t all that bad, but they’re not all that good compared to the competition that exists in the active monitor market. It wasn’t considering price when I decided to sell my ATC 150ASL for the Neumann KH420. It was strictly SQ.
I agree with Keith. They refuse to innovate, however if they can sell a dressed up 20 year old speaker as special edition for $75,000. Who am I to judge.

I hope you realise Keith of Purite would describe also the KH420 as a "traditional design"?

I'm sure ATC would point to some facts: the new in-house tweeter (5 years ago?) and all-new cabinets found only in the SE and now LE models (2-3 years ago?) for critical components that are much more recent than the 20 years that you quote. (Even the bog standard amps in the regular actives are newer ... a 15 year old design ... but they're good.)

Is there good evidence that the newer models are significantly more neutral?

http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hi-Fi_Critic_ATC_SCM7.pdf (seems designed for smaller rooms or wall loading)
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Hi-Fi_Critic_SCM50PSL_WEB.pdf

As I explained, it's not correct to infer from the manual what situation the speakers are designed for (free space or near the wall): (a) the advice is identical in the manuals of every size model in the range up to 150s and (b) that one advice is quite flexible - "start out 2m from the wall behind them and move backward until it sounds right".

 

[ChrisUK]

Used to be, ATC are solid enough ( perhaps not this particular model ) it is their steadfast refusal to innovate that puzzles me, hence the shift to domestic sales where myth still counts for more than measurements.
Keith

They probably don't have the R&D budget.

 

[Vintage57]

I hope you realise Keith of Purite would describe also the KH420 as a "traditional design"

I am not looking for Keith’s opinion on the KH420, I trust my own judgement, as I did a long time ago when I purchased the ATC’s. I just agreed with his point on ATC and innovation.

 

[9radua1]

Not trying to pull ATCs chestnuts out of the fire here, but on their factory walk-through on YouTube you see them running a quick sweep of the SCM11 v2 using the Klippel QC software. The fr seems a lot smoother without the excessive mid-hump - though that, of course, isn’t telling the whole story. I would sure like to see the NFS scan on one of those.