Ilkless when someone brings up the ATC dome
What speakers are you using?As some other users have touched on earlier in this thread, the pro audio market can be just as susceptible to cults of personality. The problem is that ATC has a more subtle cult of personality that's based on a superficial commitment to engineering, which is not blatantly voodoo. And the flawed heuristic that large, heavy drivers = great build quality and engineering = great sound/acoustic design.
The v1 was a better value and the measurements are fine even by todays standards.The new tweeter does not make much of a difference and the cabins are now outsourced.Their price can not be justified by any means.My admittedly effusive comments in defense of ATC were not because I am a fanboy, but rather I thought that I had bought a loudspeaker that was made, like the Benchmark amp and dacs, to be well-built tools and antidotes to hi-fi nonsense...I will of course restate again: Tested was the 19 V1 of six years ago; the 19 V2 has a new tweeter and a completely different (better?) cabinet, and a modified crossover. And from the comment made by Benchmark about their choice of a non-ported loudspeaker one can infer that in principle they must have approved of ATC's sealed cabinets for small loudspeakers; (isn't there someone from Benchmark a member here?) Lastly, John Marks' piece (https://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-85) about sealed cabinets that touches on the history of design, the role of Edgar Villchur, and his impressions about the 19 V2 are interesting. The specified low measurement of 54 HZ sounds anything but light on bass in a small room with room-reinforcement (close to back wall and corner) driven by the impressive Benchmark front end... I get bass down to the high 30s....Enough said, I will now retreat back into the soothing sound world of Paul Desmond's saxophone on "Glad to be Unhappy"....
Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you say, but the Spendor S3/5 is not Spendor's version of the LS3/5a. The latter is a BBC design and many, including Spendor, have made licensed versions over the years. The S3/5 is the same size, and the name was chosen for obvious reasons, but it is a different design, just as say, the Harbeth P3ESR is. You can see that just by looking at it <https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/879/index.html>. Spendor have also made the (new) SA1 and D1, more expensive speakers again of similar size, but different designs again.
No doubt, and that also applies to the others mentioned. It's a lucrative market, which wouldn't exist if the actual LS3/5a hadn't acquired such a reputation, rightly or wrongly. Apparently the SA1 and D1 are even better than the S3/5, although at a higher price. <https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/spendor_sa1_loudspeaker/index.html> <https://www.hifichoice.com/content/spendor-d1-£1795>I'm aware that, while the Spendor verion is clearly directly inspired from the LS3/5a, the Spendor was not completely replicating the LS3/5a. They were trying to do it "better."
As I understand it many advocates lauded the original LS3/5a speaker for producing believable vocal qualities (IIRC). As I said, I haven't heard the LS3/5a but I hear this in the Spendor version.
No doubt, and that also applies to the others mentioned. It's a lucrative market, which wouldn't exist if the actual LS3/5a hadn't acquired such a reputation, rightly or wrongly. Apparently the SA1 and D1 are even better than the S3/5, although at a higher price. <https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/spendor_sa1_loudspeaker/index.html> <https://www.hifichoice.com/content/spendor-d1-£1795>
I'm aware that, while the Spendor verion is clearly directly inspired from the LS3/5a, the Spendor was not completely replicating the LS3/5a. They were trying to do it "better."
As I understand it many advocates lauded the original LS3/5a speaker for producing believable vocal qualities (IIRC). As I said, I haven't heard the LS3/5a but I hear this in the Spendor version.
ATC's have a very high resolution in the mid range. They are like a magnifying glass to the sound engineer, which allows them to easily hear the smallest change they make. However most engineers will double check their work on another set of speakers. And even if they don't, there's still a mastering phase.If they are so poor, have they managed to penetrate the professional monitoring market to such a degree?
I have been quite intereted in hearing newer iterations of the Spendor Classic line, especially the bigger 2/1 and 2/3. But at this point I wouldn't touch the D-series speakers with a 10-foot-pole. I auditioned the floorstanding version a couple times, hoping they might update what I liked about the Spendor sound, but found the higher frequencies steely and off-putting (a number of people have found the same). Unlike almost any other speaker I auditioned, whenever I turned the Spendors up I quickly wanted to turn them down again. (That went for their new A series floor stander as well). Yuck!
Yes, of course, but the shoe-box size is part of the appeal.The S3/5 may be an improvement on the original LS3/5a. But there's no escaping the fact that the topology of the loudspeaker defines its performance potential, in this case we have a 2-way speaker with a tiny midwoofer in a tiny box and thus considerable limitations in terms of max SPL and low frequency extension.
The S3/5 may be an improvement on the original LS3/5a. But there's no escaping the fact that the topology of the loudspeaker defines its performance potential, in this case we have a 2-way speaker with a tiny midwoofer in a tiny box and thus considerable limitations in terms of max SPL and low frequency extension.
Yes, of course, but the shoe-box size is part of the appeal.
Yes, Philip Swift (one of the co-founders or Audiolab) took them over in 1996. Surely they will lose much of their following if the Classic series deviates too much from the "classic" sound?Spendor was sold in the early '90s. Things changed after that, even the Classic series.
As does the bass, I have only heard them pressed tight into a wall in a desperate attempt to eek some bass response, away from the wall, is it like listening to a pair of tweeters?Indeed. Even being used to speakers of all sizes doing excellent imaging and soundstaging, it still sort of takes my breath away to set up the 3/5s, well out from the back wall sort of in free space, and hit "play." The way those little things just "disappear" as apparent sources of sound, both sonically and visually, leaving this huge soundscape with precisely populated intruments, never fails to make me smile.
As does the bass, I have only heard them pressed tight into a wall in a desperate attempt to eek some bass response, away from the wall, is it like listening to a pair of tweeters?
Keith
Not at all. Even pulled away from the wall I find, as many have remarked, that they tend to "surprise" with their bass response. It's more an illusion of course, but I really like how Art Dudley put it in his review:
"Certain musical and sonic qualities were common to both installations. It's a bit of a cliché, I know, but the Spendors had an uncanny ability to sound big when they needed to, much as a housecat can puff itself up for brief periods of time."
I have some close-mic'd jazz/R&B recordings using tubas, trombones, tenor sax etc and I've been shocked at how big those instruments can sound coming from the Spendors. I actually don't feel lacking for bass with most music while listening. It's only after a while, or with specific content, that the lack of "real" deeper bass becomes an issue.
This. I've read somewhere that the 3" mid done in the O300 is produced by ATC. If this is true (comments welcome) K&H was able to make a better speaker with this dome than the maker of the dome.ATC's have a very high resolution in the mid range. [..]
I worked on the ATC SCM25A Pro's. To judge the low end of mixes we switched to PCM's half the size. A year later we switched back to our 10 year old KH O300's because they had a more balanced sound.
That is why they stopped suppluying other manufacturers and most of them tried to imitate that domeThis. I've read somewhere that the 3" mid done in the O300 is produced by ATC. If this is true (comments welcome) K&H was able to make a better speaker with this dome than the maker of the dome.
Hi @Ilkless Did I miss something? cant see where I commented.
3. Basic measurements of the SCM19 V2 made in less rigourous conditions than Amir's show scarce improvement.
4. That, as @March Audio pointed out, the loss in output in the mids and bass maybe due to bad design of terminals, quoting a review from another magazine (that also shows bad acoustic engineering of the SCM25 as the tests in (2). So bad mechanical design, not just acoustic engineering.
None of these facts reflect well upon the company in isolation. That they are true all at once leads to the inevitable conclusion that the company, out of ignorance, complacency, arrogance or begrudgingly pandering to its luddite clientele (as Alan observed), regularly peddles loudspeakers with poor engineering that are propped up only by a cult of personality.
Any other conclusion is intellectually dishonest. The apologism is frankly embarrassing.
Also, supporting small businesses with a similar model to ATC does not have to mean compromised engineering. I can name many firms like ATC but with actual good engineering. KEF Reference and Blade is still made in Kent. Salk does amazing artisanal work with great, proven drivers - even their entry-level $1k monitor has box made in Michigan, SEAS midwoofers (SEAS is owned by its own employees and their factory is in Norway) and Hiquphon tweeters (made in small batches to extremely tight tolerances by the designer in Denmark). JTR and Danley do well-engineered high SPL. Genelec and Neumann make in Finland and Northern Ireland respectively. Gradient of Finland are another brand that put their own spin on speaker design, but are backed by sound engineering principles.
Hi @Ilkless Did I miss something? cant see where I commented