Interesting, or until he shared the price of the active and passive speaker. While they are admirable, it's a reminder how some of us resort to DIY and do our best.
19 responses Add your response
@dbphd wrote:
Interesting suggestion. There may be an aspect to this, but with the ATC’s Steve has found something to hang his hat on, namely or in particular avoiding active speakers with a DSP to act as the active crossover and instead an all-analogue electronic ditto. Which is to say no conversion steps from analogue to digital and back (or with a digital input a D/A-conversion only). Steve apparently hates DSP’s, it seems mostly due to the conversion steps involved (with what I regard as unfounded deductions on their assumed detrimental sonic impact), but there’s also the more hardware related issues for being stuck with whatever DSP module and typically class D amp varieties that have been implemented in a given, bundled active speaker solution. I’m not wholly unsympathetic with his views here, but simply labeling DSP’s as sonically undesirable in an active speaker system is not seeing the forest for the trees, and fails to take into consideration the opportunities offered with quality DSP’s and their more elaborate (and precise) filter settings compared to an all-analogue electronic XO - not least FIR-based iterations, although they also come with their potential issues. I’m not taking a swing at ATC for not using DSP-based active filters, but Steve’s blanket statement on DSP’s is just rubbish. Finally Steve doesn’t appear to comprehend that active can be outboard as well as bundled, but here I’m also referring to previous videos of his with the regurgitative rants on active speakers. I get that outboard active isn’t representative of active speaker systems in general, but he has never even considered outboard active as a solution to the problem with bundled systems and the lack of component choice here. I mean, at some point in the process you’d wonder why he hasn’t questioned himself about it, and whether outboard active was at all possible. Still, he posted a very positive and informative video review of the active ATC’s, so at least he acknowledges what reaches his ears from actual experience with a balanced approach to their qualities, and not the typical audiophile resentment of hearing what such active speakers can deliver as being "too revealing," "not musical" or whatever that doesn’t comply with their exposure to dynamically weak, low and upper octave tilted, sugary and overly laid-back "high-end" speakers. oh well, I digress.. |
@phusis "Which is to say no conversion steps from analogue to digital and back (or with a digital input a D/A-conversion only)" I must admit i am confused by this, i am playing some tunes through my Eve Audio DSP monitors in my office which do not need a dac. I have attached a dac to them however but never really compared with or without. Most studio folk spend little (compared to hifi folk) on their preamp (desktop controller). How does say the Adam S5V speakers below process dsd files or respond to a tube dac preamp as you cannot bypass their conversion? Apologies if i am being dim. Cheers
|
i don’t agree with your statement that studio folk don’t buy a good “preamp”. Most hi end pro folks do indeed spend a lot on preamps in the form of expensive mic preamps (API or Neve or A Designs or Daking), expensive consoles (API legacy or Vision, Rupert Neve Designs, etc) and expensive monitor controllers (grace or crane song). I think it’s about the same in the high end pro side as the high end consumer side: the top of the market is passionate about audio quality, I think this looking down on pro folks is just silliness and not knowing the pro market well. I read many posts here about hi fi folk avoiding a preamp altogether by buying an integrated amp or home theater receivers. I think Steve touched on this very idea, that is possible for a high end pro product to please a high end audiophile. Brad |
Apologies @lonemountain it wasn't my intention to generalise studio monitor listeners. I am in favor of active speakers, as I spend far too much time in my home office compared to my basement. If you or anyone has guidance on understanding "conversion steps from analogue to digital and back (or with a digital input a D/A-conversion only" with Adam, Genelec, Eve Audio studio monitors etc. How would one add some warmth to studio speakers and at the same time be able to play dsd files when the monitor is converting the signal. Think I need more coffee |
@spoutmouzert wrote:
What’s the confusion, exactly? The ATC signal-level active crossover works in the analogue domain only, whereas a DSP (Digital Signal Processing) handles it in the digital domain. Analogue electronic XO’s has an analogue in- and output only, while a DSP can have both an analogue and digital input, the former requiring an A/D-conversion step (to where the processing is done digitally), and then a conversion back to analogue (D/A-conversion) to the outputs going to the amps. You could also output digitally to amps with digital inputs, where the final conversion to analogue is done on the output side of the amps just prior to their respective drivers/speaker systems. With regard to your active Eve speakers and whether to use only their build-in DAC or another one in addition preceding them, try it out and see what you prefer.
Don’t use DSD playback myself, but sending a DSD signal to a PCM-based DSP of the Adam speakers requires a DSD to PCM conversion in the playback software, like from JRiver. Doing that seems to take the piss out of what to some people makes DSD a desirable trait, however, so better to just send a PCM-signal to the Adam’s. One could try the analogue as well as digital output from the tube-based DAC to the Adam speakers, which has both XLR and AES3 inputs (analogue and digital). The latter effectively bypasses the preamp section of the DAC (and a possible volume control) in addition to the A/D-conversion step in the speakers, but that’s not necessarily to say it’s the preferred route. Here as well the tube-based DAC could be bypassed with a signal coming directly from the source, as with your Eve speaker example above, and with digital-input amps the signal could remain digital (with a digital source) all the way to the output side of the amps. |
@willywonka wrote:
Compared to what? Veneering is expensive, not least tower versions of the ATC's. What Steve didn't mention, oddly enough, is that the pro versions in duratex black (that are the same speakers) come cheaper: the SCM50ASL Pro retails for $17,500/pair, which saves you $4,500 compared to the version Steve reviewed. And, again: it's the same speaker. For $23,000 the SCM150ASL Pro can be had, so just $1,000 more than the ones in the review. Still not cheap speakers, but the build, parts and engineering quality is indisputable, and in that light (and their active configuration considered) the pricing is actually fair. Many high-end speakers in the same "weight class" of the SCM150ASL Pro just mentioned are way more expensive - sans amps, that is - and none of them houses a world class midrange driver like the one found in the ATC's here. |
Sorry @spoutmouzert Sort of looked like I picked on you when I didnt mean to do that. I meant to take issue wirh the idea that pro people are clueless and have no idea what sounds good. While one can find plenty of examples that support this, one can also find plenty of examples of home audio people being clueless too! I think its more that the "low end" of both markets have some embarrassing aspects to them.
|
Depending on the design, actives can be the fulfillment of design intent by an active crossover implementation + hand picked power amp sections, all in one box from the engineer. In such a case, the engineer still lets you tweak your linestage, dac, phonostage, turntable, whatever all day long. He only took away your freedom of choice on the power amp. However, some audiophiliacs might think they know more than the guy who designed the stuff and have more tools in hand for execution. Hence, it’s a "hard sell’".
|
And to add to what @deep_333 just said, I think there is far more sonic variations to discover in what's BEFORE the amplifiers: preamps, linestages, DACS, phono cartridges, arms and turntables, cables , streamers, etc. Brad |
My gate swings both ways. I run ATC active and passive....and love them all! ATC 50 and 40 actives, ATC SCM 20 and 7. Why not? I feel as if the only 'fault' ATC transducers have, is an unforgiving nature towards everything in front of them. They sometimes scream "you lied to me, you said you would feed me only the cleanest signal and recordings". Every system change I make is reflected truthfully, for better or worse. Sound Anchor stands with Herbies Fat Dots under ATC 20s, thumbs up. Improved cabling on ATC 50 actives, thumbs up. Expensive is so subjective. I foresee keeping my loom of ATC transducers for a very long time.
|
Addendum. Besides being an audiophile, I’m a financial guy. Purchasing quality once as opposed to chasing product multiple times is from a fiduciary aspect far more responsible. A car addict friend of mine owned over 300 vehicles. His statement was simple. He admitted he could have owned any three automobiles on the planet he desired for the coin spent on jumping around to all of those diverse purchases. To this point, I knew of his ownership of 5 Lotuses, Porsche 928, several Corvettes, 2 Alpha Romero 164s and it goes on. So, he was not slumming. The simple point is that serious quality costs serious money, but not as much as endlessly chasing. I own and use daily, optics and audio gear 20+ years old, not because I have to, but because the products are still valid. ATC transducers will remain valid for a very long time.
|