Upgrade to ATC / Bryston


My system consists of a Squeezebox Touch, Audio gd digital interface, Metrum Octave DAC, HK990 Integrated Amp and Dynaudio Excite 12x Speakers. I also have a Rythmik 12 inch sub that produces tight and controlled low frequencies and blends in seamlessly with the Dynaudios.

I am not in the least unhappy with the sound produced from my current audio system. In fact, I'm am in love with what I hear, describing it as sweet, musical and heavenly with no ear irritation no matter how load I play the music.

The question I have is can I get even more detail and resolution without sacrificing the sweet sound I have come to love in this setup? I am primarily considering swapping out the power amp and speakers to see what if I can find anything I like more. I'm afraid I am going to go through this exercise and end up with exactly what I have now but may be pleasantly surprised.

When I picked up the Dynaudios from the dealer a few years ago, they where driving them with a Bryston 3b SST2 and the resolution was amazing. I can not talk to the musicality because I did not like the source material but it definitely had more detail then my HK990. I've been thinking of buying a used 3b SST to see if I really like it, or is the musicality of the Harmon Kardon worth more than the resolution of the Bryston? I may still use the HK990 as my preamp for now and eventually get an Onkyo P3000R preamp for all the digital it's digital inputs.

On a separate occasion I have also auditioned the ATC SCM 11 driven by the ATC 150 w amp and several other amps. With the ATC amp, the SCM 11 sounded amazing, with lots of detail and beautiful musical synergy. With any other amp, they lost all the magic. Evan adding a non ATC preamp made the speakers lose the wonderful sound.

So now I am considering trying out a Bryston amp and ATC speakers. Both are supposed to be extremely transparent. I could end up with one, or the other, both, or neither. If I can get fantastic detail without sacrificing musicality then I have succeeded. I was planning to get the new version of the SCM 11 speakers (2013) and a used 3b SST2. What do you all think?
earlxtr

Showing 6 responses by douglas_schroeder

Earl, I beg to differ; The only time when a two way with a sub is a three way is when all the speakers come from the same company - and even then it's not the same, as I showed in my review of the Wharfdale Opus speaker line for Dagogo.com. Aside from that there can exist a vast gulf in performance between a smallish two way with a sub and a generous floor standing three way - with or without sub. One of the reasons I gravitate toward big floor standing speakers is to attain a far superior definition and detail in listening. There is an entire universe of definition/detail which escapes a large swath of two-way speakers. They are built at a price point, and they are going to be missing a lot. Otherwise, why would the market for three-way speakers continue to thrive?

Earl, I can relate; I was an ardent cable skeptic, too, about twenty five years ago. I thought people were stupid to chase aftermarket wires - until I did my own comparison and it became clear that it wasn't stupid, but was a critical way to tune systems to one's favored sound. No one would have been able to talk me into believing it, as I had to prove it to myself. I really didn't want cables to make much difference because I knew it could cost me more if they did.

By this time in my involvement in the industry I know personally a fair number of engineers and designers (cable, component, speaker designers/manufacturers), some of whom I have helped move from skepticism to bewildered belief about the ability of cables to influence sonics in a system. For some of them the only convincing "argument" was hearing it for themselves in my room.

I still remember the day I decided to try it and went to the hardware store to buy the fattest/heaviest gauge copper cable which could still be affixed to speaker and amp terminals. I certainly wasn't going to waste much money on my experiment! I attached it, listened and became a believer.

I'm not going to try to argue you into it, but I hope at some time you try aftermarket cables. They are one of the best means of attaining the resolution, as well as dynamics and imaging, which you are seeking. :)

Oh, and if you try the ATC/Bryston thing you may be reaching for those cables sooner rather than later. Further, try some aftermarket cables and you will realize that you can indeed fix what did not seem broken. :)
Bob, I think it's obvious that one will have three drivers in operation with a two-way speaker and sub. The point I was making is that it is simplitsic to conclude that one will get a similar result by using a two way with a sub versus a floor standing three way. The OP was looking for more detail/definition and in my experience a critical leap in improvement in that area happens when the dedicated Mid is introduced ala three-way. Just putting a sub with a two way imo is not comparable to a proper three-way typically.

Your last point about quality and price is well taken, but is a variable which comes into play in all speakers and systems. As such it does not support the thought that a two way with sub is like a three-way.

It may be true that in many cases the bass could be superior with a two-way and subwoofer; I don't disagree with that. But imo a dedicated Mid can really open up a speaker in terms of a sense of much more added info and spacious sound. There are some two-way speakers with sensational capacity to capture much of the midrange magic of some larger three-way speakers; ribbon hybrids come to mind. But they may be more expensive than the OP is interested in spending.
I will politely disagree with Bob and Kiddman; I would not recommend a bookshelf and sub system, with or without bass management) as an assured advantage over (sota or not) a floor standing speaker, even a fully passive one. When I am seeking a serious SOTA sound I work with floor standing speakers, not bookshelf speakers.

The Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition (reviewed for Dagogo.com) can be configured either active or passive x-over. I can by changing cabling and components elicit superior sound from the passive mode over the active mode with different cables/components. I have demonstrated using the same speaker system that a person certainly does not have to move to an active system to achieve a superior result. Now, would the active x-over mode likely be better with the favored components; sure, likely. But unless you have all the components on hand to assess and the capacity to test both active and passive modes on a speaker you have no clue what the result would be. You also have no clue how it would perform up against any given passive floor standing speaker.

You can declare all you want that any given bookshelf/sub (even with bass management) setup will beat a floor standing speaker, but unless you have the comparison at hand you are overreaching in your statement. I assert that any given floor standing speaker may beat a bookshelf/active bass setup and not have to cost an arm and a leg to do so. The only nearly assured advantage for the bookshelf/sub setup is extened LF - that is all.

We could go round and round about this, but I'll leave it at that. I'm not interested in debating this further, though it has been pleasant. :)

Regarding bookshelf/sub systems and an attempt on SOTA, I would not recommend it as first option. I could pursue very fine bookshelf speakers and have subs, but I'll take the fine floor standing speaker for ultimate sound quality nearly every time. The only time I would urge a bookshelf/sub setup is if one has financial constraints and or space issues. i.e. When I get too old to huck around big speakers, then I'll be forced to go with smaller ones. But I'm not going to kid myself and dream that they as a genre of speaker will perform on the same level as the big floor standing speakers; that would be a delusion, imo.

Earl seems to have dismissed using sets of cables, doesn't seem to desire reconsidering moving to multi-way speakers and seems fixated on the power rating of the amp. So, there's not much else to discuss there. :(
Bob, no, I did not overlook that point; it simply does not make your argument true, imo. You think a bookshelf with bass management is going to assure superior performance, and I disagree.

Why do you assume that large floor standing speakers require high SPL? I use many large floor standing speakers, none of which require high SPL. Usually high SPL is an effort to recreate live or concert sound, which I don't care to do. I don't think it's particularly good sounding, nor sensible.
Kiddman, you are right; I assumed you were piggy backing on bob's thoughts. Thanks for the correction.
My time is running away on me; this will be my last post to this discussion.

Bob, we've both been making assumptions, thanks for correcting the perception regarding large floor standing speakers.

Now, correcting your misperception; I do not ignore the room's impact on sound (I assume you been bass, since that is the sticking point it seems). Thanks for the link to the white paper. Scanning through it I noted the room construction techniques, most of which I have done such as ceiling and walls, treatments, etc.

We know where we are at on this, and I believe we would continue to disagree even if discussed at length. I need to move on to other things. It has been a good chat. :)