Question: Does ATC have the best midrange driver?

"Ponders The Thought" Of how many of the members that have posted the feedback on this topic have had a chance to hear, I mean really hear what they have been missing by not checking out the ATC's
Just to clear another area the ATC drivers have been used in home audio since the mid 80's, and as for the real question here, "Does ATC have the best midrange driver?" A person would have to spend 3x's as much to get better.. If I had the time, I would post ATC's user's list. The name's of the user's and company's that use ATC's, would maybe shed a little more light on how good these speakers are to some of the big boys out there..

I don't have a problem finding good woofers tweets and ribbons. Seems i've encountered a problem in finding a "good" ("best") midrange, THE critical fq's. Most orchestral and jazz instruments fall in the midrange. As well i'm looking for a midrange that delivers vocals with accuracy. Lets see for midrange we've got Scan-Speak, Skaaning, Focal, Accuton, Morel, and there is a german lab called Visaton. Sorry if i left out anyone's favorite. Then we come to the ATC. They are the most expensive of the bunch, (Skaaning's about same price) and maybe in this case you get what you pay for, ie. the superior. It's nice to know that you can buy the single mid-driver. Their entry model is like 15K, very interesting speaker, each driver has its own amp. Hey Laz you've got the SC-50's , can you give us some insight into the +'s and -'s of ATC's entry level speaker. The 100 and 150 has larger woofers but the same tweet and their famous SM75-150S midrange.

actually, they're not the entry-level. there are the scm 7's, the scm 10's, the scm 20's, then the scm 50's. the only real minus of the 50's is that they roll off at about 32hz, and don't drop all the way to 20. everything else is truly the best i've ever heard. the highs aren't quite as sweet as really good electrostat panels, but very, very close. i wouldn't have laid down the money if i didn't truly believe that.

but, the passive and active scm 10's are great little speakers, though limited in bass response due to their size.

and, while we're on the subject of atc stuff, their electronics are also really, really good. i use their amps (obviously - built into the speaker) and their preamp, which is the most sonically transparent preamp i've ever heard. (granted, i haven't heard all that many, though) and the phono stage is also incredible. expensive but, again, at $8500, i wouldn't have bought if i didn't believe. and when i took the top off to set the phono stage portion, i saw why exactly is cost so much. having long built and repaired computers and electronics, i couldn't believe the quality of the assembly and quality of the parts. think of it as a top-shelf martini made by an experienced bartender. good stuff.

and, as for the 150's, 200's and 300's, they're really meant for studio use. if you had them in a normal sized house, they'd blow the windows. and i mean that literally. they won't sound any better, i wouldn't think, than a pair of 50's or 100's with an atc sub.

and, just fyi, the number (ie 7, 10, 50, 100, 150, etc . . .) refers to the enclosure space in liters. the 200 and 300 have identical drivers, but different enclosure spaces.

Entry level refers to the model's with the SM75 mid. Good to hear they compete with the Sound Labs in mids-highs. I can forgo the fq's below 35, ain't much there. I get the feeling that like electrostats they perform best with a special ss amp. Guess the SM75 will not work in a 3 way with my small tube amp. If anyone is interested in seeing the ATC used in a super 3 way Skaaning + ATC + Scan-Speak..doesn't get much better than this, go to a Danish DIYer Mogens Anderson's web http://home13.inet.tele.dk/meil/

If studios were trying to mimic what end users where using to listen to recordings on, they would not have went with the Yamaha's. They would be using Bose 301's. As far as i know, they are ( or at least they used to be ) the best selling speaker in the world. We should all be thankful that this is not the case and that some engineers / studio owners DO have common sense and ears.

I've been in a few studios and seen speakers ranging from JBL to Legacy to B&W's and then over to "professional grade" gear like Toa's and Fostex to stuff that i would not use for a boombox. Many studios have several different sets of "monitors" so that the engineers and musicians can get a feel for what their recording will sound like on a variety of speakers.

As to Lazarus' comments about "accuracy not being subjective", i would tend to disagree. The fact that one can show several different products as being the best in any given category has to do with the type of testing done, how the tests were conducted, what one was looking for or which part of the results one was going to exploit, etc... If one has very specific parameters that are set in stone and limited in scope, then yes, you can measure what is "best". Otherwise, you would need to be able to measure a million different parameters all at once since that is what our hearing does for us instantaneously. As such, what sounds best and what measures best can sometimes be very different things and will forever remain a subjective topic of discussion.

As to Dunlavy's comments about domes, i'd like him to show us ONE driver that is linear in the time domain across the entire bandpass that it will be used within. How can ANY cone type driver produce coherent wavefronts when parts of the driven element are always closer to the listener while other parts will always be slightly more distant ? Of course, the severity of this problem will vary somewhat from driver to driver depending on the size and convex of the cone being used.

For the record, i think that John Curl stated something to the effect of the Manger drivers being as close to "technically correct" that you can get. I know that he is not a speaker engineer or specialist, i'm sure that he knows enough ( both through formal education and hands on experience ) to not just spout off something like that without good cause. How these drivers sound to various individuals is a whole 'nother can of worms. Sean
>