Rpfef: FWIW, I listen to some classical, but not a majority of the time. My impressions wih both small and larger scale classical is that the Ohms do this well. The strings are not the sweetest or most liquid I have heard, but neither are they etched, brittle or overly dry. The best part is that the character of strings (and everything else) that the Ohms have does not deteriorate as the SPLs increase. There is no sense of compression or pinched sound on loud passages (provided the recording is decent). Now, I do not run my Ohms full range. I do have subs, and the Ohms see a first order roll off below 80Hz. But in the critical upper midrange for strings, the Ohms simply blow my Vandy 1Cs out of the water.
Kristian85: I don't mean to rag on ATC. Far be it from me to denigrate a loudspeaker that J. Gordon Holt loved so much. That said, regardless of the technical measurements the ATCs I heard might produce, I simply did not care for the sound.
Also, note that some of the finest mastering studios in the world use passive loudspeakers like the B&W 802D and the KEF 207.2. These expensive speakers do detail and dynamics like the ATC, but also have other audiophile capabilities that I did not hear when I listened to the ATCs.
Zkzpb8 said it best - studio monitors have different design goals than most home hifi speakers. Home audio tries to reproduce the original performance in a home environment (which is usually far from perfect). A studio monitor is designed to let the professional hear, in his controlled environment, every minute detail so that any problems in a mix will be heard and then corrected. Soundstage, bloom, image placement and other audiophile focuses are simply not that important in the studio context. This, in fact, was exactly what I said when I heard the ATCs. They were ruthlessly revealling. If you like that kind of presentation, fine, but I don't. Now, with my Ohms, as I mentioned in my review, there is a pretty well-balanced combination of detail retreival with an absence of harshness and etch. I much prefer the Ohm's balance to the ATCs I heard.
As for the merits of powered speakers, sure, there are definite advantages. However, most audiophile powered loudspeakers are beyond my reach financially (especially those suited to my large-ish listening space). Note that the Ohm Walsh drivers run full range up to about 8kHz, and then, I believe, naturally roll off. The tweeter that comes in above 8kHz is, I think, only passively attenuated at lower frequencies. Is there any distortion in this design? I dunno, but I don't hear any. But then, I am not a trained listener.
Another thing to consider is the reason that most loudspeaker manufacturers do not offer powered loudspeakers. In the world of subjective audiophiles, amplifiers sound different. Besides the logistical issues of solid state vs. tubes vs. Class D amps, most audiophiles prefer to use their own preferred amplifiers. Does that involve a compromise in performance? Perhaps. But it also means that consumers can go for the sound they like, and put a system together that they find pleasing. But think of it this way: If I run a speaker manufacturer, do I want to eliminate from my potential customer base any audiophile who prefers, say, tube amps, by building only solid state-powered loudspeakers?
I am getting the impression that Kristian85 is an objectivist. That isn't a criticism, but it does place into context his concern for flat response, low distortion, etc. I will paraphrase Einstein here: Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that can be measured matters.
Bottom line, I know what I like. Other audiophiles that I hang out with in my local audiophile society had similar impressions with the ATC. As for my Ohms, I had a few audiophile buddies over to listen. Most agreed that the Ohm Walsh 2000s sounded pretty good overall. Some were bothered by a gentle roll-off in the highs, but this was due, I believe, to my set up of the speakers, and I like the balance where it is, for the most part.
