What are the top 5 brand, high end, 3 way active bookshelf speaker, 3 ft. tall or so?

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,826
I was looking at this:

SCM50 | ATC Loudspeakers

about $10K, but turns out this pair is out 14 years ago. So the technology behind it is too old

and someone told me these speaker technology changes every 8 to 10 yr., so having a pair that old is useless.

the speaker has to sit on a desk, so the height should be no more than 3.2 ft. or so, the truth, the dimension of the above speaker is good. The workmanship is good (it's made in UK) but it's just the technology is too old

I am currently using M3-8 from M-audio, suggested by some member here.

anyone has any recommendation?
 
Speaker technology does not change every 8-10 years haha. It's very incremental stuff like CPUs today. With sub woofers, practically zero improvement, we've nearly reached 'the end' for them. Only so much you can do but make the sound a totally different way. E.g. rotary subs and compressed air, horns etcetc.

Explore the 805 D3 - Bowers & Wilkins

I wouldn't call a 3ft speaker a bookshelf speaker personally. That's more near-mid field monitor size.
 
Tell me this then, I listened to a stereo system on friend's of mine, his speaker is 10 yr. old, Magnepan (the very first pair on the link as soon as you see it). He paid $5K. I done a A-B test. I listened to his speaker using my 3 x CD, and that same 3 x CDs were listened to and compares to my M-Audio M3-8. My ones sounds noticeably better. Some improvement must have happened in a 10 yr. time frame.

Did they say they put R&D on the cone material, make the cone much harder and yet lighter in weight?

Magnepan


I already look into Bowers & Wilkins, their product is made in china. With high end quality product, I can't consider those country as their workmanship is crap.
 
I'm guessing that wasn't a blind test, so your own preconceived notions probably colored your perceptions. Also, were the speakers tested on the same stereo in the same room, or were those other variables that could have affected the sound? And your friend's speaker's age may mean that they've degraded a bit. Are its cones/surrounds/etc. still in good shape?
 
The ATC SM-150S dome midrange (featured in that speaker) is one of the cleanest measuring dynamic drivers ever produced for its frequency bandwidth. It's an amazing, highly-coveted, legendary midrange for its ability to play cleanly to high SPL levels, and provide a very even dispersion. If you do a search on that model number, you'll see the hype. I'm slightly concerned by their decision to highpass this dome mid at 380Hz, but they're rating their bigger monitors to 115db continuous output using that same x-over point. Some of the measurement data out there suggests that this mid will distort at high SPL when crossed low... but I'm guessing ATC has good reasons.

That ATC 9" midbass/range, I think, cannot be purchased separately. There is a slightly downgraded version available. I'm guessing it's pretty good...

The ATC tweeter, I don't know anything about...

The B&W midranges are also damned clean, and should play lower than the ATC dome mid, but not quite as high (doesn't matter as long as it can play high enough for the tweeter to take over w/o strain). I don't know about their SPL-capability, however. They're less of a studio-monitor company and more just Hi-Fi. Based on how they advertise their distortion spec (at 90db 1m), I wouldn't be surprised if these wouldn't be up the task of high-SPL studio monitor duty.

The newer Magnepan stuff measures very clean. It just can't play that loud, some people might not like the dispersion characteristics, and bass is a problem.

Genelec is one of the standard Go-To brands for high-end monitors (along with ATC and uh... Neumann KH). They have produced an impressive selection of technical audio white papers / research.

As an example of price not always being indicative of performance:

НЧ-динамики - This is the audioguruman Woofer measurement section. He has other sections for tweeter / midrange / broadband. The expensive accuton woofers return a mediocre performance. The reasonably-priced SB Acoustics / Satori line performs admirably.

I guess I'd want to demo the options if I'm spending that much $$$
 
I'm guessing that wasn't a blind test, so your own preconceived notions probably colored your perceptions. Also, were the speakers tested on the same stereo in the same room, or were those other variables that could have affected the sound? And your friend's speaker's age may mean that they've degraded a bit. Are its cones/surrounds/etc. still in good shape?

you're right. It's not the same stereo equipment. My setup is very basic. I have a 16 yr. old panasonic Cd/ DVD player, connected to a Emotiva XDA-1 (a $225 DAC) then branched out to the M-audio M3-8

My friend's set up is more complex, but the test is done about 2 month ago, off hand, I can't remember those fancy model / brand name, but seriously, anything should be better than the above
 
You seem to have made up your mind already since old speakers are useless to you.......

You seem to have opinions not based on any actual facts in the audio world.
 
The ATC SM-150S dome midrange (featured in that speaker) is one of the cleanest measuring dynamic drivers ever produced for its frequency bandwidth. It's an amazing, highly-coveted, legendary midrange for its ability to play cleanly to high SPL levels, and provide a very even dispersion. If you do a search on that model number, you'll see the hype. I'm slightly concerned by their decision to highpass this dome mid at 380Hz, but they're rating their bigger monitors to 115db continuous output using that same x-over point. Some of the measurement data out there suggests that this mid will distort at high SPL when crossed low... but I'm guessing ATC has good reasons.

That ATC 9" midbass/range, I think, cannot be purchased separately. There is a slightly downgraded version available. I'm guessing it's pretty good...

The ATC tweeter, I don't know anything about...

The B&W midranges are also damned clean, and should play lower than the ATC dome mid, but not quite as high (doesn't matter as long as it can play high enough for the tweeter to take over w/o strain). I don't know about their SPL-capability, however. They're less of a studio-monitor company and more just Hi-Fi. Based on how they advertise their distortion spec (at 90db 1m), I wouldn't be surprised if these wouldn't be up the task of high-SPL studio monitor duty.

The newer Magnepan stuff measures very clean. It just can't play that loud, some people might not like the dispersion characteristics, and bass is a problem.

Genelec is one of the standard Go-To brands for high-end monitors (along with ATC and uh... Neumann KH). They have produced an impressive selection of technical audio white papers / research.

As an example of price not always being indicative of performance:

НЧ-динамики - This is the audioguruman Woofer measurement section. He has other sections for tweeter / midrange / broadband. The expensive accuton woofers return a mediocre performance. The reasonably-priced SB Acoustics / Satori line performs admirably.

I guess I'd want to demo the options if I'm spending that much $$$

1) ATC: do you agree w/ N4CR above, where he said there is very small incremental R&D on speaker in the past 10+ yr.? I mean, I get queasy buying a pair of speaker designed 15 yr. old.

2) B&W --- they have a lot of floor type speaker that are 3 way, but desk height speaker, say 3 ft.tall or less, are all 2 ways.

3) Genelec -- no home audio speaker that are 3 ways, they do have a professional audio speaker called 1237A SAM. I never use a professional autio speaker before, can people really use these for home audio purpose?

Neumann KH-- they have 1 x 3 way, but that's a killer, the midrange and treble is 130W each

================

any other top brand name out there, so far, the only one that fits my criteria is ATC
 
You seem to have made up your mind already since old speakers are useless to you.......

You seem to have opinions not based on any actual facts in the audio world.

see, this is what I have experienced:

I bought a Sony ES integrated amplifier in 1999, it's totally dead in 2015. I replaced it w/ Emotica in 2015, the difference is day vs. night. By that I mean I was still comparing the exact same speaker at the time (a pair of Rogers 12 yr. old), and same CD player

The music I listened to, is 99% female / male vocal, so you know where the frequency range is. As far as instrumental is concerned, I only listen to Yanni and Kenny G, that's like 1% of my daily listening.

So I need high end speaker to reflect good sound, and I expect newer technology yields better sound.

That pair of ATC fits all the criteria except that it comes out at 2001 or before. I mean, I couldn't help but wonder what ATC staff has been doing in the past 15 yr.

========================

On unrelated matter, I paid $400 on a Intel 600 series SSD 480Gb just last year, it's to replace the 300 series 600GB that I bought the yr. before, as I found out the 300 series lost the entire drive. Just 2 weeks ago, the new 600p series come out, and it's 3 times faster than the 600 series that I bought just last year. The time gap is only 1 yr. Now SSD advancement can't compare to speakers. But w/ those speakers, we are still talking about a whoppy 15 yr. gap here.

so I don't want to buy this pair of ATC and find out next year, that a better sound technology is coming out for speakers, and there is noticeably better sound
 
Tell me this then, I listened to a stereo system on friend's of mine, his speaker is 10 yr. old, Magnepan (the very first pair on the link as soon as you see it). He paid $5K. I done a A-B test. I listened to his speaker using my 3 x CD, and that same 3 x CDs were listened to and compares to my M-Audio M3-8. My ones sounds noticeably better. Some improvement must have happened in a 10 yr. time frame.

Did they say they put R&D on the cone material, make the cone much harder and yet lighter in weight?

Magnepan


I already look into Bowers & Wilkins, their product is made in china. With high end quality product, I can't consider those country as their workmanship is crap.

You seem pretty made up in your choices but I'll respond anyway.

The 800 Diamond series (what I linked you) and Nautilus are built in UK - do more research if you don't believe me. Lower models now are China made, but anything few years older like my DM604s are British made.
Go and listen to some instead of just write them off. Not everything Chinese is bad, they can build quality if you pay for it and have the QC in place. That's part of my business. Another thing, I'd bet money that at least some components in every speaker you will consider, will be sourced from Chinese production, including this system you are using to view [H].

Cone materials have not really changed much. We have been using Kevlar since B&W did it a gazillion years ago, others have done fibre glass, mixes of fibres, titanium, aluminium, carbon fibre, paper, plastics etc etc including combinations of the aforementioned, you name it... I saw some 20+ year old speakers in Germany last year, huge floor standers about 1.5-1.6m high with fibre glass woofers, 5 way, dual 10"s, passive radiators etc... crazy shit and heavy as hell. ~250k euro speakers new and people highly rate them today and can rock a castle out.
Some very experienced audio enthusiasts rate a particularly large diameter yet low throw sub from the 60s, as probably the cleanest they have ever heard. Why is that the case if old stuff is crap?

You know what's a breath of fresh air? Hearing my old DM110s through a 70s pioneer amp. They are so un-fatiguing that you can listen to them forever. They're not as overwhelming as a modern system with its clinical detail. There is a time and a place for different colourations of sound. Besides, whatever room you are going to throw this in will fuck it all up, unless you're going to spend similar amounts on the treatment. Have a friend who is a acoustic engineer for a leading company, has 20k sound measuring systems at his disposal, after speaking to someone like that, the amount of critical room analysis they can provide is humbling. There are so many things acting against your audio experience in your room.

So go and try stuff hopefully in a good room. Go try Genelec, which no doubt has some stuff made in China too... but it still sounds amazing, funny that! Adam audio might be worth a try too for you but I personally find the spacing of the high end really tends to do my head in with imaging. Crisp sound but imaging is weird.


P.s. used hifi can be amazing bang for buck... my next system will be used mains with new amps and re-use the existing cabling.
 
Amplifier technology, especially the high-efficiency PWM amp topologies, has progressed quite a bit in the last 20 years. Emotiva also makes good equipment, so I'm not shocked by your experience.

Digital signal processing has progressed immensely, and is still improving (I'd say it's more competitive in video decoding and encoding than audio).

Speaker technology hasn't changed nearly as much. There is a tendency to produce larger Xmax drivers with more copper (as inductance-lowering shorting "faraday" rings and/or sleeves) in the motors, especially in the subwoofers / midbass woofers where shorting rings were previously uncommon - we can see this in the mass-produced Dayton Reference subwoofers, and the latest Stereo Integrity subwoofers...and the Harbottle Audio subwoofers (manufacturer for Funk Audio) seem to be rather exotic - choice of cone materials, underhung high-xmax motors, a lot of copper, etc...

It's possible that the older Magnepan speakers weren't as good... I've heard that before. But I really don't know what you heard or even whether you'd like the latest from Magnepan. It could easily be that you did not like planar speakers because of their dispersion pattern.

There was a blind test including the acclaimed Linkwitz Orion (dipole, and uses the top-tier, somewhat old Seas Excel w22ex-001 magnesium-cone 8" midrange) and the cheapo Behringer Truth monitors. The Behringer's won, probably because listeners preferred the controlled directivity design of studio monitors over the dipole radiation pattern (which Earl Geddes disapproves of, and which Linkwitz seems to employ to reproduce the experience of a classical music concert hall): - there is probably a better link available elsewhere.

Similarly, - Watch the 2nd half - it seems that listeners preferred cheaper conventional speakers to the Martin Logan... Electrostats are supposed to be the lowest-distortion option available, but the way they radiate sound is fundamentally different - and different-sounding. They need to be LARGE to perform their best, but still... they lost in this audition. A single test doesn't mean everything - ESL's are probably still amazing. I'm just using them to make a point.

Geddes of course champions controlled directivity ( Loudspeakers - for his views on directivity), and has designed his high-SPL 2-way loudspeakers, which feature a compression driver on an oblate spheroid waveguide, specifically to create what he feels is objectively the most ideal polar pattern - placing distortion lower on the list of priorities.

I DO think it was only recently (in the past few years) that the AMT (Air Motion Transformer) tweeter has been optimized. The newer AMTs (from Mundorf, especially, but also from Aurum cantus) are great as low-distortion, high-SPL tweeters -- Emotiva uses some sort of AMT in their AirMotiv monitors.

That ATC dome midrange has yet to be surpassed on its objective merits, in my opinion. It's still at the top of the heap for someone who wants a high-SPL capable midrange.

I'm guessing the ATC midwoofer is top-tier. I'd guess the same of their tweeter. I'd guess that they designed the whole monitor well, but I do wonder whether that tweeter would be on a waveguide if ATC were to design a "2016 version."

Genelec makes several "3-way" coaxial speakers - it seems they've turned that into their specialty. But if that doesn't count, then yes, you're limited to that single 3-way line.

As for your quest for a 3-way largish bookshelf speaker... I don't have the answer. It seems like you could even go with something like the ZaphAudio 3-way contest-winning design: Zaph|Audio - Design Contest Results

Some people think Genelec sounds clinical... ATC sounds "forward" - or whatever... you'd have to audition these units.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Another thing to note, BW Nautilus is approaching 30 years but still considered a benchmark. It's the McLaren F1 of speakers. Same thing there - it's still just as fast as many hyper cars today.

Materials is one thing, execution and engineering/design is another. Writing stuff off for being old is not always the best way to go. I bet you'd shit your pants in a group b rally car - again they are not really any slower than what we have today, if not faster in some situations.
 
Speaker technology hasn't changed nearly as much. There is a tendency to produce larger Xmax drivers with more copper (as inductance-lowering shorting "faraday" rings and/or sleeves) in the motors, especially in the subwoofers / midbass woofers where shorting rings were previously uncommon - we can see this in the mass-produced Dayton Reference subwoofers, and the latest Stereo Integrity subwoofers...and the Harbottle Audio subwoofers (manufacturer for Funk Audio) seem to be rather exotic - choice of cone materials, underhung high-xmax motors, a lot of copper, etc...

You pretty much described Dan Wiggins' design philosophy for the Exodus Audio Maelstrom XBL² motors. I can't wait to get my build finished. Been 7-8 years of blue balls sitting in a box with a few power up tests between! So damn clean in free air, everything in the room starts rattling and there is no motor/cone noise, a little disconcerting really.
 

Attachments

  • M6.jpg
    M6.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 57
1) ATC: do you agree w/ N4CR above, where he said there is very small incremental R&D on speaker in the past 10+ yr.? I mean, I get queasy buying a pair of speaker designed 15 yr. old.
Yes, it's incremental.

Let's compare speakers designed by "objectivist" engineers across 20 years. First, these Dunlavy IVs, then the Kii Three. (Kii's Press page has an Audio magazine test with measurements.)

The Kiis are active speakers with amazing amps & sophisticated DSP, yet the biggest objective differences are better pattern control & an 85% size reduction. Frequency response has become a little flatter, impulse responses are similar, and we don't have distortion numbers for the Dunlavys.

VERY few speakers perform at this level, so I believe the 20+yo models are better than a majority of newer designs.

There was a blind test including the acclaimed Linkwitz Orion (dipole, and uses the top-tier, somewhat old Seas Excel w22ex-001 magnesium-cone 8" midrange) and the cheapo Behringer Truth monitors. The Behringer's won...
If this test is the one I'm familiar with, it asked ONLY about soundstaging. The listeners did not rate FR, dynamics, etc.

Similarly, - Watch the 2nd half - it seems that listeners preferred cheaper conventional speakers to the Martin Logan... Electrostats are supposed to be the lowest-distortion option available, but the way they radiate sound is fundamentally different - and different-sounding.

Note that after evaluating a similar ESL hybrid, Floyd Toole said, "This is a BAD loudspeaker."
 
Go with the pros. Genelec 8351 or 8260. It's what you find in mastering studios. Amazing sound, good support, and solid designs in all aspects.
 
Back
Top