ATC SCM 50 vs JBL Synthesis 4367

[MrBalham]

Hi

I am in process of upgrading my speakers so far narrowed down to these two speakers. ATC SCM 50 passive and JBL 4367. Both are is same ballpark price range.

Both I can not audition with my amplifiers. But have listened to some of the JBL's and owned Klipsch horns and extensively listened to ATC SCM 40 and 11's.

Started my stereo journey with Klipsch rp 600m 5 years back. But for last 3 years owned BBC lineage speakers (harbeth SHL5 and Falcon LS3/5a).

I am hoping to switch (back) to a setup which is more lively, dynamic and fast in contrast to what i have. Both speakers should do justice to the sound signature I am looking. With my previous experience with horns and general research JBL horns should offer immediacy, realism and minimal room interaction. So slightly leaning towards JBL. Would prefer a untreated room and mostly listen low volumes and my amplifier does not have a loudness control.

My room is 12x18 feet (senior JBL owner FM's advised 4367 will be too big for the room though). amplification is Mcintosh MC462 (its 450w so power is not an issue). Looking for a versatile speaker so dont want to stick to a genre of music.

If any one has owned both brands or has perspective on ATC classic series vs JBL Synthesis speakers, please share your views.

Thanks

I just upgraded from SCM 40 Actives to 50 Actives and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you should hear a pair of 50s before buying anything else. I've had Spendors, JBLs, KEFs, etc and the 50s are far and away the best speakers I've heard in this price range. Don't believe the "ATC sound clinical and dry" myth. I have yet to find a type of music that they cannot play (from Baroque, to Drill). I have been sitting up til 2-3am every day listening to tracks I know intimately as well as completely new music because the improvement is dazzling. They're fast, tight, and contrary to what I was expecting - "warm" in that they make most tracks sound interesting because you hear exactly how they were mixed. Sure they reveal every nuance of the production process (who knew Paul Young was so poorly produced..?) but by revealing each channel more clearly than anything I've ever heard, you imagine yourself in the mastering room. Their defining characteristics? 1) channel separation 2) seamless integration between drivers 3) detailed tight bass 4) soundstage is wide rather than deep 5) and above all, their effortlessness. There is one secret: I use mine with an RME2 Dac with Loudness on which at lower volumes say less than -30db - makes them come alive. Otherwise you need serious SPL to hear their power. I could go on..they are fantastic and I don't even feel the need for SCM 100s let alone 300s (yet!)

 

[Nikhil]

I just upgraded from SCM 40 Actives to 50 Actives and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you should hear a pair of 50s before buying anything else. I've had Spendors, JBLs, KEFs, etc and the 50s are far and away the best speakers I've heard in this price range. Don't believe the "ATC sound clinical and dry" myth. I have yet to find a type of music that they cannot play (from Baroque, to Drill). I have been sitting up til 2-3am every day listening to tracks I know intimately as well as completely new music because the improvement is dazzling. They're fast, tight, and contrary to what I was expecting - "warm" in that they make most tracks sound interesting because you hear exactly how they were mixed. Sure they reveal every nuance of the production process (who knew Paul Young was so poorly produced..?) but by revealing each channel more clearly than anything I've ever heard, you imagine yourself in the mastering room. Their defining characteristics? 1) channel separation 2) seamless integration between drivers 3) detailed tight bass 4) soundstage is wide rather than deep 5) and above all, their effortlessness. There is one secret: I use mine with an RME2 Dac with Loudness on which at lower volumes say less than -30db - makes them come alive. Otherwise you need serious SPL to hear their power. I could go on..they are fantastic and I don't even feel the need for SCM 100s let alone 300s (yet!)

This is great information. I'm probably heading towards getting a pair down the road.
Do you need to use a lot of room treatment for the 50s?


.

 

[muralimmreddy]

I am still in dilemma if i need to upgrade my speakers To make it more complicated, i had some experience with various components, now i am wondering if i should fix my sources or speakers for sound signature i am looking. I am appreciating the correct tone & timbre of instruments and transients and holographic presentation the most and of course resolution and clarity.

I am using Harbeth SHL5 (older version) with Mcintosh amps and Lumin X1 as dac and streamer. Many felt nice synergy is there and for me tone is good but never felts anything extraordinary. Harbeths SHL5 are known for exceptional timbre (as per many reviews. users) I could only occasionally get that magic in some combinations. So i was looking for speakers which can give the kind of sound i am looking for. JBL/ATC (and Klipsch) ticks in terms of dynamics, transient response etc, but invariably harbeths comes in top 3-5 recommendations in tone/timbre alone. My real world experiences are limited and its i am learning along and most opinions are theoretical from posts like this (https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-speaker-brands-for-transient-response)

I happened to spend good amount of time with Chord Hugo TT2 dac with Lumin X1 as transport in my chain. Those familiar with Rob Watts and Chords DAC philosophy they have different take on building DAC (time-domain, preserving transients etc). Wow what a revelations for me the Chord was. Clarity is stunning,tone and timbre was exceptional (though felt inconsistent). I also happened to listen to Linn Organik (not in my chain) which has similar design philosophy (use of FPGA, focus on transients etc) which has stunning aspects of clarity, timbre etc. Both the dacs were superior to Lumin X1 (as DAC).

Still don't know where to go from here . Getting new speakers will be be big change. Perhaps will explore chord for now.

 

[sidvee]

I am appreciating the correct tone & timbre of instruments and transients and holographic presentation the most and of course resolution and clarity.

If you like the above, you need to look into the mofi source point 8. In my opinion it is significantly ahead of Harbeth shl5, at-least in these aspects. At its price it is an immense bargain. (I feel one has to pull these out at-least 4feet from the wall behind and spread 6-8 feet for their magic to appear). If you have a large enough room then the 888 will be even better. Many reviews are comparing the latter to the highly acclaimed TAD speakers. If I had the space, I would have upgraded right away.
Edit: I saw that you have a 18x12 room. I think the 888's will work very well in this space.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[Arvind Mathur]

I just upgraded from SCM 40 Actives to 50 Actives and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that you should hear a pair of 50s before buying anything else. I've had Spendors, JBLs, KEFs, etc and the 50s are far and away the best speakers I've heard in this price range. Don't believe the "ATC sound clinical and dry" myth. I have yet to find a type of music that they cannot play (from Baroque, to Drill). I have been sitting up til 2-3am every day listening to tracks I know intimately as well as completely new music because the improvement is dazzling. They're fast, tight, and contrary to what I was expecting - "warm" in that they make most tracks sound interesting because you hear exactly how they were mixed. Sure they reveal every nuance of the production process (who knew Paul Young was so poorly produced..?) but by revealing each channel more clearly than anything I've ever heard, you imagine yourself in the mastering room. Their defining characteristics? 1) channel separation 2) seamless integration between drivers 3) detailed tight bass 4) soundstage is wide rather than deep 5) and above all, their effortlessness. There is one secret: I use mine with an RME2 Dac with Loudness on which at lower volumes say less than -30db - makes them come alive. Otherwise you need serious SPL to hear their power. I could go on..they are fantastic and I don't even feel the need for SCM 100s let alone 300s (yet!)

From where did you buy ATC SCM 50 actives in India? Who is authorised distributer of these speakers in India?

 

[reignofchaos]

From where did you buy ATC SCM 50 actives in India? Who is authorised distributer of these speakers in India?

Official distributor is Cinema focus in Chennai.

 

[arj]

I am still in dilemma if i need to upgrade my speakers To make it more complicated, i had some experience with various components, now i am wondering if i should fix my sources or speakers for sound signature i am looking. I am appreciating the correct tone & timbre of instruments and transients and holographic presentation the most and of course resolution and clarity.

I am using Harbeth SHL5 (older version) with Mcintosh amps and Lumin X1 as dac and streamer. Many felt nice synergy is there and for me tone is good but never felts anything extraordinary. Harbeths SHL5 are known for exceptional timbre (as per many reviews. users) I could only occasionally get that magic in some combinations. So i was looking for speakers which can give the kind of sound i am looking for. JBL/ATC (and Klipsch) ticks in terms of dynamics, transient response etc, but invariably harbeths comes in top 3-5 recommendations in tone/timbre alone. My real world experiences are limited and its i am learning along and most opinions are theoretical from posts like this (https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-speaker-brands-for-transient-response)

I happened to spend good amount of time with Chord Hugo TT2 dac with Lumin X1 as transport in my chain. Those familiar with Rob Watts and Chords DAC philosophy they have different take on building DAC (time-domain, preserving transients etc). Wow what a revelations for me the Chord was. Clarity is stunning,tone and timbre was exceptional (though felt inconsistent). I also happened to listen to Linn Organik (not in my chain) which has similar design philosophy (use of FPGA, focus on transients etc) which has stunning aspects of clarity, timbre etc. Both the dacs were superior to Lumin X1 (as DAC).

Still don't know where to go from here . Getting new speakers will be be big change. Perhaps will explore chord for now.

My experience also is of source making the biggest impact in quality while speaker makes the biggest in the representation/Signature etc and a great Dac is always a good option.

Since you like the speakers so much why are you thinking of moving away from the harbeths at all ? JBL and ATC are significant changes ( ATC Less so). if you do want to upgrade, you could think of going to harbeth 40s as well or Sonus Fabers which go well with Macintosh

12x18 is a decently size room ( same as mine) and I dont see any reason why the JBL will not work., although with a different amp hence do consider that.

If it is only between the 2 , ATC would be preferable primarily due to how it will work in your room with your current amp and have smaller deviation from harbeth while giving a better presentation

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

One way to make hard choices is by understanding yourself as a person. I feel different speaker representations (to borrow the term from @arj above) resonate with different personalities.

I’d think, based on my secondary understanding, the Harbeths would suit someone emotional, an empathic who feels for the songwriter/singer/musician, who gets into the lyrics, its meaning. ATCs hold an appeal for an analytical person who values clarity and speaks his mind. JBLs are for the outgoing, fun loving person who can’t help getting up and dancing to his music.

The adventurous, enterprising one has more transitory preference. Hence would like to try all kinds, but keep moving to the next once he has whetted his appetite.

To each, his own.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

One way to make hard choices is by understanding yourself as a person. I feel different speaker representations (to borrow the term from @arj above) resonate with different personalities.

I’d think, based on my secondary understanding, the Harbeths would suit someone emotional, an empathic who feels for the songwriter/singer/musician, who gets into the lyrics, its meaning. ATCs hold an appeal for an analytical person who values clarity and speaks his mind. JBLs are for the outgoing, fun loving person who can’t help getting up and dancing to his music.

The adventurous, enterprising one has more transitory preference. Hence would like to try all kinds, but keep moving to the next once he has whetted his appetite.

To each, his own.

I understand your rationale but I disagree. At least looking inward, the type of presentation I prefer is in stark contrast to who I am. Though your premise seems logical on it's face my personal opinion is that it is not correct, at the very least in my case. I do agree to each his own.

 

[arj]

If we make a change to the above from "Who we are " to "how do we enjoy music" it might paint a better picture
My learning from a whatsapp discussion recently in a group was that all of us listen to music differently some of which could be

-Feeling the emotion of music where vocal is "another instrument"
-Feeling the lyrics and the emotion with that embellished by music
-Feel the sound and get the thrill from the the way words and music come together
-Critically look at music itself and how it is supposed to be done (mostly classical)
-Listen to the system , how is it representing the music ie is it well balanced
-etc etc

I just wrote some of the above so there could be things in common or not represented but i guess depending on out we might spread across one or more or even all of the above at any time

Perhaps what moves you in music is what one needs to identify and thats mostly governed by the speaker+Amp combo for the tone/representation and details/nuances by the source. Everything else is complementary . Ye even the room as most speakers can be placed well enough to do a fairly decent job unless there is a serious mismatch

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

I've spoken to many people about music, while most don't care much or don't have an answer, for the remaining that do answer most seem to listen to music thus (quote) -

"Feeling the lyrics and the emotion with that embellished by music"

It isn't my perception of music but the above is correct for most people in my experience. I'll note here that embellish is the right word, most of these people did not care much for "music" but rather only the message in the lyrics.

Here is a random experiment, play music for people in a language they don't understand, most will either zone out or simply ask you to stop, or if they are polite enough wait for you to finish and then say that it was nice.

 

[muralimmreddy]

Since you like the speakers so much why are you thinking of moving away from the harbeths at all ? JBL and ATC are significant changes ( ATC Less so). if you do want to upgrade, you could think of going to harbeth 40s as well or Sonus Fabers which go well with Macintosh

I see the potential but I don't like Harbeths (just shl5 ). I used to own Falcon gold badge ls3/5a, in nearfield listening and with tube amps it was glorious, and i wanted a big brother speaker with scale, and folks at hifiwigwam suggested i consider shl5 or ATC. I blindley ended up buying used slh5 only to realize its more accurate and monitor like does not have midrange beauty of ls3/5a. I also used to own klipsh horns i really liked the immediacy and lively presentation. I guess i am looking for speakers with the midrange like that of ATC, ls3/5a and immediacy, dynamics of horns.

 

[reignofchaos]

Listen to the SCM50 if possible before committing to it. However I think you will like it.

 

[arj]

I see the potential but I don't like Harbeths (just shl5 ). I used to own Falcon gold badge ls3/5a, in nearfield listening and with tube amps it was glorious, and i wanted a big brother speaker with scale, and folks at hifiwigwam suggested i consider shl5 or ATC. I blindley ended up buying used slh5 only to realize its more accurate and monitor like does not have midrange beauty of ls3/5a. I also used to own klipsh horns i really liked the immediacy and lively presentation. I guess i am looking for speakers with the midrange like that of ATC, ls3/5a and immediacy, dynamics of horns.

if you like the Klipsch you will love the JBLs as well they have the same liveliness with an excellent Midrange but i am not sure of the Amp.

 

[reignofchaos]

JBL will need a completely different amp to his current setup.

 

[oyster]

A couple years ago when I had to pick between atc scm100 and jbl 4333b:
ATC:
Forward midrange with tons of resolution. Its seductive. Bass otoh was inconsistent. It fell off like a cliff below 50hz. Bass has got details but sounds engineered. Treble is fine, slightly muted at the very top end but pretty accurate. Again, that midrange though....

JBL:
Dynamics galore. It sounds scary at times, this is the speaker that can do road roller like rumble, thunderstorm like scale. On some instrumental tracks felt like the room is going to collapse.
Midrange resolution is easily worse vs ATC. That 2" metal diaphragm bottomed out wrt resolution pretty soon while ATC could go on and on.
2405 tweeter walks over the atcs treble. 2405 sounds dense and its extension can outdo your listening capability. Its incisive like warm knife to butter.
JBLs need a lot of work with placement. Needs a lot of fiddling to get satisfactory driver integration. Of the two years of ownership I spent an yr on placement alone alone (across 4 rooms).
Most fiddling went into dialing bass quantity and fixing that nasty 12k peak on the 2405
When dialled in , it can bring orchestra in your room
My primary requirement was dynamics, bass quality and bandwidth, JBL did that.
ATCs otoh will give you unparalled accuracy in the 500hz-10k region

 

[square_wave]

I've spoken to many people about music, while most don't care much or don't have an answer, for the remaining that do answer most seem to listen to music thus (quote) -

"Feeling the lyrics and the emotion with that embellished by music"

It isn't my perception of music but the above is correct for most people in my experience. I'll note here that embellish is the right word, most of these people did not care much for "music" but rather only the message in the lyrics.

Here is a random experiment, play music for people in a language they don't understand, most will either zone out or simply ask you to stop, or if they are polite enough wait for you to finish and then say that it was nice.

A different perspective.

To me, lyrics plays a big part with a of my music. Especially music that has a message. Much of my personality was shaped by musicians like Bob dylan.

There is also the other side of music that fascinates me. It is the "sound of music". Music is a medium through which you can express feelings. There are stories you can weave with no lyrics at all. You really don't need the help of lyrics to understand why the piece was written and performed. Classical music and Jazz are good examples of that. Also, I don't understand a thing when Pavarotti or Andrea Bocelli sings. But I can be mesmerised by the feelings their music evokes. I have been to a few experimental music compositions / performances by underground artists. Usually there is written info about what they are trying to convey. And they do it with just the "sound of music". Some such performances can be mesmerising. It is like how an abstract painter interprets through their paintings.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

A different perspective.

To me, lyrics plays a big part with a of my music. Especially music that has a message. Much of my personality was shaped by musicians like Bob dylan.

There is also the other side of music that fascinates me. It is the "sound of music". Music is a medium through which you can express feelings. There are stories you can weave with no lyrics at all. You really don't need the help of lyrics to understand why the piece was written and performed. Classical music and Jazz are good examples of that. Also, I don't understand a thing when Pavarotti or Andrea Bocelli sings. But I can be mesmerised by the feelings their music evokes. I have been to a few experimental music compositions / performances by underground artists. Usually there is written info about what they are trying to convey. And they do it with just the "sound of music". Some such performances can be mesmerising. It is like how an abstract painter interprets through their paintings.

The perspective you describe seems common to me. Personally I don't focus on the lyrics and don't take anyone who does so seriously. Sure I can hear them but I am not interested in making out every word or hanging/focusing on/analyzing the meaning. The meaning is irrelevant. My perspective has always been simple, sit,press play and enjoy. There is nothing else, there shouldn't be anything else. If there is, the person in question does not love music. Simple as. Personally I am happy to listen to a song that repeats a single word, let's say fruit, over and over again, as long as the music and singing are good, ie to my taste. I care about the emotion music/singing invokes. Of course these are my views so IMO and all that.

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

The perspective you describe seems common to me. Personally I don't focus on the lyrics and don't take anyone who does so seriously. Sure I can hear them but I am not interested in making out every word or hanging/focusing on/analyzing the meaning. The meaning is irrelevant. My perspective has always been simple, sit,press play and enjoy. There is nothing else, there shouldn't be anything else. If there is, the person in question does not love music. Simple as. Personally I am happy to listen to a song that repeats a single word, let's say fruit, over and over again, as long as the music and singing are good, ie to my taste. I care about the emotion music/singing invokes. Of course these are my views so IMO and all that.

We all have individual preferences when it comes to doing anything, including listening to music. And therefore, yours or anyone else’s is understandable. But defining ‘loving music’ (or for that matter, anything else) for the world based on one’s own preference might be limiting. Besides, the world and its people are fascinating due to this diversity.

In fact, certain forms of music, such as Ghazal place primary emphasis on the poetry and not the singing/instrumentahon. The latter, though important in conveying the lyrics effectively and emphatically, is considered subsidiary to former. It’s like say cinema vs stage to an extent. While cinema is considered a director’s medium, a play is always primarily associated with the playwright.

Personally, while in general I myself lost in feeling the music and not paying attention to the words, when listening to lyric-centered genres, which also includes country music, soul, or singer-songwriter, as also old Hindi film music, or Marathi Bhavgeets apart form Ghazal of course, I find it enhances my experience when I make the effort to listen to the words and their meaning. Yes, I mean it when I say ‘make the effort’ because it doesn’t happen naturally for me. So most of the times I don’t.

But I have family members and friends who listen exactly opposite of me, listening primarily to the lyrics, so much so that they don’t prefer listening to classical or Jazz where words, if present, are secondary. And I find them enjoying their music as much, though they appreciate it differently from me. (Based on my studies of personality psychology, I am able to see some correlation between personality types and how people prefer to listen to music, but that’d take us to a whole new discussion).

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

We all have individual preferences when it comes to doing anything, including listening to music. And therefore, yours or anyone else’s is understandable. But defining ‘loving music’ (or for that matter, anything else) for the world based on one’s own preference might be limiting. Besides, the world and its people are fascinating due to this diversity.

In fact, certain forms of music, such as Ghazal place primary emphasis on the poetry and not the singing/instrumentahon. The latter, though important in conveying the lyrics effectively and emphatically, is considered subsidiary to former. It’s like say cinema vs stage to an extent. While cinema is considered a director’s medium, a play is always primarily associated with the playwright.

Personally, while in general I myself lost in feeling the music and not paying attention to the words, when listening to lyric-centered genres, which also includes country music, soul, or singer-songwriter, as also old Hindi film music, or Marathi Bhavgeets apart form Ghazal of course, I find it enhances my experience when I make the effort to listen to the words and their meaning. Yes, I mean it when I say ‘make the effort’ because it doesn’t happen naturally for me. So most of the times I don’t.

But I have family members and friends who listen exactly opposite of me, listening primarily to the lyrics, so much so that they don’t prefer listening to classical or Jazz where words, if present, are secondary. And I find them enjoying their music as much, though they appreciate it differently from me. (Based on my studies of personality psychology, I am able to see some correlation between personality types and how people prefer to listen to music, but that’d take us to a whole new discussion).

I thought it was clear these were my views. I don't define anything for the world, the world itself can not. The universe is absolute, humans/the worlds views are irrelevant. Only personal views matter to the individual possessing them.

I disagree that diversity makes the world fascinating.