Focal SM9 or ATC SCM25A Pro?

[Ruslan Y]

Just switched over to the ATC's from the Focal Twins.. Loving the change, the Focals were too forgiving..

[Jantex]

I would hardly say "lack of bass" but one thing is for sure. Focals are full range, while SCM25 are not (though almost).

Originally Posted by Aith

Why would you not want to the atc when doing electronic music too then? Is it the partial lack of bass?

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by Ruslan Y

Just switched over to the ATC's from the Focal Twins.. Loving the change, the Focals were too forgiving..

AMEN BROTHER!!! I have the same problem!!!

[cinealta]

No comparison. Focal *twins* sounds like they have a veil over them (haven't heard the SM9s). No midrange info whatsoever. ATCs are very detailed albeit expensive.

[edham]

I finally had a chance to spend time on the SM9's.
As a 25 owner, I found nothing in the focals to be an improvement.

The low end seemed just a bit undefined. Passive radiator I presume.

God invented subs for a reason. I have one paired with my 25's and occasionally pop it on to see what might be going on down there.
But 99% of my time is spent just letting the 25's do their thing and that's giving a stunningly accurate picture throughout their range.

[Lsixtysix]

I own a pair of SM9's and i have heard them side by side some barefoot mm35's, focal twins, Adam A7, Genelec 8050's and Event Opal's and to me the Focal's where the clear winner with the Barefoots a very close second place.
I am really curious to hear ATC's now judging by all the glowing and positive comments they have received here, sounds like the Focal's were no match.

Anyone know where in Au, Melbourne i can find a pair to demo? i have had no luck searching online for these.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by Lsixtysix

I am really curious to hear ATC's now judging by all the glowing and positive comments they have received here, sounds like the Focal's were no match.

Careful, myself and several others were comparing the Focal *Twins*, not SM9s, to the ATCs.

[Jantex]

I have actually compared them to the SM9. I definitely didn't say Focals were no match. They do extend evidently lower and are a superb speaker. But ATC was IMHO superior above 60Hz. They sounded more natural with noticably better resolution and better stereo imaging. For full range monitoring they would need a sub though...but it depends on the music you do.

For rock, jazz, blues, classical, folk you simply cannot beat ATC. If I was doing mainly electronic or sample based music, I would probably lean more towards Focals. The thing I don't like with the Focals is their smooth, "too relaxed" upper midrange. Electric guitars simply don't sound like electric guitars. Recordings from bands like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC miss the edge you might expect from a cranked Marshall. Even harsh vocals came out perfectly smooth.

For contemporary pop/house and top40 the Focals sounded the way I percieve that music should sound.

Choose your speakers depending on what you do and what you prefer. Both are outstanding in the end.

[Lsixtysix]

Thanks for the clarification Jantex, i actually do produce more electronic and sample based music that is why i leaned towards the SM9's.
I am very content with the Focals but i still am very curious to listen to a pair but there doesn't seem to be any dealers who stock them in all of Australia.

Ah well maybe its a good thing, probably send me broke.

[Aith]

Originally Posted by Jantex

I have actually compared them to the SM9. I definitely didn't say Focals were no match. They do extend evidently lower and are a superb speaker. But ATC was IMHO superior above 60Hz. They sounded more natural with noticably better resolution and better stereo imaging. For full range monitoring they would need a sub though...but it depends on the music you do.

For rock, jazz, blues, classical, folk you simply cannot beat ATC. If I was doing mainly electronic or sample based music, I would probably lean more towards Focals. The thing I don't like with the Focals is their smooth, "too relaxed" upper midrange. Electric guitars simply don't sound like electric guitars. Recordings from bands like Led Zeppelin, AC/DC miss the edge you might expect from a cranked Marshall. Even harsh vocals came out perfectly smooth.

For contemporary pop/house and top40 the Focals sounded the way I percieve that music should sound.

Choose your speakers depending on what you do and what you prefer. Both are outstanding in the end.

For that kind of money you shouldn't be looking into a forgiving monitor setup no matter the genre. I too have found the sm9 to be abit smooth on the med-high mids and i can not see how would that be better for electronic music instead of picking a more detailed speaker. You will just end up with a more punchy midrange to compensate what your listening into your mix/production, ripping through consumer speakers like a bat. Too bad that the Atc's are not available for auditioning.

[SoZo]

That sound you are describing may be distortion, specifically in the tweeter. There has been many advances in say tweeter technology way past ATC's tweeter design. For example, the ring radiator tweeters used in the new barefoot and the amazing Focal tweeter.

Now whether distortion sounds good is subjective, I like it for some things....

[SoZo]

I do understand the need and like a organic mid driver , seems like ATC has this nailed...

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by Aith

For that kind of money you shouldn't be looking into a forgiving monitor setup no matter the genre. I too have found the sm9 to be abit smooth on the med-high mids and i can not see how would that be better for electronic music instead of picking a more detailed speaker. You will just end up with a more punchy midrange to compensate what your listening into your mix/production, ripping through consumer speakers like a bat. Too bad that the Atc's are not available for auditioning.

You are absolutely right!!!! I would never advise a smooth sounding speaker to anyone(I fell in that trap once with the focal twins) , they might be good for producing and for sound design as they let you work for long hours and are very forgiving , but for critical mixing and mastering that has to sound pleasing on consumer systems and large PA systems , SMOOTH SOUNDING MONITOR SPEAKERS ARE A CURSE.

It is one of the reasons IMO music sounds so piercing and harsh those days ... people mix on smooth speakers that pat them on the back and fool them into thinking that their mixes are great , but those mixes sound harsh and piercing on consumer systems

For the sake of making pleasing smooth mixes, please pick brutal and honest sounding speakers for serious mixing and mastering ... and buy the smooth forgiving sounding speakers for your living room.

[FocalPro]

Originally Posted by Aith

I too have found the sm9 to be abit smooth on the med-high mids and i can not see how would that be better for electronic music instead of picking a more detailed speaker. You will just end up with a more punchy midrange to compensate what your listening into your mix/production, ripping through consumer speakers like a bat. Too bad that the Atc's are not available for auditioning.

I find the comment on the mids / high-mids of the SM9 quite interesting. You do realize that the SM9 is absolutely DEAD flat(+/- 1dB from 40Hz to 20kHz).

Most speakers are 'voiced' to obtain a certain sound- that may or not be adapted to mixing. for example, yes, most 'monitors' are more forward in the high-mids, simply because 'it's always been this way'.

That is for that reason that we added the 1kHz adjustement at the back of the SM9 - which sole purpose has nothing to do with room adjustment - but simply: "where do you want your midrange to sit" That's why it has a wide 0.5Q.

Also - knowing that we had the 2-way 'Focus' system specifically designed to spot-check problems in the mid - it made absolutely no sense to make touch the flat curve of the speaker to voice it to make it seemed 'more detailed'

Also, as another user mentionned, be very careful of the pleasing effect of distortion. (from the amp and the drivers themselves) - For example, it's not rare that in a A-B shootout with a CMS65 to Solo6 - people think that the CMS65 is more detailed in the high-end, although in reality, the Beryllium tweeter is far flatter and has far less distortion. Same can be found on competitive products that use folded ribbon tweeters for example. even though the frequency response does not suggest that they have more high-end, the distortion is perceived as 'more detail'.

Hope that helps!

[guitarz]

So you're saying that the ATC SCM25 has a midrange bump?

[FocalPro]

Originally Posted by guitarz

So you're saying that the ATC SCM25 has a midrange bump?

Not at all. it's probably very - VERY flat. it's ATC we are talking about here, not M-Audio.

I'm just saying that distortion plays a lot of tricks on us. for example, if you play the SM9 at 90dB - and another speaker at EXACTLY the same level and ask people to see which one is the loudest, everybody know that the most distorted one will 'appear' louder. right?

Well - apply the same concept to a specific frequency band. If, for example you have a speaker that is mostly distorting harmonically through the upper mids, it will appear to have it's upper mids more detailed and forward.

[Aith]

I didn't say the the focals weren't flat even though i felt that they imparted a character on the material. However, my beef was different, i didn't find that much detail on the mid-high mid section and i doubt that a switch will bring up what is not already there, rather than just boost what is and that didn't really cover my needs. I haven't made up my mind yet though.

Don't get me wrong, the sm9 is an excellent speaker. It just flattered harsh material too much for my taste. Maybe i was expecting more for the money, stepping up from the 2k$ range.

[alecsribet]

Originally Posted by FocalPro

I find the comment on the mids / high-mids of the SM9 quite interesting. You do realize that the SM9 is absolutely DEAD flat(+/- 1dB from 40Hz to 20kHz).

Most speakers are 'voiced' to obtain a certain sound- that may or not be adapted to mixing. for example, yes, most 'monitors' are more forward in the high-mids, simply because 'it's always been this way'.

That is for that reason that we added the 1kHz adjustement at the back of the SM9 - which sole purpose has nothing to do with room adjustment - but simply: "where do you want your midrange to sit" That's why it has a wide 0.5Q.

Also - knowing that we had the 2-way 'Focus' system specifically designed to spot-check problems in the mid - it made absolutely no sense to make touch the flat curve of the speaker to voice it to make it seemed 'more detailed'

Also, as another user mentionned, be very careful of the pleasing effect of distortion. (from the amp and the drivers themselves) - For example, it's not rare that in a A-B shootout with a CMS65 to Solo6 - people think that the CMS65 is more detailed in the high-end, although in reality, the Beryllium tweeter is far flatter and has far less distortion. Same can be found on competitive products that use folded ribbon tweeters for example. even though the frequency response does not suggest that they have more high-end, the distortion is perceived as 'more detail'.

Hope that helps!

My experience with Focals(I am using the focal twins) is that the mid frequencies are forgiving, too forgiving to harsh and piercing frequencies.

Lots of times I noticed that when the mix translated to consumer audio and large PA systems , the harshness is present and I began to ask myself why this is happening.

When I tested the track on the Atc150 , it clearly slapped me and pointed the harshness issues out in a brutal way.... I corrected it and it translated perfectly.

I'm not putting anybody down, but softening the harshness which is present in the material instead of exposing it ... it not the role or a monitor IMO.


Don't blame it on the acoustics neither as even when I bring my ear super close to the tweeters , I don't hear any harshness neither.

[light]

ATC Sm25a i heard these monitors today in a demo. in comparison to all the other monitors in the room (many other top of the line speakers) these were the best hands down. Like most people said they really showed detail in the midrange of the mix to the point where I felt like if i had these nothing would be able to touch my vocal mixs... I mean the detail in the mids was amazing, I could hear things I never heard before, even on top of the line monitors..

btw other speakers there were "Barefoot" "Genelec and Focal" all sounded good, but not in the same leauge.. just my 2 cents

[Fleaman]

Was this at Vintage King? Did you try the Pelonis 4288's?

[SoZo]

I have never heard the ATC but I would imagine the mid driver because of the physics must have a lot of ring and distortion in the driver, as well as the old school soft dome tweeter. Now whether this is reminiscent or “natural sounding” I don’t know but it looks like it would have a lot of what state of the art speaker designers are trying to get out of their design. Currently they are changing box shape, stiffening and dampening the drivers by way of voice coil placement and materials to get rid of ring and distortions.

[Tone Laborer]

Originally Posted by cinealta

No midrange info whatsoever.

Ridiculous.

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I have never heard the ATC but I would imagine the mid driver because of the physics must have a lot of ring and distortion in the driver, as well as the old school soft dome tweeter. Now whether this is reminiscent or “natural sounding” I don’t know but it looks like it would have a lot of what state of the art speaker designers are trying to get out of their design. <SNIP>

Hey SoZo, I would suggest some reading to get you up to speed on state of the art transducer design behind the ATC's. Its rough to read your definitive opinions on drivers you don't know or speakers you've not heard. Now if you disagree with the ATC approach after researching it and have your own take on the science, backed up with measurements, fair enough. Take a look at this attachment of Billy Woodman's "ATC White Paper" on the science behind ATC transducers and systems.

Focal and ATC do not do the same things the same way, but there is tremendous respect both companies hold for each other. Both are well grounded in the science behind what they do and both avoid internal operations that favor marketing above engineering. I can assure you that in both cases, neither company does everything in house to lower costs or to cut corners! I can also assure you both companies would be loathe to criticize the other's driver/system design for they know the acoustic fundamentals all too well. I am quite proud of the ATC Focal competition, for this is how two very focused businesses help users by challenging each other through research and results- without any slight of hand.

Brad

[mu6gr8]

Originally Posted by alecsribet

This is why I hate them and wouldn't recommend Focals to serious perfectionist mixing engineers. Everything sounds damn acceptable on them, even the harsh s***t and crappy sibilances.

With all due respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of the SM9s. I chose them precisely because they are meticulously revealing--to the extent that mastering engineers typically tell me that they make no EQ adjustments to my mixes. That is significant because it means that I'm not "guessing" when I make mix decisions. I'm actually hearing what I'm doing.

Perhaps you didn't adjust the 50 Hz setting to "fit" your room? Too much sub information can mask midrange detail. I think I ultimately settled at -1.0 or -1.5 dB at 50 Hz, and I left everything else flat. My mix room is a bit cozy, so it made sense to tame the subs.

Long story short, I highly recommend Focal SM9s to other professional mixing engineers.

[Fleaman]

Originally Posted by mu6gr8

With all due respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of the SM9s.

He (alecsribet) hasn't heard the SM9's FWIR, but he does have the Twins.

[Ameyerson]

I started out with the 25's and ended up doing this!

[Jantex]

Also did a prety extensive comparison of SM9 and Opals....it was actually the first time I really dedicated my attention to the Opals and tried them more extensively and have to admit: they are amazing speakers...no matter the price point.

I agree with CoolColJ's description of both speakers and he is fortunate enough to have both...but came to a different conclusion. I really prefered Opals, I found them more revealing with more back to front dimension and overall more solid stereo image, YMMV. While both speakers have an amazing low end, Opal's low end sounds more "live" like I imagine the low end should sound. Focals really have more of a headphone bass sound.

Also considering the price difference, a prize goes to Event for how they manage to produce such a quality speaker for such an affordable price. I consider them same class as Focals, which cost more than twice as much, but prefer the sound of Opals.

[Sound Evolution]

Originally Posted by Jantex

While both speakers have an amazing low end, Opal's low end sounds more "live" like I imagine the low end should sound. Focals really have more of a headphone bass sound.

I see that as a huge compliment for the SM9. Myself whenever I design an amplifier, My goal is always to have an iron tight grip on the woofer. Headphones don't suffer from (bad) acoustics, have relative light drivers, means have in general much better impulse response and frequency linearity then a monitor in a room. If you really want to hear the kick totally separated from the bass, even a change as small as 1dB. in EQ. Every single mS. of decay in your reverb, then you do want headphone alike low-end response. Headphone alike low-end is in my opinion truth accurate Bass.

Bass can never be tight or controlled enough. After all what you want is the driver (woofer) and amplifier (as tandem) to follow the incoming signal as accurate as possible. Every added hump (be it by the acoustics, or your monitors) is something that wasn't there on the source.

[AMIEL]

[QUOTE=Jantex;8334441
Also considering the price difference, a prize goes to Event for how they manage to produce such a quality speaker for such an affordable price. I consider them same class as Focals, which cost more than twice as much, but prefer the sound of Opals.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sound Evolution

I see that as a huge compliment for the SM9. Myself whenever I design an amplifier, My goal is always to have an iron tight grip on the woofer. Headphones don't suffer from (bad) acoustics, have relative light drivers, means have in general much better impulse response and frequency linearity then a monitor in a room. If you really want to hear the kick totally separated from the bass, even a change as small as 1dB. in EQ. Every single mS. of decay in your reverb, then you do want headphone alike low-end response. Headphone alike low-end is in my opinion truth accurate Bass.

Bass can never be tight or controlled enough. After all what you want is the driver (woofer) and amplifier (as tandem) to follow the incoming signal as accurate as possible. Every added hump (be it by the acoustics, or your monitors) is something that wasn't there on the source.

That is actually a very logical statement,

and the SM9 are FAR superior IMO to the Twins.

[Jantex]

I didn't say the Opals weren't tight. Both were very tight, the low end on Opals just sounded more real to me...It sounded more like I can hear it with live music or in a club. Due to this perception, I would mix it easier. But your opinion may vary.