[gregorio]

One of the examples is trashing ATC speaker, but it wasn't mentioned that this unit was out of production for more than 20 years.

Pretty much the entire first paragraph of the linked review is dedicated to very clearly stating that it was original version 1 he was reviewing and not the newer version 2.

This is not objective in my books and you can find other anomalies of measurements against other reviewers, just they do not have such popular platform as ASR.

What “anomalies of measurements” and how are they not objective?

G

 

[hakunamakaka]

Pretty much the entire first paragraph of the linked review is dedicated to very clearly stating that it was original version 1 he was reviewing and not the newer version 2.

What “anomalies of measurements” and how are they not objective?

G

The problem is the way he does reviews. He is not fully open and can hype/ smash certain products for no reason.
Shouldn't he state that the speaker was released 20-years ago and probably worn out so these measurements should not be taken seriously ? Instead he thrashes that this is not acceptable for an audio company.

I had two L30 amps and can confirm that it falls apart upon heavy loads from headphone. Leaving subjective impressions aside my far less powerful L1U amp drives headphones with more authority and volume than L30

Just on those two different perspectives

ASR
SCM 19 - https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/atc-scm19-bookshelf-speaker-review.14519/
L30 - https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-l30-headphone-amplifier-review.15226/

Other sources:
SCM 19- http://www.audiostereo.ro/ATC reviews/atc_scm19_rev-avmentor.pdf
L30 - https://www.superbestaudiofriends.o...ping-l30-review-and-measurements.11164/page-2

There are more, but I don't see a purpose to turn this thread into shitposting again. I'll leave this hobby to others

 

[gregorio]

He is not fully open and can hype/ smash certain products for no reason.

Where does he smash certain products for no reason? Personally I don’t always agree with the reason he hypes/smashes products but he does appear to always have one.

Shouldn't he state that the speaker was released 20-years ago and probably worn out so these measurements should not be taken seriously ?

From what I can tell, the SCM19 was released around 2006 and was presumably discontinued when the v2 was released, which seems to be in 2015, which is just 5 years before the review was posted. Plus, given that ATCs are typically over-engineered, they probably were not worn out.

Instead he thrashes that this is not acceptable for an audio company.

Those measurements are not good for $4k speakers, even a decade or so ago.

The subjective parts of his reviews are subjective and obviously need to be taken as such but what’s wrong with the objective measurements? Although claiming “anomalies of measurements” and being asked, you haven’t provided any examples/evidence.

G