Guessing the 250 should be fine so maybe the Atom would be the first to upgrade but the next step could get expensive, most would suggest the NDX2 but then you need a preamp to go with it, the new 222 maybe a better option to replace the Atom, if you are set on the ATC40’s I think it would be better to get used to them in your system before making any further changes.
Which ever way you go don’t rush into it, take your time and enjoy each step, best of luck.
@Roog - thanks, that makes sense and if that’s the main reason then there should be a rather clear difference in how the ATC 40s sound as compared to the 50s/100s/150s… has that been the experience of those who have listened to them?
@silverback - yes I know the pre/streamer is potentially an expensive upgrade which is why the NSC222 sounds like a good option and especially into the active 40s as that’s a forget-it kind of solution to upgraditis! Not being able to demo the active 40s is really putting a spoke in any plans for now, maybe will just have to wait until I can and not go for the passive 40s now and then have to worry about upgrading the streamer/pre/power further on.
1 Like
That sounds more like Gold Note vs Rockna. I haven’t heard either one of these myself but usually Gold Note is described as warmer/softer sounding, easy going stuff. Rockna then again is usually described as having cleaner presentation. It’s always about matching the whole setup, even the cables matter in the end and can be the final step of shifting a slightly too bright/sibilant sound a to a perfect balance or bringing clarity to a soft/muffled sound.
After owning 40, 40A and 50ASL currently, all I can say that every step has been a huge step forward. Maybe the biggest one was when going active from 40 to 40A. It’s like a different speaker when actively driven. Much more power, dynamics and authority in the sound. It’s also cleaner presentation, especially if you use middle range Naim to run the passives. But after you have clean presentation with active ATC’s, you can still finetune with the front end and be assured that speakers aren’t masking anything or holding back. I know few who use tube preamp with ATC’s, best of both worlds huh?
About the conservative bass specifications ATC shows on the website, they are true in free field. ATC’s bass is very linear and never exaggerated. But in room they go a lot deeper. 50ASL is rated 38hz and in my room they go to 24hz -0dB. I’ve measured this from multiple spots here. One of the biggest differences between the classic series and 40’s is the reach and weight of sound.
1 Like
resure,
Makes sense to me to wait until you can hear the active 40’s adding the new format 222 would make good sense, I think sometimes you have to forget what you have, decide where you really want to be and start from there, rather than trying to build around what you have knowing it’s probably not the best route.
I have made this mistake in the past trying to build around a component when I knew deep down the outcome would be a compromise but often it is done to meet financial constraints .
What ever you decide I hope it works out for you.
@Patu - thank you very much for your inputs. It’s encouraging to hear more positive feedback about the active 40s. You have said that the active 40s are cleaner with more dynamics, power and authority - does this make them closer to the 50s/100s/150s in their sound signature than the 40 Ps? I do have a pair of subs so I am not too concerned about low bass but to me even the higher frequencies sounded more ‘lively’ on the passive 40s than the 100 actives. Has that been your experience with the active 40s as compared to the larger actives?
Well sort of. Since passives were driven with Naim DAC + SN2 + HCDR and the actives were fronted by Linn Akurate DSM/3 streamer/dac/pre, the comparison isn’t straight forward. 40A and 50ASL are clearly relatives by sound. But 50ASL is simply so much more of everything. The depth, power, weight of the sound… those were the first things that struck me when I first connected the 50’s. You can feel the music with 50’s while 40’s just don’t have that kind of power.
I’m not sure why you find the passives more lively since the actives should be more capable of qualities I connect to ”livelines”. Like dynamics, speed and effortlessnes. Passives need very much power in front of them to reach the same. I’d describe the passives more easy going and relaxed sound signature. But as I wrote, the front end equipment has huge impact here. Ideal comparison would be two identical setups in the same space and same equipment (other than the separate poweramp needed for passives).
Difficult to say really why you found 40’s preferable to 100’s but all ATC’s need a fair amount of volume to open up and perhaps the 100’s needed to be played even louder or maybe they just didn’t suit the room.
I run passive 40’s and have reviewed the active v passive SCM50 for Soundstage so that may be worth a read. There are people who say the actives are massively better than the passives (and they are certainly better value) but when I compared them back to back I actually found it very difficult indeed to decide which I preferred. Here’s part of what I wrote:
So vast was the improvement that I found myself switching back and forth between active and passive to determine just how the two differed. The short answer is that the actives won on solidity of soundstage, neutrality, and ultimate detail retrieval—that ability to hear the lowest-level subtleties of a mix. The Naim combination offered more bass slam, fractionally quicker transient response, and slightly more drama. With the Naim rig, I got the sense that the sound was slightly larger than life, whereas the ATC active configuration was more neutral. I will be honest here—in over 20 years of reviewing, I have never been so unsure of which presentation I preferred. This was a duel between two of the finest firms in British audio engineering and I adore what both companies do. I swapped back and forth, trying every genre of music under the sun: hard rock, female vocals, live performances, classical. As the Naim amplification traded blows with the ATC’s onboard modules, my preference would waver between the two; it was like an epic Wimbledon final, with one player breaking a service game only for their opponent to break back.
I think that sums up the differences quite accurately.
A NAP250 will drive the passive 40’s to highish levels although at sustained silly levels I have overheated my olive NAP250 a couple of times. The latest NAP250 is considerably more powerful though than my olive.
The 250 will not drive the 50’s satisfactorily (they’ll drive them but the sound lacks grip), you need the NAP300 for that…
JonathanG
3 Likes
@JonathanG - thanks for replying. Your comment “…I got the sense that the sound was slightly larger than life, whereas the ATC active configuration was more neutral.” was absolutely my experience as well although the passive 40s were not being driven by Naim. As @Patu mentioned my experience with the 100s could largely be attributed to the source electronics used in the demo and also the room. I did try playing the louder and was actually impressed that they could do so without any distortion unlike many other speakers I have listened to. However, the higher volume didn’t change their “clean/neutral(?)” character and didn’t make them sound any more livelier or punchier. I think I personally like a slightly livelier treble, almost like a shimmer perhaps and I found this more with the passive 40s than with the active 100s.
Do you have any experience with the Focal Sopra 2s and if so how would you compare them with the SCM 40 (passives or actives)? Thanks for your inputs.
RSure,
My experience with Focal is limited entirely to hi-fi shows and also the Naim demo room which had a set of what might have been Sopra 2’s but I need to check my notes. My impression of the Focal’s in there was that they image very well - especially in depth and they certainly are detailed/transparent but I have never found the top end on Focal loudspeakers to be as ‘neutral’ as ATC and they seem to me to have a treble lift. In many ways they remind me of the sound of many B&W loudspeakers - a little bit bright (not harsh) at the top end and with a rather softer and slower and less controlled low end than ATC.
I described the bass on ATC as being “like a brick through a plate glass window” they really do punch just so incredibly hard and tight and fast. Standing next to a live drum kit being played is an incredibly visceral experience and ATC have got me closer to that sensation than I ever thought possible.
It’s not really fair for me to comment though on Focal loudspeakers in detail as I haven’t reviewed them in my room on my system. The Naim demo room sounds excellent but I guess I’d love to hear what it sounds like with a set of SCM50’s or 100’s in there!!
I have come to the conclusion that there is something really special about the interaction between Naim amplification and ATC loudspeakers. There’s a synergy which in my view is unbeatable in any other passive combination, but that’s just my view and experience and others may (quite rightly) differ.
Hope that helps,
JonathanG
4 Likes
Thank you for the feedback 
1 Like
It is a shame that Naim didn’t form an alliance with ATC, except with the wonderful DBLs - the bass on those was fantastic.
3 Likes
Totally agree - the DBL’s were amazing loudspeakers and very ATC-like!
1 Like
I have also found that Focal are up against it, on this forum. Some of reasons I perceive (rightly or wrongly 
) :
-
Buying Naim (as you said)
-
Unfamiliar neutral sound signature compared to the warmer bias of SEAS drivers more commonly found in many european speaker brands.
-
Focal’s beryllium equipped models can be costly and this does seem to raise the ire of some of this forum’s louder contributors who are wont to ridicule what they perceive as mullet systems.
I bought my Focal Micro Utopia BE from long standing Naim dealers Mike Manning back in 2006. They are still going strong and despite component changes and many demo sessions of other speakers I have yet to find a reason to change. My only caveat to this is that I sometimes add a Rel S510 to the mix if I want some more bass.
My son has Focal Electra Be floorstanders (model prior to Sopra) paired with a Naim Nova in a 50m2 open plan living room in Amsterdam and they sound wonderful whether it be for music, games or movies. I lent him my old unitilite when he moved in and it was a fun listen with the Electras but the Nova was a very noticeable uplift in bass grip and clarity.
If you haven’t been too swayed by the forum so far go for the Sopras and enjoy the sound with your Atom in the knowledge that you will get more out of them with each subsequent component upgrade.
2 Likes
I don’t think Focal speakers are “up against it” on the forum. It’s just that several of us have heard Sopra 2s and compared them with ATCs and simply preferred the latter. It’s all personal taste of course: my brother has recently bought an Atom, on my recommendation. It was part of a package including Focal speakers and he is delighted with his new system.
I am afraid I also disagree about Focal’s neutrality. To my ears ATCs sound a good deal more neutral, indeed neutrality is a key part of ATC’s design philosophy. By the way, they now manufacture all their drivers in house, no SEAS components. I listen mostly to acoustic music and realistic reproduction is very important. I simply find that to my ears my speakers do that better than Sopra 2s.
Roger
6 Likes
I agree Roger, if Focal speakers were universally liked the fact the merged / bought Naim would be irrelevant.
We know speakers work differently in different rooms and we have different personal tastes - Kanta’s worked well in my old house but not in my new one…
I suspect if I knew what I know now I would have chosen ATC ages ago….but hey hoe.
Interestingly I know a few dealers who are not fans of focal speakers but if some like them and get them to work in their environment the all well and good.
Personally I struggle with the looks and when l have listened I found them a very distinct sound that isn’t for me. That said I think the Kanta is voiced differently butwhen I moved them on I pretty much had to give them away as very little interest in the used market - probably tells its own story…
Gary
Focal’s Sopra N°2 loudspeakers look stunning in the new Brown Concrete and Black Ostrea finshes 
and they sound the business too
1 Like
@Musicraft says “Focal’s Sopra N°2 loudspeakers look stunning…”
…one person’s pleasure is another person’s poison!
They are ugly! JMHO - YMMV
8 Likes
The brown colour especially is horrible. Brown caca. Real bad taste.
3 Likes
i think if they had naim logos on people would think different. ovators were horrible looking
1 Like
