So who won the great bake off?

[lpv]

moi?

Anyone who was there.

I don't know Steve.. it would be very interesting to set the levels properly and listen blind.. I'd love to do that.. Lindsay?

 

[steve_1979]

what do u mean Steve? I was as accurate as possible with the description..

"ear piercing (on the edge but no crossing the line)"

That doesn't sound like a very pleasant description.

The 'forward midrange' and 'lively top' while not so bad doesn't sound too great either.

 

[steve_1979]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Giant-Sentry-III-Series-II-3-way-Floor-Speaker-System-Electro-Voice-Tested-/131944885210?hash=item1eb8872bda:g:558AAOSw6btXRfQN

 

[lpv]

what do u mean Steve? I was as accurate as possible with the description..

"ear piercing (on the edge but no crossing the line)"

That doesn't sound like a very pleasant description.

The 'forward midrange' and 'lively top' while not so bad doesn't sound too great either.

this is how I would describe them and my main question was: how's the EVs are over long sessions? are they no fatigue listening experience? are they trying to impress?

'ear piercing' was one of my first comments.. however I haven't found a track when Evs crossed the line.. anyway, not enough time

 

[steve_1979]

They sound like really interesting speakers (in a good way).

I'd love to hear a pair.

 

[plastic penguin]

What suprised me was the clarity of the Ev sentry. I thought that they would sound 'big' and 'unrefined' but was amazed by the quality. They certainly make the music sound like its playing live in your house. Very nice sound and all from a 1.8w amp.

The fact that they sounded the best is no way a reflection on my hegel amp. In fact we even wanted to hook it up to the sentrys but the connections were different and we were all tired by then.

The atcs did not sound bad. Just less clear in direct comparison.

The avis are very clear speakers but more smooth than the ev sentrys which in turn adds to the real live in the room in direct comparison with the sentrys comming out more direct with pianno and vilolin etc and sounding more in the room live real. They all sounded good though and there are no bad choice here imo.

On there own all 3 systems were very high quality and i felt that the atcs improved over last time.

The avis £200 sub sounded much better this time around and the avis sound a lot bigger than they are. Think of it as a 40 pound bull terrier scrapping with a 160 pound rottie.

Ive already wrote my thoughts in the first thread and they still stand.

So now ill build those massive k100 kit speakers and we will have to have another test once they are built next year.

Purely in the context of the test, could it not be that the synergy between the Hegel and ATCs is a little off kilter?

We know that system synergy far outweighs star ratings and awards. I would guess that ATC amplification with the 11s would be a better match in such a tight test.

In isolation, though, Hegel and 11s would be all that anyone would need.

Clearly the so-called testers are being evasive. "Thanks for the informative test..." How can it be valid without commenting on the Hegel/ATC combo.

I'm out of this thread.

 

[Andrewjvt]

what do u mean Steve? I was as accurate as possible with the description.. 

"ear piercing (on the edge but no crossing the line)" 

That doesn't sound like a very pleasant description.

The 'forward midrange' and 'lively top' while not so bad doesn't sound too great either.

 

It takes the frequency to the limits of reality without over doing it and sounds more real as a result. Its not a negitive really.

 

[Andrewjvt]

What suprised me was the clarity of the Ev sentry. I thought that they would sound 'big' and 'unrefined' but was amazed by the quality. They certainly make the music sound like its playing live in your house. Very nice sound and all from a 1.8w amp.

The fact that they sounded the best is no way a reflection on my hegel amp. In fact we even wanted to hook it up to the sentrys but the connections were different and we were all tired by then.

The atcs did not sound bad. Just less clear in direct comparison.

The avis are very clear speakers but more smooth than the ev sentrys which in turn adds to the real live in the room in direct comparison with the sentrys comming out more direct with pianno and vilolin etc and sounding more in the room live real. They all sounded good though and there are no bad choice here imo.

On there own all 3 systems were very high quality and i felt that the atcs improved over last time.

The avis £200 sub sounded much better this time around and the avis sound a lot bigger than they are. Think of it as a 40 pound bull terrier scrapping with a 160 pound rottie.

Ive already wrote my thoughts in the first thread and they still stand.

So now ill build those massive k100 kit speakers and we will have to have another test once they are built next year.

Purely in the context of the test, could it not be that the synergy between the Hegel and ATCs is a little off kilter?

We know that system synergy far outweighs star ratings and awards. I would guess that ATC amplification with the 11s would be a better match in such a tight test. 

In isolation, though, Hegel and 11s would be all that anyone would need.

No, not at all the control is perfect. Ipv found the same result with active atcs and they are using atc amps custom made up for each driver in a tri amp pack.

You have to take these coments in context. And in isolation they all sound great.

Its in Direct comparison.

The atcs have a very nice musical quality to them but sound more thicker compared to avi and ev sentey.

Once they are gone listening to the atcs balnce is restored. We are talking small percentages here and not massive differences.

 

[lpv]

I remember at some point Andrew suggested we should concentrate on Avi vs Ev as we knew differences between Atc/ Avi.. however we kept playing some songs on Atc/ Hegel ( especially when Andrew’s wife joined us by the end of the meeting)..

Atc/ Hegel sounded somehow better on that day then first bake off.. still, low end was missing and 11’s could benefit a lot with the addition of a sub.

 

[ID.]

What suprised me was the clarity of the Ev sentry. I thought that they would sound 'big' and 'unrefined' but was amazed by the quality. They certainly make the music sound like its playing live in your house. Very nice sound and all from a 1.8w amp.

The fact that they sounded the best is no way a reflection on my hegel amp. In fact we even wanted to hook it up to the sentrys but the connections were different and we were all tired by then.

The atcs did not sound bad. Just less clear in direct comparison.

The avis are very clear speakers but more smooth than the ev sentrys which in turn adds to the real live in the room in direct comparison with the sentrys comming out more direct with pianno and vilolin etc and sounding more in the room live real. They all sounded good though and there are no bad choice here imo.

On there own all 3 systems were very high quality and i felt that the atcs improved over last time.

The avis £200 sub sounded much better this time around and the avis sound a lot bigger than they are. Think of it as a 40 pound bull terrier scrapping with a 160 pound rottie.

Ive already wrote my thoughts in the first thread and they still stand.

So now ill build those massive k100 kit speakers and we will have to have another test once they are built next year.

Purely in the context of the test, could it not be that the synergy between the Hegel and ATCs is a little off kilter?

We know that system synergy far outweighs star ratings and awards. I would guess that ATC amplification with the 11s would be a better match in such a tight test.

In isolation, though, Hegel and 11s would be all that anyone would need.

Clearly the so-called testers are being evasive. "Thanks for the informative test..." How can it be valid without commenting on the Hegel/ATC combo.

I'm out of this thread.

i don't know why some people are getting so wound up and talking about how there "test" can be "valid".

Its not like it's claiming to be some kind of final word on anything. Just a few guys who got together and shared their subjective impressions of what they heard. Nothing prescriptive that prescribes that from this day forward the only valid choice is actives, or sealed box speakers, or massive old speakers.

Just a bit of fun, but if people want to see it as propaganda with some agenda or project their own agenda onto it, go ahead.

 

[lindsayt]

One thing I forgot to mention.

The EV Sentries are not the best speakers ever made. No speaker is.

In the extremely unlikely event that anyone reading this is thinking of buying a pair I should say that the weakest / least strong area of the EV's is the bass.

They only go down to 40 hz before they start rolling off.

They would, in my opinion sound better in my room and andrewjvt's room if the bass were 2 dbs louder.

And, most important of all, their bass is not as tight and tuneful as some other speakers. Nor does it sound as dynamic as some other speakers.

Having said that, neither the ATC's nor the AVI's with sub had better bass than the EV's at the bake-off.

 

[luckylion100]

Now sadly we seem to be entering DM10 bashing terrority again, shame... surely that doesn't put the Hegel/ATC combo in a very positive light?

Agreed. I really don't understand this need some people seem to have to bash AVI. After all, the results reported in so far is that a guy who's on record for being very critical towards AVI in the past, now states after hearing them that they were substantially better than a much more expensive system of comparable size.

And if I may say so, Lindsayt: I actually think that your inherent scepticism of AVI suddenly got the better of you. Just some posts ago, you were stating that the Hegel/ATC combo was very decent, that improvements after that were small and incremental, and that it was an impressive achievement of AVI to surpass that system. You also stated that you weren't sure whether you would be able to distinguish the AVIs from your own system in a blind-test. Now, all of a sudden, they've become "boring". That is a rather harsh statement, and I'm not sure whether this is the actual listener speaking, or rather the hifi guy who was sceptical of AVI before, and who's now interpreting his listening experiences after the fact by using categories he already had in place ("the AVIs sound flat and boring" etc). Are you sure you want to stand by that statement?

Lindsayt,

Sorry I'm not sure how to copy and paste from different posts so I was unable to include your point here.

I think the above quote from oivavoi10 sums up the point I was trying to convey perfectly, he just made a much better job of it than I. I thought your write up appeared very fair and I genuinely appreciated the time and effort you put in to it. It made very interesting reading. Then I sensed the DM10 bashing was about to kick in. It made little sense when you'd continually stated that the DM10's weren't bottom of the pile and this was the overall concensus of opinion.. I simply didn't understand why the need for this, considering the relative praise you'd previously given them. Where were the scathing remarks aimed at the ATC's? I understand your bias towards your EV's and equally your dislike of all things AVI, you're clearly far from alone there. But I believe praise and criticism should be distributed fairly where due Your EV's are seemingly deserving of great praise especially now that the other two participants have finally chipped in. But my real interest was how the two small stand mounted speakers compared, the EV's inclusion for me was an interesting subplot.

 

[oivavoi10]

Sorry if I'm ranting on about things you guys think are not that interesting, but still... I think the most interesting thing here is exploring what may be the reasons for these perceived subjective experiences. Obviously, all subjective experiences of sound may be flawed in some sense. And this was not a scientific test. Be that as it may, it is interesting that all of the participants seemed to perceive some similar qualities in these speakers. So I think that some of these differences probably are objective.

So:

1. ATC were the worst sounding, in comparison with the others. Less clear than the others.

2. The AVIs sounded significantly better than the ATCs, according to all the participants.

3. The EVs were preferred over the AVIs by all of the participants, it seems. LPV is now saying he's unsure about how they he would perceive them over the long-term. There seems to be some consensus that the AVIs were smoother than the EVs, and that the EVs were more forward and direct.

Ok. So why did they perceive these setups in this way? My two cents:

- why the AVIs were preferred to the ATCs: I think the AVIs may have higher quality drivers than the ATCs, for one. I also think that AVIs get some advantage over the ATCs by the fact that they are active, while the ATCs are passive. It is probably debatable how much of an advantage active vs. passive represents. But like HG stated in a previous post, there's really no technical argument here. Active crossovers ARE better. End of story. But how much of an improvement it represents... now that's another issue. I guess this may differ from case to case, probably down to how the passive crossover is implemented, etc. But some of the difference between the AVIs and the ATCs may be down to how their crossover networks function.

- Why the EVs were preferred to the AVIs: According to all the participants, the main difference was in the midrange. I would have expected it to be in the bass, since the bass driver in the EVs is so much bigger. But it was in the midrange. More forward, less smooth. How to explain that? My best proposal: horns. That the midrange in the EVs is hornloaded. Horns are known for sounding somewhat different to conventional drivers. It's sometimes described as "shouty", while others describe it as more realistic. I've heard some really bad horns, but the absolute best system I've ever heard was a oversized DIY horn system (with active crossover), which would have taken up about a third of the space in my own living room. That system had a similar quality as the three participants describe here: The music was more present, more "there". I'm sure this can be described in a scientifically more accurate way, but that was my subjective experience. So it might be that the EVs have this horn quality, in a positive way. Or, as some of the horn critics are claiming, that horns actually add some distortion, and that this adds to the more "forward" characteristic. I tend to believe, though, that horns add more of a good thing than a bad thing.

Would love to hear thoughts and ideas from others - both participants and others!

 

[Andrewjvt]

Sorry if I'm ranting on about things you guys think are not that interesting, but still... I think the most interesting thing here is exploring what may be the reasons for these perceived subjective experiences. Obviously, all subjective experiences of sound may be flawed in some sense. And this was not a scientific test. Be that as it may, it is interesting that all of the participants seemed to perceive some similar qualities in these speakers. So I think that some of these differences probably are objective.

So:

1. ATC were the worst sounding, in comparison with the others. Less clear than the others.

2. The AVIs sounded significantly better than the ATCs, according to all the participants.

3. The EVs were preferred over the AVIs by all of the participants, it seems. LPV is now saying he's unsure about how they he would perceive them over the long-term. There seems to be some consensus that the AVIs were smoother than the EVs, and that the EVs were more forward and direct.

Ok. So why did they perceive these setups in this way? My two cents:

- why the AVIs were preferred to the ATCs: I think the AVIs may have higher quality drivers than the ATCs, for one. I also think that AVIs get some advantage over the ATCs by the fact that they are active, while the ATCs are passive. It is probably debatable how much of an advantage active vs. passive represents. But like HG stated in a previous post, there's really no technical argument here. Active crossovers ARE better. End of story. But how much of an improvement it represents... now that's another issue. I guess this may differ from case to case, probably down to how the passive crossover is implemented, etc. But some of the difference between the AVIs and the ATCs may be down to how their crossover networks function.

- Why the EVs were preferred to the AVIs: According to all the participants, the main difference was in the midrange. I would have expected it to be in the bass, since the bass driver in the EVs is so much bigger. But it was in the midrange. More forward, less smooth. How to explain that? My best proposal: horns. That the midrange in the EVs is hornloaded. Horns are known for sounding somewhat different to conventional drivers. It's sometimes described as "shouty", while others describe it as more realistic. I've heard some really bad horns, but the absolute best system I've ever heard was a oversized DIY horn system (with active crossover), which would have taken up about a third of the space in my own living room. That system had a similar quality as the three participants describe here: The music was more present, more "there". I'm sure this can be described in a scientifically more accurate way, but that was my subjective experience. So it might be that the EVs have this horn quality, in a positive way. Or, as some of the horn critics are claiming, that horns actually add some distortion, and that this adds to the more "forward" characteristic. I tend to believe, though, that horns add more of a good thing than a bad thing.

Would love to hear thoughts and ideas from others - both participants and others!

Dont get the word significantly mixed up with slightly and subtle.

There were differences but think it of 3 athletes. One gets gold the other silver and the other bronze. The guy that came 3rd for bronze still ran fast and well.

What stands out for me is the quality of an old 1970s speaker.

And also there is no way of getting around large drivers.

Also i question if hifi manufacturers are not making cheap **** for asthetics over quality nowadays.

Also if you (as Lindsay showed) are prepared to be open minded tou can have a very very good quality sound for peanuts and dont have to buy brand new.

Also Diy is a very good way to go.

On the other hand you can do a lot worse than spend 1500 bucks on a brand new pair of dm10s and the sound quality will surely impress you.

 

[oivavoi10]

Sorry if I'm ranting on about things you guys think are not that interesting, but still... I think the most interesting thing here is exploring what may be the reasons for these perceived subjective experiences.

(...)

Would love to hear thoughts and ideas from others - both participants and others!

Dont get the word significantly mixed up with slightly and subtle.

There were differences but think it of 3 athletes. One gets gold the other silver and the other bronze. The guy that came 3rd for bronze still ran fast and well.

What stands out for me is the quality of an old 1970s speaker.

And also there is no way of getting around large drivers.

Also i question if hifi manufacturers are not making cheap **** for asthetics over quality nowadays.

Also if you (as Lindsay showed) are prepared to be open minded tou can have a very very good quality sound for peanuts and dont have to buy brand new.

Also Diy is a very good way to go.

Thanks, Andrewjvt! Glad that you correct my phrasing. Yap, important to keep in mind that the Hegel/ATC combo also performed very well.

I think you're spot on. Large drivers, and speaker size, can indeed make a difference. The guy I spoke of in the last post, the one with the oversized horn system, is saying exactly that. He laments the "miniaturization" of hifi speakers since the 80s/90s, and claims that it has represented a huge step backwards in sound quality - in spite of better technology in drivers. And his system is the best I have ever heard - nothing else has even been remotely close (to continue Lindsay's spinal tap analogy, if a very good speaker such as the DM10 is 10 compared to most other conventional speakers out there, then his system would be a 20).

I think DIY, large cone area, hornloading, and DSP and active crossovers are all good routes to good sound quality. As for me, I'm still debating with myself what to choose as my next system. So bake-offs such as this one are very interesting for me.

 

[lindsayt]

Andrewjvt, I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

Luckylion, I have never been an AVI basher. I have always been someone that has heard active AVI speakers over the years and then given my full and totally honest opinion of them. That's what I try to do with every single piece of audio equipment I have ever heard.

As for the scathing remarks about the ATC system. Well that would seem like punching a brave boxer when he's down.

My recommendation is that for anyone buying new, they should buy the AVI DM10's with a sub over Hegel H360's with ATC 11's. That's very clear cut. No ifs. No buts.

However if someone can buy a pair of ATC11's 2nd hand, really cheap, plus a Hegel H360 - or an amplifier of broadly similar capabilities - really cheap too, then such a system might be worthy of consideration. Especially if they could get a reasonable sub for not too much money to go with it too.

 

[plastic penguin]

What suprised me was the clarity of the Ev sentry. I thought that they would sound 'big' and 'unrefined' but was amazed by the quality. They certainly make the music sound like its playing live in your house. Very nice sound and all from a 1.8w amp.

The fact that they sounded the best is no way a reflection on my hegel amp. In fact we even wanted to hook it up to the sentrys but the connections were different and we were all tired by then.

The atcs did not sound bad. Just less clear in direct comparison.

The avis are very clear speakers but more smooth than the ev sentrys which in turn adds to the real live in the room in direct comparison with the sentrys comming out more direct with pianno and vilolin etc and sounding more in the room live real. They all sounded good though and there are no bad choice here imo.

On there own all 3 systems were very high quality and i felt that the atcs improved over last time.

The avis £200 sub sounded much better this time around and the avis sound a lot bigger than they are. Think of it as a 40 pound bull terrier scrapping with a 160 pound rottie.

Ive already wrote my thoughts in the first thread and they still stand.

So now ill build those massive k100 kit speakers and we will have to have another test once they are built next year.

Purely in the context of the test, could it not be that the synergy between the Hegel and ATCs is a little off kilter?

We know that system synergy far outweighs star ratings and awards. I would guess that ATC amplification with the 11s would be a better match in such a tight test.

In isolation, though, Hegel and 11s would be all that anyone would need.

Clearly the so-called testers are being evasive. "Thanks for the informative test..." How can it be valid without commenting on the Hegel/ATC combo.

I'm out of this thread.

i don't know why some people are getting so wound up and talking about how there "test" can be "valid".

Its not like it's claiming to be some kind of final word on anything. Just a few guys who got together and shared their subjective impressions of what they heard. Nothing prescriptive that prescribes that from this day forward the only valid choice is actives, or sealed box speakers, or massive old speakers.

Just a bit of fun, but if people want to see it as propaganda with some agenda or project their own agenda onto it, go ahead.

It's great they're taking up time to test different systems. I'm just perplexed why the Hegel/ATC have been largely ignored. Andrew has now spilled a few more beans but given there's 140-odd posts the reasons behind the Hegel's failure is sparse. Don't forget that some people might be deciding on a next upgrade, and looking at this thread as a pointer (not me, though).

 

[plastic penguin]

Andrewjvt, I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

Luckylion, I have never been an AVI basher. I have always been someone that has heard active AVI speakers over the years and then given my full and totally honest opinion of them. That's what I try to do with every single piece of audio equipment I have ever heard.

As for the scathing remarks about the ATC system. Well that would seem like punching a brave boxer when he's down.

My recommendation is that for anyone buying new, they should buy the AVI DM10's with a sub over Hegel H360's with ATC 11's. That's very clear cut. No ifs. No buts.

However if someone can buy a pair of ATC11's 2nd hand, really cheap, plus a Hegel H360 - or an amplifier of broadly similar capabilities - really cheap too, then such a system might be worthy of consideration. Especially if they could get a reasonable sub for not too much money to go with it too.

And in isolation?

 

[lindsayt]

plastic penguin the Hegel H360 may well be a good to a great sounding amplifier.

I am confident that it sounds better than my Creek Amplifier - which, as I think I've already mentioned, is the worst sounding amplifier I've ever bought.

With the ATC 11's I'm also fairly confident it would sound better than my Korneff clone amplifier.

If anyone reading this thread is thinking of upgrading. My advice is: use your own ears. Don't trust anyone's opinion on any forum until your ears have confirmed that that person is worthy of your trust.

 

[oivavoi10]

It's great they're taking up time to test different systems. I'm just perplexed why the Hegel/ATC have been largely ignored. Andrew has now spilled a few more beans but given there's 140-odd posts the reasons behind the Hegel's failure is sparse. Don't forget that some people might be deciding on a next upgrade, and looking at this thread as a pointer (not me, though).

I think it's not so much the "Hegel's failure", but rather the performance of the ATCs we're talking about here. Hegel are not designing their amps to have any specific sound signature. They're designing them to sound neutral, and to make the speakers sound their best. They're very explicit about this, actually. They think people should choose the sound signature they prefer in their speakers, and then use a Hegel amp to get out exactly the sound signature that the speakers have.

Loudspeakers are much more than important than amplifiers when it comes to how things sound. A testament to that is that EVs were the speakers who sounded best in this bake-off, even when driven by a really old (and according to Lindsay) bad amp.

 

[Andrewjvt]

It's great they're taking up time to test different systems. I'm just perplexed why the Hegel/ATC have been largely ignored. Andrew has now spilled a few more beans but given there's 140-odd posts the reasons behind the Hegel's failure is sparse. Don't forget that some people might be deciding on a next upgrade, and looking at this thread as a pointer (not me, though).

I think it's not so much the "Hegel's failure", but rather the performance of the ATCs we're talking about here. Hegel are not designing their amps to have any specific sound signature. They're designing them to sound neutral, and to make the speakers sound their best. They're very explicit about this, actually. They think people should choose the sound signature they prefer in their speakers, and then use a Hegel amp to get out exactly the sound signature that the speakers have.

Loudspeakers are much more than important than amplifiers when it comes to how things sound. A testament to that is that EVs were the speakers who sounded best in this bake-off, even when driven by a really old (and according to Lindsay) bad amp.

He knows that and its been explained a 1000 times but he gets off repeating it. The amps in this test imo had little bearing on the results. It was not an amp test.
We may have been able to switch amps around also possibly imo.

Next he wont be able to resist mentioning 'the leema' soon.

 

[lindsayt]

And in isolation?

This raises a philosphical question.

The sound quality of all audio systems is relative.

If the only systems I'd ever heard in my life were my clock radio and my car's audio system I'd be saying how great the car system was when compared to the clock.

 

[plastic penguin]

It's great they're taking up time to test different systems. I'm just perplexed why the Hegel/ATC have been largely ignored. Andrew has now spilled a few more beans but given there's 140-odd posts the reasons behind the Hegel's failure is sparse. Don't forget that some people might be deciding on a next upgrade, and looking at this thread as a pointer (not me, though).

I think it's not so much the "Hegel's failure", but rather the performance of the ATCs we're talking about here. Hegel are not designing their amps to have any specific sound signature. They're designing them to sound neutral, and to make the speakers sound their best. They're very explicit about this, actually. They think people should choose the sound signature they prefer in their speakers, and then use a Hegel amp to get out exactly the sound signature that the speakers have.

Loudspeakers are much more than important than amplifiers when it comes to how things sound. A testament to that is that EVs were the speakers who sounded best in this bake-off, even when driven by a really old (and according to Lindsay) bad amp.

He knows that and its been explained a 1000 times but he gets off repeating it. The amps in this test imo had little bearing on the results. It was not an amp test. We may have been able to switch amps around also possibly imo.

Next he wont be able to resist mentioning 'the leema' soon.

Wondered how long it would take before jumping out of your pram. I was asking a very pertinent question. You can rest assured, though, you own the runt of the pack, despite Hegel's overseas awards (something you kept banging on about months and months ago).

If the ATCs are holding back the Hegel, then I was right -- the synergy isn't all that.

If every component is in total harmony -- hitting the sweet spot -- the cost is irrelevent.

 

[lpv]

my conclusion on the day was:

sound quality wise I could live wih any of them, with one reservation - I'm not sure how's the Evs are on long listening sessions.

aesthetics - big NO for Evs

value - Avi, brand new and complete ( just add source) system with no diy needed

so for me Avi is the winner: combination of price, sound and aesthetics.

 

[plastic penguin]

And in isolation?

This raises a philosphical question.

The sound quality of all audio systems is relative.

If the only systems I'd ever heard in my life were my clock radio and my car's audio system I'd be saying how great the car system was when compared to the clock.

Not all have the opportunity to test several systems side-by-side. Usually we might test one or two and the best one gets chosen. From there on it's in isolation.

Given you said (paraphrasing) "if you can buy ATCs cheaply, it might be worth a punt".

If you do find any at cut price the chances are they'll be off an auction site, and thus demoing becomes very tricky.