Quantcast

NEWS: ATC launches C1 Sub Mk2 active subwoofer

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
No XLR connections though, which is a bit of a bummer.

Bill
Which is a little surprising given their active speakers generally (if not exclusively) use XLR inputs.

On paper the spec isn't exactly stellar in subwoofer terms for the price, although this obviously doesn't give the full performance picture.
 

shug4476

Active Member
£1650 for a 200W sub?
I think I'll pass.
Much as I love my ATCs they are horrendously overpriced. The SCM40 when released in the 2000s would set you back just shy of £2k. The same modestly updated v2 speaker now retails at £3,750. Safe to say incomes have not risen ~100% in that same time period!

I can't remember when the subs were first introduced?
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
Much as I love my ATCs they are horrendously overpriced. The SCM40 when released in the 2000s would set you back just shy of £2k. The same modestly updated v2 speaker now retails at £3,750. Safe to say incomes have not risen ~100% in that same time period!

I can't remember when the subs were first introduced?
From what I've heard the V2 SCM40s are actually an appreciable step up in performance as well as more immediately obviously on the styling front. More significantly though, ALL hifi prices have risen significantly over the last 20 years.

The active version of the SCM40 speakers is at the top of my shortlist for long term speaker replacements when I get round to it actually, having been very impressed by them at the Bristol show a couple of years ago. One other factor in ATC's favour is that they are an English company who make their speakers in England, including making their own drivers. As such they're a company I'd like to support.

However, having said all this, I do still think the sub this thread is about is a very hard sell and not something I'll be considering myself.
 
Last edited:

Dandy76

Standard Member
From what I've heard the V2 SCM40s are actually an appreciable step up in performance as well as more immediately obviously on the styling front. More significantly though, ALL hifi prices have risen significantly over the last 20 years.

The active version of the SCM40 speakers is at the top of my shortlist for long term speaker replacements when I get round to it actually, having been very impressed by them at the Bristol show a couple of years ago. One other factor in ATC's favour is that they are an English company who make their speakers in England, including making their own drivers. As such they're a company I'd like to support.

However, having said all this, I do still think the sub this thread is about is a very hard sell and not something I'll be considering myself.
This is exactly why I want a pair! Very rare that manufacturers design and make everything in house. Lovely people to deal with if you have questions too.
 

shug4476

Active Member
This is exactly why I want a pair! Very rare that manufacturers design and make everything in house. Lovely people to deal with if you have questions too.
All agreed, but they are overpriced and seem to be price fixed (i.e. it is one price across the whole country).

I do love my 7s but there is no way I am going to pay retail to upgrade to the 11s or 19s when they struggle to hold 50% of their value on eBay.
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
All agreed, but they are overpriced and seem to be price fixed (i.e. it is one price across the whole country)
I'm confused what the issue is with the latter?
 

shug4476

Active Member
I'm confused what the issue is with the latter?
It is illegal for a manufacturer to control resale prices (if that is what is happening).
 

Dandy76

Standard Member
Apple does it, surely?
 

shug4476

Active Member
Apple does it, surely?
They did, but for most Apple products you can now shop around. The HiFi industry is notorious for it unfortunately.

The first step was to ban distance selling which automatically excluded more efficient retailers. ATC have banned distance selling in the UK on somewhat dubious grounds.

It turns out the same speakers, despite being too delicate to ship in the UK where they are made, can well withstand export to the US where they can happily be bought at distance!
 

Dandy76

Standard Member
Yeah trying to buy a set of scm 40a in Berlin is a little challenging as there are few dealers. Especially if you want to mix and match branded components. Tough to demo all together
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
It is illegal for a manufacturer to control resale prices (if that is what is happening).
I very much doubt they're doing anything illegal. I also don't see why setting the price of their own products should be illegal.
 

shug4476

Active Member
I very much doubt they're doing anything illegal. I also don't see why setting the price of their own products should be illegal.
You don't see why price fixing should be illegal? Do you know anything about the anti-trust movement?
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
You don't see why price fixing should be illegal?
Between multiple companies, yes, for a single manufacturer as is being discussed here, no. What is the problem? ATC don't have a monopoly, so if customers don't like the price then they can buy a product from a different manufacturer instead. I genuinely have zero concerns about this.

Do you know anything about the anti-trust movement?
Nope - never heard of it.
 

shug4476

Active Member
Between multiple companies, yes, for a single manufacturer as is being discussed here, no. What is the problem? ATC don't have a monopoly, so if customers don't like the price then they can buy a product from a different manufacturer instead. I genuinely have zero concerns about this.
Mercifully our Parliamentary system has not yet reached a stage where the operation of the law turns on whether anonymous forum members find a criminal enterprise "concerning".

A good judgment explaining the issues is available here.

A free market cannot function if participants can, without sanction, "knowingly substitute practical co-operation between them for the risks of competition".
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
Mercifully our Parliamentary system has not yet reached a stage where the operation of the law turns on whether anonymous forum members find a criminal enterprise "concerning".

A good judgment explaining the issues is available here.

A free market cannot function if participants can, without sanction, "knowingly substitute practical co-operation between them for the risks of competition".
That link is just a tad long to read! Any chance you could try to explain what you think the problem is?

The sentence you quoted sounds to me like a concern across multiple companies rather than just one. Note this is a vital distinction I made above.
 

shug4476

Active Member
That link is just a tad long to read! Any chance you could try to explain what you think the problem is?

The sentence you quoted sounds to me like a concern across multiple companies rather than just one. Note this is a vital distinction I made above.
It is not what I think the problem is, it is what the law requires.

It is unlawful for a manufacturer to attempt to control resale prices by dealers. Any practice or agreement which has this as its object or effect is a criminal offence.

This applies just as much to a single manufacturer attempting in a plural market to control its own resale prices (intra-brand competition), as it does a monopoly supplier abusing a dominant position.

The link I sent you is a judgment of the European Commission in which Denon and Marantz succeeded in manipulating resale values of their products by threatening retailers who offered discounts. Several retailers insisted that D&M apply a "gentleman's agreement" that prices should never be cut except with the acquiescence of D&M so that profit margins are stable and no one supplier can undercut others.

D&M realised early on they had been caught bang to rights by a wealth of incriminating emails, and so cooperated fully. They argued fruitlessly that this practice was in the interest of consumers as it meant dealers were able to provide pre- and after-sales support and demonstration facilities, an argument the Commission duly disregarded before fining them.
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
It is not what I think the problem is, it is what the law requires.
Two separate things. My point was I see no reason that the law should require this, and you responded as if it was blindingly obvious that it should be.

It is unlawful for a manufacturer to attempt to control resale prices by dealers. Any practice or agreement which has this as its object or effect is a criminal offence.
Which is interesting and obviously news to me. It still doesn't strike me as necessary though.
 

shug4476

Active Member
It still doesn't strike me as necessary though.
Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers conspiring to fix prices is more commonly known as a cartel.

The cartel, like all activities that operate within the shadow of the criminal law, is enforced by threats, intimidation, and punishment, as retailers in Belgium and Germany found to their detriment when dealing with Denon & Marantz. It is the logic of the mafia, not the market.

The free market, if it is to mean anything, demands competition between providers of goods and services. Value is reflected in the market by dollar price, and in economic theory all utility is captured by prices.

The cartel, in the long run, has a stifling effect on innovation and drives up prices. The very purpose of the cartel is to shield the profits of the provider against the uncertainty of market competition. The lawful acceptance of restraint in trade encourages the flourishing of trusts. Anybody who questions the socially and economically corrosive effects of the trust should read Robert Paxman's Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order or watch the fabulous documentary, The Sorrow and The Pity. Or, perhaps, read the Labour Party Manifesto from 1945.

There is an exception to the general rule prohibiting vertical price controls in restraint of trade. In the US this is known as the rule of reason, in the EU it is codified into Article 101(3) TFEU, and in the UK the latter is reflected exactly in the language of s.2 the Competition Act 1998 (the interpretation of which, under s.60, must reflect EU jurisprudence).

These exceptions all acknowledge that, in principle, vertical price fixing can support other pro-competitive effects. If a defendant manufacturer in the UK or EU prays in aid of the exceptions afforded by Article 101(3) TFEU, the onus is on them to demonstrate both the economic benefits to the consumer of price-fixing, and the necessity of price-fixing as the means of achieving this effect.

In the judgment I linked you to, the Commission rejected the argument almost universally advanced by UK manufacturers and distributors, that price fixing is necessary to preserve showrooms and local after-sales support.

The audio visual sector is not a special case and it is not unique. It is no more entitled to protection than is the clothes shop, the shoe shop, the book shop, or the record store. If consumers choose to order 'blind', without listening to equipment first, then caveat emptor.

If certain UK manufacturers don't like this, then tough!
 

Ultrasonic

Well-known Member
Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers conspiring to fix prices is more commonly known as a cartel...
For me I really don't see this for a single manufacturer where there is loads of competition. For me it would need to be a situation where all (or possibly a majority) of speaker manufacturers decided to artificially inflate prices. If ATC prices are too expensive for what their products deliver then consumers will just buy from somebody else. That all dealers selling ATC products might sell items for the same price doesn't change this.

I'm not trying to change your mind but I still genuinely see no issue.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

Nokia 2.3 phone available in UK for £100
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky to launch Documentary and Nature channels
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
StormAudio to launch MK2 home cinema range at ISE 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Philips OLED burn-in solution is 95 percent effective
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Philips TVs with HDMI 2.1 and Dolby Vision IQ due in time
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom