Which Hi-end monitor for near field listening

From the spec, they should be very easy to drive and match well with most of the amps. They just sound thiner than what we would like. Also, the lower frequency is just not there. Lack of clarity and no punch. You would wonder where is the bass as it claims 38 Hz vs 55 Hz of ATC. Again, these are just our opinions so you can choose whatever you prefer.

Needless to say, this has not been my experience at all with the SR17's and I've owned two different pairs (one of the earlier models, and currently a recent one). Nothing in your description of them resembles my impressions of them so I imagine it may be a matter of synergy. Either that, or your friend did not allow them to break in long enough as, by all accounts, they do have a long break-in period. I've used them with about five different amps, both tubes and SS. I did experience some lack of low end using the Pass Labs Aleph 5 with them, but I do think that was a drawback of that particular amp. My favorites have seemed to bring more muscle to the task: Mesa Baron and currently a Portal Panache. In spite of having heard more than once that the SR17's are voiced for tubes, I have not found that I like them as much with the lower powered tube amps I've tried them with, but they were still great performers here...just better with more power behind them IMO. Those amps were Quicksilver Mini-Mites, Quicksilver EL34 Triode Prototypes, and a revamped Scott 299C (going from 35W to 17W respectively). I'm pretty sure I've read all the online reviews and comments on Internet forums on these monitors and absolutely none reflect the same experience you and your friend had, so I'd have to guess something was amiss there. Regardless, I'll definitely look to check out those ATC's sometime...sounds like a worthy candidate!

Marco

In terms of amps and Silverline speakers: I'm getting great results from using a hybrid intergrated with a tubed pre and SS amp. Silverline does 'like tubes', but it also benefits from amps that control the bass well. Not that these two things are always mutually exclusive, of course...

The SR17 we tested was used 2nd version. I agree with you Marco that low power tube amp doesn't make the SR17 sing. It will make the SR17 sound sleepy. We've used the good old Mac MC240 (55 Watt/ch) as the based amp for both speakers during the test.
For vocals and strings instrument, the SR17 handles good. When you play R&B with faster rhythm, the SR17 is slightly sluggish compared to SCM10. The bass is not as snappy clean and less seperation between the instruments. SR17 does have sharper highs but not as smooth as I would like.
It is not as "hifi" sound as the Dynaudio's I've heard.
We prefer a little warmer tone of ATC. It sounds more natural to our ears. It does out perform Platnum Solo Reference that another friend used own. That speaker is just so hard to match that we gave up in the end. Compared the SR17 to the vintage rogers 15 Ohm LS3/5A, it has better extension on top and bottom but the mids on Rogers just more seductive to our ears like the SCM10. However, one of the biggest problem with Rogers is lack dynamic handling capability. Most of Rogers owner only listen to easy going music then it is great. Perhaps the SR17 is more suitable for same type of music as Rogers LS3/5A.

Reference 3A DeCapo

The SR17 is in the third generation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the older generations. 2nd gen SR17s shouldn't be used as a point of comparison.