Atlantic Technology System 270.

Manufacturer: Atlantic Technology, 343 Vanderbilt Ave., Norwood, MA 02062; 781/ 762-6300; www.atlantictechnology.com

Price: 271LR speakers, $599/pr; 272PBM subwoofer, $799; 273C center-channel, $449; 274SR surrounds, $549/pr; complete system, $2,396.

Source: Manufacturer loan

Reviewer: Howard Ferstler

Atlantic Technology has managed to go from being an outfit that introduced a rather basic home-theater subwoofer/satellite system a few years back to being a major player in the big-league, home-theater speaker system business. Currently, they market not one, but two complete, THX-certified home-theater speaker arrays: the System 370 and the System 450. Both of these are top-drawer home-theater sound systems by almost anyone's standard, but their prices ($3,396 for the System 370 and $5,046 for the System 450) put them somewhat out of reach for music and home-theater buffs on a budget. The question is: Can we still get exemplary home-theater and music-playback sound for substantially less cost? I believe that the answer is yes. And the System 270 is one reason why I believe this is so.

To properly discuss a product array of this kind, it normally would be best to initially deal with the components one at a time. However, I have only done this to a partial extent, because none of the satellite speakers are full-bandwidth systems that can operate independently from an outboard-mounted bass producer. Consequently, it was necessary to include the subwoofer's basic performance along with each of the satellite-speaker evaluations. Once the item-by-item evaluating is done, I will attempt to outline just how well the products in this array work as a team.

For a typical T$S reader, there us little doubt that the most important speakers in the System 270 will be the left and right mains. Although I am a strong believer in the importance of a center speaker for home-theater work, and for a lot of music listening too (the center will become even more important for music-only playback, once 5-channel audio hits full force), there is no doubt that the left and right mains are still pretty much the hinge around which the "sound" of any sound system will revolve, even the most elaborate.

The 271LR main-channel speakers are small but fairly typical looking, d'Appolito-style, vertically oriented, MTM units, with a 1-inch, silk-dome tweeter, flanked by two 5.25-inch "wooferettes." The rated frequency response of these systems is 80 Hz to 20 kHz (no tolerance stated), and their rated impedance is about 8 ohms.

The crossover frequency is listed as 2.5 kHz, which should be low enough to minimize upper-frequency, power-response falloff with the larger drivers. This frequency should also not put too much bottom-range stress on the tweeters. The sensitivity is rated 90 dB (1 watt/1 meter, or 2.83 volts applied to 8 ohms), the recommended amplifier power is said to be 10 to 150 watts, and the speakers, like any good home-theater models, are shielded to protect your TV monitor from interference. The enclosures are 6.85 inches wide, 14.4 inches tall, and 7.9 inches deep, and each weighs in at 13 pounds. Nothing outwardly exceptional, here.

OK, now comes the subwoofer. The 272PBM sub is a fairly large item, considering the 12-inch driver size, being 15.75 inches wide, 21.5 inches tall, and 18.5 inches deep. It has a big heat sink on the back, and with that item and the plug-in-space requirements taken into consideration, you can add about three more inches to the unit's forward intrusion into your listening room. Power is provided by a built-in amplifier, rated at 225 watts, and the input impedance is 10,000 ohms for the line-level inputs and 1000 ohms for the speaker-level inputs. (The instruction manual that came with the test unit had the latter specifications transposed). The 272PBM, a sealed-box design, weighs in at 62 pounds.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Oddly enough, I had only one ergonomic gripe about this subwoofer. The rubber feet on the bottom, while certainly able to stabilize the unit when it is on a hard floor, made it very difficult to slide the sub into position in a corner, or anywhere else. Indeed, it would NOT slide on a carpet at all. I had to lift it into position. Contrast this with the Velodyne F1800 and the Paradigm Servo 15, which although heavier than the 272PBM, slid along easily on my carpet as I eased them into a corner location. Fortunately, the feet are easily removable, and after I did so, the 272PBM was easy to slide on carpeting anywhere I chose to position it.

Although this does not relate to the 272PBM directly, I will note that the larger subs in the System 370 and System 450 are both THX-certified. This means that their low bass, below about 30-35 Hz, is attenuated at about 12 dB per octave. This requirement has been made part of the THX parameters, because of the way a "typical" listening room will augment the bass below that frequency range. Supposedly, the net result is subjectively flat bass to the bottom of the bottom octave in typical listening rooms.

According to Atlantic Technology, the 272PBM has a low-end response slope that parallels those of the bigger System 370 and System 450 subs, although its maximum-output and distortion levels will not match theirs. In other words, it will probably perform the same in a smaller room as they would be able to, but would not equal their abilities in a fairly large room.

On the rear panel, this sub is fairly conventional for a powered model. We have the usual line-level inputs, but there is also a pair of "thru" jacks that allow you to hook up a second sub in parallel with this one. Doing that would be a quick and easy way for someone with an extra $799 to get a quantum leap in subwoofer output, and it would be something to consider if the system was to be used in a somewhat larger than normal room. However, it might be cheaper, with possibly better results, to simply get a larger sub, like the ones that come with the System 370 or System 450, or even a different-brand sub altogether. The latter move might be desirable if flatter response to below 30-35 Hz were required. (More on this, up ahead).

The rear panel also includes a selector switch for the low-pass settings, with 55, 80, 100, and 140 Hz available, in addition to "bypass," for use with outboard crossovers. When used with the 271LR satellites, the operator's manual recommends the 80-Hz setting. The sub has a fixed high-pass setting of 80 Hz, which is really about all that is required with nearly any satellites, including the 271LR units. All crossover slopes are 18 dB per octave, which is excellent.

There are three switches on the rear panel, also. One is a simple toggle switch for setting the phase at either 0 or 180 degrees. The other is an on/standby switch. In one switch position, the system will be on all the time. If this setting is selected, you will want some kind of robust, remote on/off switch for the sub's power. In the other switch position, the sub is turned on by the input signal. In that mode, the sub turns off automatically after about 7 to 10 minutes, once the input signal is cut off. Finally, we have a heavy-duty rocker switch for main power.

The grille screen covers all but the very bottom of the front panel, and if you remove it you will discover a power-indicator light and a subwoofer level control. The power light is visible through the grille fabric, and it glows yellow when the sub is in the standby mode, and turns to green when the unit is powered up by an input signal.

When I first got this system, I carried the sub and the two main satellites into my main listening room, and began moving things around. After attaching the 271LR units to two of the four supplied 176ST stands, and installing the sub in place of my regular Velodyne F1800, I proceeded to listen to them as a "basic" stereo system with a variety of program sources. By the way, the 176ST stands, sturdy metal items, hold the speakers securely in place by means of a small platform at the top of each, in addition to an allen-head bolt that can be tightened by a supplied wrench.

The instruction manual for the speakers advises that the main systems work best when angled inward for best imaging, and I did this with my listening sessions, as well as with my later measuring sessions. Toeing in may not always improve the overall balance of the sound, but if you do it correctly and the speakers are designed to work this way, the result will be a time/intensity tradeoff that will help to keep the soundstage properly centered with two-channel listening, particularly if the listener is somewhat away from the dead-center sweet spot. Angling the speakers inward should also reduce sidewall reflections, and in smaller or narrower listening rooms, that can work to advantage.

I will also note that the drivers on this system protrude beyond the front panel to an extent, and the only way to get a fairly flush match out to the edge of the cabinet is to keep the grille screens installed. The latter employ bezels that are designed to dovetail fairly smoothly with the driver mounting plates. The integration is not perfect, but it is better than what will result if the covers are left off.

Although it is anything but a reference standard for evaluating the accuracy of speaker systems, the first recording I tried was Dire Straits' On Every Street (Warner 26680), because I wanted to see how well the subwoofer handled the punchiness of this release and also how well the satellites handled the same thing. I suppose it was not too smart a thing to do, because under some conditions it would be possible to obliterate a pair of small satellites with this kind of material, thus stopping the review almost before it got started. However, I was in a mean mood, and wanted to listen to some testosterone music.

Overall, the sound was, well, extremely nice. The frontal spread was excellent and the bass was room shaking, although I did notice that the very bottom of the range on this recording (about 28 Hz) was not as evident as it normally was with my Velodyne F1800. Still, even at attention-getting levels, the three speakers were more than able to put out some impressive sound.

That little session complete, I then tried something a bit more civilized: Vivaldi's Concerto in C minor, with the Baroque Soloists of Amsterdam (Claves 50-9706). Here, the speakers really came into their own, with a striking ability to define the period instrument assortment. The recorders, in particular, were very cleanly defined, and the imaging was as good as with any high-end systems I have ever heard, and I mean any. Stage depth was also about as good as this recording could deliver. It did not take much time to determine that these little speakers, in combination with the subwoofer, were as able to handle Baroque music nearly as well my own IC-20 main speaker systems. Remarkable.

Next, I tried Count Basie's Kansas City Shout, with Eddie Vinson (Pablo 3112). This release was also remarkable, with Vinson's vocalizations coming though about as realistically as I have ever heard. I could detect no excessive sibilance in the voice, and the studio ambience around the performers was captured very well. As with the Baroque material, this sub/satellite combination was nearly as good sounding as my huge IC-20s.

Next in line came Billy Barber's Shades of Gray (DMP 443). This is an excellent piano recording, and the little 271LR satellites handled the instrument with great competency.

Also during this session I tried the Boston Pops doing America: the Dream Goes On (Philips 412 627). This is a mix of choral and orchestral works that comes across quite well on decent systems, and the results here were quite good. Vocal sibilance was not intrusive, and the overall balance was excellent. Very musical.

Finally, I listened to several excerpts from Engineer's Choice II (Delos DE 3512), a compendium of excerpts recorded by John Eargle. In addition, I made use of Chesky's The Ultimate Demonstration Disc (UD-95), recorded by Bob Katz and Jeremy Kipnis. The sound reproduced by the AT speakers with most of the material on these two release was exemplary. I should note here that these discs are a very helpful pair of tools, and I intend to make them a staple in my reviewing procedures. One of the big advantages of using demo-disc material of this kind is that you would not ordinarily use the discs for pleasure listening. Consequently, you can listen to them over and over again, while using them to evaluate equipment. If you use treasured musical discs for this kind of thing, you may end up eliminating them as items to listen to strictly for musical enjoyment.

The next day, I set up my AudioControl SA-3051,1/3-octave RTA, with the intention of doing some of my usual, moving-microphone, 20-second integration curves. After lots of experimenting, I have come to the conclusion that this technique is the best way I have to measure the room response of speaker systems in both my large and small listening rooms.

Right out of the box, with the speaker pair being fed stereo pink noise from the test disc in the Delos Surround Spectacular set (DE3179), I was astounded to discover that the frequency-response curve above 31.5 Hz was the third-flattest I have ever measured in my main listening room. First place still goes to my IC-20s, when operating either full range or in league with my F1800, and a very close second place goes to my equalized, custom-built center speaker, when working with the Hsu TN1220 subwoofer. The 271LR satellites, in combination with the 272PBM were definitely in this league, at least down to 31.5 Hz.

Indeed, usually when I describe response curves I will point out where the significant peaks and dips are. In this case, there was a minor peak in the 500-630 Hz range, a slight dip at about 80 Hz, a rolloff below 31.5 Hz (7 dB down at 25 Hz), plus a mild rolloff above 12.5 kHz. That was it. My IC-20s have dips and peaks of similar magnitudes in other locations, but their overall room response is only marginally better.

Of particular note was the complete absence of the usual, crossover and/or driver-size-related dip that occurs in the 2-3 kHz range with nearly every other two-way system I have reviewed previously. Remember, these speakers cost under $600 per pair, and the sub brings the total cost up to about $1,400, which is pretty cheap for this kind output uniformity and bandwidth. I was beginning to understand why these speakers sounded so similar to the IC-20s.

My next move was to hook up the other speakers: the center and the surrounds. The 273C center speaker is similar to the 271LR, in that it has the same tweeter and same "wooferettes," but with them in a somewhat differently shaped, slightly larger, slightly heavier cabinet, and of course the system is designed to be positioned horizontally, rather than vertically. The cabinet also has a clever, easily removable, and simply designed mounting base that makes it possible to easily aim the speaker up or down. This may be important if the unit is on top of a rather high TV monitor or located under a stand-mounted set, although with the smallish drivers it has, critical aiming is really not all that necessary. The connectors are the same kind of five-way posts as the 271LR has. In addition, the speaker has some controls on the back to facilitate its positioning on a TV set or in a free-standing location.

One of these is a "midrange presence" switch that compensates for the tendency of acoustically dead rooms to soften dialogue and midrange detail. My room-response measurements indicated that when switched to the "on" position, the control applies a 3-to-5 dB cut in the 1-to-2-kHz range, and with slightly less of a cut up to about 5 kHz. In my room, the response smoothness of the system was degraded by this control, and the system sounded less like the 271LR model than desirable, but in some rooms it might help things along.

Next, there is a "boundary-effect" switch that supposedly flattens the midrange "hump" that can manifest itself when a speaker is placed on top of a large TV set. My measurements showed that when engaged this switch applies a 3-5 dB dip in the response in the 250-400 Hz range. This could prove very useful, depending on the size of one's TV monitor.

Finally, we had a variable-output, "high-frequency level" control that increases or decreases the output of the tweeter. Used in conjunction with the presence control, this feature could come in very handy, although great care would have to be used to get a good matchup between the center and the mains. I suggest using a good test disc, like the one in the Delos Surround Spectacular set, to properly balance the center against the left and right main speakers.

The 274SR surround speakers are "dipole" designs. For those who are not up on current events, this means that they employ two speaker arrays in each enclosure. With the speakers mounted on or at least parallel to the sidewalls, each array will be aimed toward both the front and rear of the room, with no drivers aimed straight out towards the listening area.

The arrays are wired out of phase with each other, meaning that if the surrounds are placed to the sides of the listening position (the theoretically best location), the listener will be in the cancellation null. This will result in very diffuse sound, which some advocates (those who promote the THX party line, for sure, although these satellites are not THX-certified) feel is best for surround work. With some dipolar surrounds, the speaker box will be rectangular. However, the 274SR speakers are somewhat triangular shaped, with the arrays angled slightly into the room. This has no effect on the dipole effect that I could tell.

Each array has a 3/4-inch silk-dome tweeter and a 4.5-inch "wooferette," which means that there is a total of 4 drivers in each 11.8-inch wide, 9-inch high, 7.3-inch deep, and 10.5-pound enclosure. The systems are also dedicated items, with one designed for the right side and the other designed for the left. Set up this way, the forward-facing array is in phase with the front-main speakers, and the rearward-facing array is out of phase with both. This assumes that the driving amplifiers are also properly phased, of course, and helps to create a seamless blend between the front and rear, while still at the same time allowing the dipolar effect to impart a spaciousness to the surround sound.

Before doing any listening with the full array, I measured each of these additional speakers to see how they compared to the left and right mains. The center required a bit of diddling, of course, but I got the best response (closest to that of the mains) with the "boundary" and "presence" switches turned off and with the high-frequency level set at about the 2 o'clock position.

During this measurement, the center speaker was on top of my largish, stand-mounted center speaker, about 40 inches off the floor, and fairly close to the front wall. Later on, when using the system to watch movies, I placed the system on a 17-inch stand in front of my regular center. (The latter had to be kept in place, because it has a catch on the top-rear to secure my pull-down projection screen, and I could not put the 273C on top of it, because the AT center would then have blocked part of my screen). The response of the center with a mono pink noise input was fairly close to what the 271LR mains could do with uncorrelated, stereo pink noise.

It was difficult to sensibly measure the 274SR satellites in their sidewall-location positions. Consequently, in order to effectively check out their room response, I positioned one of them in the center-channel location and measured that way. The results were remarkable, with the system nearly as flat as the others, but with no peak at 500 Hz. Of course, a system like this, with really small woofers, will roll off the bass strongly, and this system was no exception. However, with most processors, the surround channel will be set up to fold its bass into the mains or a subwoofer. With the 272PBM handling the bottom end, the response was as flat as nearly any other system I have measured from 31.5 Hz on up to 12.5 kHz. Plus or minus 3 dB, as a matter of fact. Not bad for a dinky surround speaker.

Speaking of subs, I then decided to give the 272PBM subwoofer a more thorough checkout. During my listening sessions, I had noted that it did not reach as far down into the deep bass as the F1800 in my main system, and I also noticed that when extremely deep bass signals were sent to the unit there was a bit of doubling apparent that I did not hear with either of my Velodyne models or with my Hsu TN1220. With movie material, this would probably not be noticeable, but with some musical sources, it might be.

First, I ran some near-field measurements, and discovered that the subwoofer's response was very similar in a practical sense to what either of my Allison IC-20, full-range systems could do by themselves in the bass range. Indeed, down to 31.5 Hz, they measured almost identically. However, at 25 Hz, the IC-20 was 2 dB louder and at 20 Hz, while the IC-20 was about 9 dB down, the 272PBM was down 12 dB. With test tones, I could also hear more doubling down really low with the AT sub than with the dual, 10-inch, push-pull woofers of a single IC-20.

While I did not have the ability to compare them directly, I did manage to compare the measurements I took of the 272PBM with those I took on a B&W ASW 2000 sub that was reviewed in Issue 73. Both subs make use of 12-inch drivers, but the significant similarities end there, because the B&W is a ported system, rather than a sealed box, is somewhat heavier, and also has somewhat less amplifier power. Power limitations and the difficulties of measuring the near-field performance of a ported system notwithstanding, the B&W appeared to have the measurement edge, at least in terms of maximum output below 40 Hz.

With both subs referenced for equal outputs at 50 Hz, the B&W was over 5 dB louder at 31.5 Hz (actually, the 272PBM was a couple of dB below the 50-Hz level and the B&W exhibited a mild peak at that frequency). The B&W was also several dB louder at 25 and 20 Hz. However, it was no cleaner sounding, in terms of doubling effects, and if I read my notes correctly, the AT sub was probably a bit cleaner overall below 40 Hz.

Of course, neither of these units (nor the IC-20 woofers) were able to equal the low-bass flatness below 40 Hz of a subwoofer in the Velodyne F1800 class. The latter was a good 5 dB louder than the 272PBM at 31.5 Hz, 8 dB louder at 25 Hz, and about 14 dB louder at 20 Hz. Even the little Velodyne FSR-12 was flatter than either the Atlantic Technology or the B&W subs below 40 Hz, although both of the latter could play considerably louder over that range than the smaller Velodyne.

Regarding loudness, well, here is where the AT sub, and the B&W, would be able to earn their respective keeps as home-theater items. My usual practice is to set a sub in the corner and place my microphone at the listening position, about 17 feet away. The microphone is then hooked to my AudioControl, SA-3051 RTA, with it switched to its digital-SPL-readout mode. The measurements are shown to one-tenth dB resolution.

At 31.5 Hz, I found that the 272PBM could generate a solid 110 dB at the listening position. This is excellent performance, and shows that the unit is more than able to deliver room-shaking performance with nearly any home-theater program material. At 20 Hz, the system could still generate 107 dB, but in reaching this level, some doubling was clearly audible, with those harmonics adding to the measured output reading.

While the sub can generate a passably clean signal down that low at moderate levels, the response is really not flat, and in order to get good output down there with, say, pipe-organ program material, it is necessary to crank its level up to a point where frequencies between 30 Hz and 80 Hz are just too loud. This is not a sub for super-deep, pipe-organ music, if the kind of super performance levels generated by the bigger Velodyne, Paradigm, and Hsu Research models are your reference standards.

Speaking of reference standards, at 31.5 Hz, the F1800 could generate 114 dB and the B&W could generate nearly 109. The Velodyne FSR-12, smooth though it was in terms of response, could only generate a bit over 104. Interestingly, the two Allison IC-20 systems (both systems, against the front wall, a bit closer to the microphone than the subs) could generate a solid 112 dB.

At 20 Hz, the big Velodyne could hit 110 dB, with absolutely no doubling. The B&W could hit a bit more than 100 (with audible doubling), and the FSR-12 could hit 97, cleanly. The IC-20 woofers managed a bit under 104, also cleanly.

Clearly, the AT sub, costing a bit under $800, is a good buy, particularly if you are comparing it to a sub like the B&W, which costs $1,000. However, while it is impressive for the money, neither it nor the B&W are in a smoothness and low-distortion league (at least down really low) with those two Velodynes (the lower-output abilities of the smaller Velodyne FSR-12 notwithstanding), nor can it be compared in any way to the Hsu TN1220 and Paradigm Servo 15, two other subs I have reviewed recently.

Of course, all those subs cost more, and sometimes considerably more, than the 272PBM, and the Atlantic Technology unit can pretty much hold its own, or come quite close to holding its own, with any of them at, say, from 30-35 Hz on up, at least in terms of maximum-output potential. Indeed, it utterly outclasses the FSR-12 in this respect, a sub that costs $1,300.

With my instrument measurements pretty much completed, I decided to hook the full System 270 up to my Yamaha DSP-A3090 processor/amp, to see what the speaker array could do in terms of delivering both proper home-theater sound and music reproduction.

The A3090 is normally designed to use four surround speakers, but when it is set to work in its basic Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital modes, only the rearmost surrounds are in operation. (You can also configure it to work with only two surrounds in the assorted music modes, but when you do that the front-surround reverb is routed to the left and right mains, and I did not want to color the output from the 271LR satellites with that kind of input). That is how I checked out the System 270 for both music-playback and movie-sound abilities.

I did listen to some channel-balance and imaging test tones from the Delos Surround Spectacular disc, and as far as I could tell, the three front speakers were as able as any I have heard, in terms of imaging and soundstaging. The assorted pans and half-left and half-right imaging tests were very satisfactory, and in doing them I came to the conclusion that the speakers were at their best with the left and right mains toed in, with their forward aim points crossed a few feet in front of the primary listening position. The special stands would not allow them to be placed right up against the wall, but that was OK, because they appeared to do their jobs better if they were each pulled out about a foot.

I managed to listen to quite a few decent additional recordings with this arrangement. One of the first was a fine CD transcription of Berlioz's Te Deum (Delos DE 3200) as recorded by John Eargle -- designed to sound at its best with Dolby Pro Logic decoding. The decoding of the A3090 worked spectacularly well with this material, and the hall simulation was quite good, even though only two surround speakers were employed.

I believe that one reason for this is the dipolar nature of the 274SR surround speakers. They did an excellent job of de-localizing themselves, and making the hall ambience on the recording sound like it was ambience and not a pair of speakers on either side of the listening position. However, I did note that the ambience was still a bit more small-room-like than I normally care for. After a bit of experimentation, I discovered that if the surrounds were removed from the 176ST stands (which had positioned them at seated ear height) and mounted further up, the sense of hall space was improved considerably. I got the best results with the surrounds mounted right on the sidewalls, about 5 feet from the floor.

I also experimented with moving them a bit more to the rear, with their dipolar nulls still aimed at the listening position, and I think that they worked a bit better about 20 degrees toward the rear than they did directly out at the sides. I mostly left them that way for the remainder of my listening. Mounting them somewhat to the rear permanently, with their nulls properly aimed, would require the use of some kind of moveable wall brackets or a small shelf. Experimentation is called for, here, and in some rooms a direct-to-sides placement might be the best choice.

In addition to the Berlioz piece, I also listened to excerpts from John Rutter's Requiem (Reference Recordings RR-57) and to Handel's Water Music, which is part of a two-disc reissue from Delos (DE3704) that also includes Vivaldi's Four Seasons. The Rutter piece was remarkably good, with even the organ sounding impressive, although I definitely noticed the very bottom missing at times. The Handel, which was recorded quite a number of years ago by Marc Aubort, was also terrific.

On a more mundane level, I tried my wife's copy of Billy Dean's Fire In the Dark (Liberty 98947), and was substantially impressed with the results, although Dean's voice seemed just a smidgeon honky at times, probably due to the slight elevation in the 500-630 Hz range that I had measured previously.

Basic listening completed, I cranked up my DVD player and listened to selections from all three of the Dolby Digital encoded, Delos' DVD music-demo discs: DVD Spectacular (DV-7001), DVD Music Breakthrough (DV-7002), and DVD Space Spectacular (DV-7003). In each case, the results were outstandingly good, or nearly so. I was particularly impressed with how the center closely approximated the sound of the left and right mains, and how well the repositioned surround speakers simulated hall ambience. The center's effectiveness fell off somewhat as I moved further and further off axis, but the focus held up nicely to at least 30 degrees off center.

The opening organ passages from the excerpt of the Berlioz Te Deum on the Breakthrough DVD were fairly well positioned. This particular excerpt is taken from the same tape master as the CD version mentioned earlier. However, unlike the CD version, "well positioned" means at the surround channel, rather than up front. (Remember, the organ bass was coming from the sub, but the directional clues were provided by the midrange and treble, which the satellites provided with terrific smoothness). I also tried listening to this material with the surrounds directly out to the sides, and the result was a bit too diffuse for my taste. With the surrounds moved back toward the rear a bit, the effect was considerably better. Interestingly, the organ bass on this DVD release was not quite as deep as what I found on the two-channel CD version.

With the surrounds either directly to the sides or somewhat to the rear, the choral passages at the beginning of the 1812 Overture on the DVD Spectacular disc were more diffuse than what I get with my Allison LC-120 monopoles. (On this disc, the singers start out positioned mostly at the surround channels and then they slowly march down the side aisles toward the stage during the opening section). The LC-120s are very wide dispersing in the treble range, which allows them to be both spacious and well focused at the same time, and this design worked very well with the requirements of this presentation. While a pair of dipoles are often better at distributing ambient effects, particularly with movies, good monopoles are often better if discrete signals are to be localized at or near the surround channels.

Finally, to give the system a stab at doing what it was mainly designed to do, I tried out a few movie titles. It was as good with the ones I tried as it was with musical program material, particularly in terms of upfront clarity. Usually, a soundtrack that separates the pseudo-woofers from the subwoofers is Jurassic Park. (The version I had on hand for this writeup was the Dolby-matrixed laserdisc). In this case, the 272PBM was able and ready, and the T-Rex footfalls, although not quite so filled out below 30 Hz as what my Hsu TN1220 could deliver (it is hooked to the center, and handles most of the bass with DPL decoded material), were suitably unnerving.

I wrapped up my large-room listening by hooking up my speaker-switching box, and comparing the 271LR speakers with several other systems I had on hand. For this session, I first kept the 272PBM in place and let it act as a subwoofer for all the speakers to be compared. What I wanted to compare involved imaging, soundstaging, and midrange/treble clarity and uniformity, with bass performance remaining the same.

First up was the tough one: 271LR satellites vs. my big IC-20s. With pink noise to start off the comparison, the first thing that I noticed was that the 271LR systems had a slight tendency to exhibit a somewhat hollow sound, compared to the big Allison models. The effect was so subtle that it was necessary to do an A-B comparison to detect it. A subsequent series of comparisons with the recordings listened to previously substantiated my initial impressions. Nevertheless, the 271LR systems were much more able than most of the other speakers I have auditioned to mimic the smoothness of the IC-20s.

However, they did have some colorations in the midrange, which were probably due to the slight peak in the 500-630 Hz range. Many instruments sounded almost identical: recorder, trumpet, and other upper-midrange and treble-dominant instruments. However, in the lower midrange the colorations of the 271LRs were just slightly apparent. On the Rutter Requiem, for instance, the male chorus was just a bit hollow sounding on the AT systems. However, on the Handel Water Music, the IC-20s were also just a bit better with massed strings. However, I do want to emphasize that the overall differences I heard were considerably less than what I have heard with a number of other systems, some of which cost considerably more than the 271LR pair.

I then tried a comparison with my Allison AL-125 systems. These are three-way models, like the IC-20's but with only one Allison tweeter and midrange per cabinet, rather than four of each, as in the case with the larger systems. In this case, things were considerably closer. The Philips America: the Dream Goes On disc, for instance, had female-chorus and full-orchestra passages that sounded just about identical with either speaker pair in operation. I did hear some hollowness to the male choral sections with the AT systems that I did not detect with the AL-125s, however.

To top off my main-room listening session, I substituted the F1800 for the 272PBM and listened to a few organ spectacular releases. The results were sensational, and I do not know of any two-way systems I have reviewed in the past that sounded better with the sub than the 271LR satellites.

I do want to note that I also gave these systems a try in my smaller A/V room, with both the 272PBM and also with the Velodyne FSR-12. Overall, the results were OK, but it is clear that the rather forward sound of these speakers, due to the slight peak in the lower midrange, tends to make them better bets if they are listened to at a fairly long distance. In my main room, the distance was usually in excess of 12 feet. In my smaller room, it was about 7 feet. Because of this, speakers with a somewhat more reticent nature might be preferable for smaller-room, musical-program listening, particularly with classical sources, although the up-front nature of the System 270 array would make it good for home-theater use in a smaller room.

If I intended to purchase either the two main satellites or the full, five-speaker satellite array, I would be inclined to hold off on the 272PBM, and get something more substantial, even if it did stress my finances. I am enough of a low-bass nut to want my subwoofer to go flat down to 20 Hz, with no audible doubling, whatsoever. In most normal-sized rooms, or even slightly larger than normal sized rooms, the satellites work extremely well with musical program material, and there is no doubt in my mind that they would satisfy most music lovers and home-theater enthusiasts who were shopping for something in this price category. -- HF