Quad 989 or active ATC?

Does anyone have good experience with direct comparison of midrange transparency and detail between Quad 989 and larger active ATC speakers (SCM50 and up).
I have heard 989 and liked it very much, quite good extension and great midrange, very transparent speakers, surprisingly dynamic.
Heard also Quad 2805 and did not like them at all, for multiple reasons, notably lack of bass, very compressed soundstage, some severe imbalance as none of instruments sounded correct.
The time between auditioning of Quad 989 and ATC SCM50ASL (and 100) is significant.
Resounding memory from ATC auditioning was that I did not like any passive version regardless of amplifications, active were significantly better.
So I was wondering if those with experience can chime in.
Also, since Quad 989 is no longer produced, is it a good buy in terms of reliability?
I have not compared. FWIW ATC midrange was designed by Woodman to compete with the best panel midrange sound quality (which panels excel at) yet play loud and dynamically like the best horns (without the "honkiness" or throat non-linear distortion).

I heard the 989 a while ago and it sounded very clean but it definitely lacks SPL and dynamics, and the 989 measurements on Stereophile are concerning but who knows perhaps they messed up when the did it. Very surprising to see so much resonance on the decay waterfall plot - the panel membrane seems to be vibrating in certain modes which should be audible?
I remember that Martin Colloms tried to duplicate some of Stereophile's measurements on one of the Quad models but could not, his were much better. These are quire different speakers and don't really compete with each other. If the company is still supporting the 989 with parts I would not worry too much. You can still get parts for the original Quad speaker.