• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

ATC speakers / Monitors

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
If said room is not anechoic, the following per Toole applies:



Further to this, why is a great room an excuse for a deliberately crippled speaker? Why not both? Is it because it is difficult to admit that the world has left ATC behind and clinging on to the mystique as a status symbol all its adherents can do now?

What's worse than outright voodoo is the superficial commitment to evidence-based, empirical engineering like Chord, Harbeth and ATC despite the actual products being so far behind.
This website, which I love btw, is a great source of knowledge. But it also has an almost religious focus on directivity and radiation patterns, while anyone in the pro industry and a good room will be substantially more interested in phase response, impulse response, lack of distortion and on axis balance. Producing quality drivers in a sufficiently large cabinet, with huge headroom and precise analog active filter and amp design is not outdated, it is just a different design goal and user in mind. My ATC’s has wiped the floor with Genelec 8351, Ex Machina Pulsar, Meyer Sound Amie, Neumann 310, Burchardt a500, Kali IN-8 and quite a few others. I have tested them all. The Dutch 8C and JBL LSR708p are the only ones that was really up to the challenge and did not disappoint with considerable margin. I am awaiting my PMC 6-2, which I have bought and hope they can prove an adequate 2nd monitor.

Feel free to come and listen. It does not sound anything close to what you seem to believe ATC is about.

88A6B0F9-E4D4-4FB8-8ED3-05E2EF87ECFC.jpeg
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,763
Likes
16,232
But it also has an almost religious focus on directivity and radiation patterns, while anyone in the pro industry and a good room will be substantially more interested in phase response, impulse response, lack of distortion and on axis balance.
That is a pseudo dilemma, especially in that price range you want to have all fulfilled at the same time at a highest level, good directivity doesn't really cost much more (except mainly R&D) while it doesn't harm the other factors.

And am sure that above ATC systems sounds great, even more in such an acoustically optimised environment but that isn't what is questioned.
 

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,632
Likes
1,556
I'm so envious of those able to afford and accommodate good BIG speakers of whatever make. The vibe is totally different and far more 'real' than any smaller active wonder-box with active dsp keeping the bass deep, let alone tall tower types with multiple bass drivers. The latter is the norm now and maybe going back to larger 'proper in @restorer-john terms' speakers makes the latter sound 'coloured' in some way, but I don't care really. I'll forgive the JBL 4367 anything because of this ;)
Everything is compromise. No one argues that BIG speakers don't have their compromises, people seem a little less free admitting the same about certain smaller ones.

There are aspects of a loudspeakers performance that, to my ear, give the impression of 'realness' more than others, and I would willingly sacrifice something of other things in pursuit of that which allows a speaker to seem more palpably real and true to life.
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
That is a pseudo dilemma, especially in that price range you want to have all fulfilled at the same time at a highest level, good directivity doesn't really cost much more (except mainly R&D) while it doesn't harm the other factors.

And am sure that above ATC systems sounds great, even more in such an acoustically optimised environment but that isn't what is questioned.
Everything involves compromises. There is no such thing as “highest level” in all aspects. However there is such a thing as designing towards a specific purpose/implementation, and choosing the right compromises.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,438
Location
Singapore
But it also has an almost religious focus on directivity and radiation patterns, while anyone in the pro industry and a good room will be substantially more interested in phase response, impulse response, lack of distortion and on axis balance.

I severely question the judgment, competence and knowledge of a "pro" who thinks what has been overwhelmingly shown to be audible (directivity - by Geddes, Toole, Olive etc.) in anywhere short of an anechoic room is less important than phase and impulse response (which is - at best - marginally audible under extremely contrived conditions with extreme amounts of phase shift far beyond what any remotely working speaker puts out; see Moller et al., and Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's results before that).

BTW, correcting on-axis response is trivial via equalisation anyway so long as directivity is smooth, barring anomalies such as on-axis nulls from sub-optimal coaxial designs.

And as @thewas said, for what ATC charges for their larger monitors, you start to get speakers that can give you everything - flat on-axis, superb directivity, superb max SPL, low distortion, low diffraction, linear phase response! Or if not speakers with all that at once, systems that can do so (e.g. room correction).

Newsflash - pro audio is just as susceptible to snake oil, arguably more so because it often takes on a superficially empirical guise rather than pure voodoo. All the appeals to authority don't mean shit because mastering engineers that bang the ATC drum aren't researchers studying human audio perception or sound reproduction and seem content to rely on a playbook that is at least 20 years out of date.

edit: And I reject the characterisation of audio reproduction as a zero-sum game and therefore speaker choice is wholly personal and not subject to scrutiny based on empirical evidence.
 

SoundGuy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
115
Likes
120
If said room is not anechoic, the following per Toole applies:



Further to this, why is a great room an excuse for a deliberately crippled speaker? Why not both? Is it because it is difficult to admit that the world has left ATC behind and clinging on to the mystique as a status symbol all its adherents can do now?

What's worse than outright voodoo is the superficial commitment to evidence-based, empirical engineering like Chord, Harbeth and ATC despite the actual products being so far behind.


“being left behind” and “outright voodoo” - really? Even ATC’s development of an in-house tweeter without ferro-fluid? Was that more voodoo?
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
I severely question the judgment, competence and knowledge of a "pro" who thinks what has been overwhelmingly shown to be audible (directivity - by Geddes, Toole, Olive etc.) in anywhere short of an anechoic room is less important than phase and impulse response (which is - at best - marginally audible under extremely contrived conditions with extreme amounts of phase shift far beyond what any remotely working speaker puts out; see Moller et al., and Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's results before that).

BTW, correcting on-axis response is trivial via equalisation anyway so long as directivity is smooth, barring anomalies such as on-axis nulls from sub-optimal coaxial designs.

And as @thewas said, for what ATC charges for their larger monitors, you start to get speakers that can give you everything - flat on-axis, superb directivity, superb max SPL, low distortion, low diffraction, linear phase response! Or if not speakers with all that at once, systems that can do so (e.g. room correction).

Newsflash - pro audio is just as susceptible to snake oil, arguably more so because it often takes on a superficially empirical guise rather than pure voodoo. All the appeals to authority don't mean shit because mastering engineers that bang the ATC drum aren't researchers studying human audio perception or sound reproduction and seem content to rely on a playbook that is at least 20 years out of date.

edit: And I reject the characterisation of audio reproduction as a zero-sum game and therefore speaker choice is wholly personal and not subject to scrutiny based on empirical evidence.
I have heard these speakers you are talking about. None of them have the attributes you describe when playing in-room, but my soffit mounted ATC’s do. But they could never go in a Klippel, so I guess that is end of discussion in this forum :) calling these designs antiquated is a miss-understanding IMO.

I am guessing your next line will read something like “Trinnov” etc. Another product that does not actually work in practice, but only shifts problems :)
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,438
Location
Singapore
“being left behind” and “outright voodoo” - really? Even ATC’s development of an in-house tweeter without ferro-fluid? Was that more voodoo?

In-house development is no guarantee of performance. In fact the best drivers in the market are by dedicated developers like Purifi and Scanspeak - that brands either buy out of the catalogue or customise from them - with very few exceptions like Vivid. And the ferrofluid fearmongering is indeed, currently, audiophile voodoo. There were marginally legitimate reasons to avoid ferrofluid pertaining to reliability years ago, but not now. Compromising power handling and cooling for some perceived advantage of tweeter "speed" and serviceability is not exactly the win you think it is.
 

SoundGuy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
115
Likes
120
This website, which I love btw, is a great source of knowledge. But it also has an almost religious focus on directivity and radiation patterns, while anyone in the pro industry and a good room will be substantially more interested in phase response, impulse response, lack of distortion and on axis balance. Producing quality drivers in a sufficiently large cabinet, with huge headroom and precise analog active filter and amp design is not outdated, it is just a different design goal and user in mind. My ATC’s has wiped the floor with Genelec 8351, Ex Machina Pulsar, Meyer Sound Amie, Neumann 310, Burchardt a500, Kali IN-8 and quite a few others. I have tested them all. The Dutch 8C and JBL LSR708p are the only ones that was really up to the challenge and did not disappoint with considerable margin. I am awaiting my PMC 6-2, which I have bought and hope they can prove an adequate 2nd monitor.

Feel free to come and listen. It does not sound anything close to what you seem to believe ATC is about.

View attachment 224154
Yup - phase response - very audible to me! I don’t care for minimum phase filters or MQA in playback for this very reason(min phase is a great tool to fix problems on an individual track). Sharp high Q filters are always best avoided. It sounds better the less you have to muck with it. Yamaha N10 were great for phase. ATC also.
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
It’s a pity ATC can’t/won’t make a contemporary loudspeaker design, is it simply not having the skill set or pandering to their traditional user demographic?
Keith
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,438
Location
Singapore
I have heard these speakers you are talking about. None of them have the attributes you describe when playing in-room, but my soffit mounted ATC’s do.:)

In sighted listening. Why am I not surprised? Such listening is unreliable and cannot be used to judge speakers by, per Zielinski and Rumsey in their comprehensive peer-reviewed review of the literature. I cited peer-reviewed research dismantling your view and all you have brought to the table are anecdotes that merely repeat the tired and unsubstantiated apologetics for ATC speakers that we have to deal with for Chord, Harbeth and all manner of superficially engineering-driven cottage industry brands.
 

SoundGuy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
115
Likes
120
In-house development is no guarantee of performance. In fact the best drivers in the market are by dedicated developers like Purifi and Scanspeak - that brands either buy out of the catalogue or customise from them - with very few exceptions like Vivid. And the ferrofluid fearmongering is indeed, currently, audiophile voodoo. There were marginally legitimate reasons to avoid ferrofluid pertaining to reliability years ago, but not now. Compromising power handling and cooling for some perceived advantage of tweeter "speed" and serviceability is not exactly the win you think it is.
I understand now that in your view, the large dedicated mass produced driver manufacturers make the best drivers. It explains why you think ATC and some others are “left behind” and making “audiophile voodoo”…I can’t add much more to this disucssion. I will just say ATC often generates this kind of controversy likely because they enjoy a legacy and reputation.
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
In sighted listening. Why am I not surprised? Such listening is unreliable and cannot be used to judge speakers by, per Zielinski and Rumsey in their comprehensive peer-reviewed review of the literature. I cited peer-reviewed research dismantling your view and all you have brought to the table are anecdotes that merely repeat the tired and unsubstantiated apologetics for ATC speakers that we have to deal with for Chord, Harbeth and all manner of superficially engineering-driven cottage industry brands.
You don’t read or understand what I am saying, but no problem, you simply do not want to respect these product for what they do.

I make a living mixing and mastering everyday, listening objectively to sources, speakers and equipment. Totally fine if you want to reject the validity of that with your “dismantling”, I really could not care less. I have tried it all and heard it all on my way to where I am now, with no special interest in ATC, other than I found out they are the baseline. And that makes it all an easy decision. You think I am listening 100% subjectively with an agenda, I think you have spend too much time looking at specs, and wouldn’t know how the perfect speaker sounded if you heard it. Fair enough, we disagree. Maybe buy a pair of Kali’s they measure great, sound like shit! Have a nice day :)
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,340
Likes
5,064
It’s a pity ATC can’t/won’t make a contemporary loudspeaker design, is it simply not having the skill set or pandering to their traditional user demographic?
Keith
I am continually baffled by their refusal to even bother waveguiding the tweeters. I think it probably wouldn't even be an issue if they crossed the mid and tweeter maybe 500-700hz lower, but here we are.

That said - their speakers are not by any stretch bad, just not state of the art.
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
I am continually baffled by their refusal to even bother waveguiding the tweeters. I think it probably wouldn't even be an issue if they crossed the mid and tweeter maybe 500-700hz lower, but here we are.

That said - their speakers are not by any stretch bad, just not state of the art.
Is that not because the Mid-Dome actually does have a waveguide, and covers such a wide frequency band?
 

SoundGuy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
115
Likes
120
It’s a pity ATC can’t/won’t make a contemporary loudspeaker design, is it simply not having the skill set or pandering to their traditional user demographic?
Keith
I suspect it is by choice rather than pandering. However a more contemporary aesthetic would be welcome In there more basic offerings. They occupy a niche and choose to focus on it. If they outsourced everything they built (rather than having tooling and staff in house to make much of their product) then they would obviously have the flexibility to change or update designs much more readily - just like others mostly do. ATC do not make in-house cabinets which is the total opposite of a company like Wilson that actually specialize in cabinets. Fortunately, there are many alternatives so don’t
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
I understand now that in your view, the large dedicated mass produced driver manufacturers make the best drivers. It explains why you think ATC and some others are “left behind” and making “audiophile voodoo”…I can’t add much more to this disucssion. I will just say ATC often generates this kind of controversy likely because they enjoy a legacy and reputation.
On the atc web site, we can read the list of studio.
Sterling Sound Nashville.
Radio France Paris.
The financial discount do the decision. Not the sound.
It's the business.

In sterling sound, one month has been mandatory to learn the speakers said Greg Calvi.
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,340
Likes
5,064
Is that not because the Mid-Dome actually does have a waveguide, and covers such a wide frequency band?
See, that's the thing I don't get. They already do use waveguides on the mid dome, why not on the tweeter? It makes crossing the tweeter and mid easier by matching the directivity, it minimizes tweeter beaming above 10k, it improves tweeter sensitivity by providing something resembling horn loading....

If you look at the SCM25A's horizontal off-axis response behavior from Sound and Recording (if you want to read the whole review, it has to be paid for - I sourced this from another site where someone else posted it)...
attachment.php


It's overall quite even if you look at the -6dB (yellow) - minus the tweeter mid crossover, which is a touch messy because of a combination of a relatively high crossover point (~3.5k) and a lack of waveguide loading on the tweeter. Then the tweeter beams starting around 8k.

Honestly for a speaker sans waveguide loading on the tweeter this is pretty good.

Compare that to the KH310...
attachment.php


The tweeter and mid on this cross around 2KHz is totally even, and the tweeter doesn't beam. This is a result of the waveguide loading of the tweeter.

NB: The flare around 1k is a "one toothed comb" from Neumann's kind of head-scratching choice to cross the midrange and woofer quite high, around 650hz - shift that 150hz lower and it wouldn't be an issue.
 

SoundGuy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
115
Likes
120
I am continually baffled by their refusal to even bother waveguiding the tweeters. I think it probably wouldn't even be an issue if they crossed the mid and tweeter maybe 500-700hz lower, but here we are.

That said - their speakers are not by any stretch bad, just not state of the art.
They do wave guide the tweeter and 3” dome. Granted tweeter is not as deep of a wave guide as Genelec or Neumann. They could crossover lower on the tweeter but the mid actually works well pushed towards the upper limit of its range. I think the intent is to push the crossover outside of the more critical (musically important) mid range. B&W often do the same (high tweeter crossover point) but B&W use a 6 inch mid and the mid range beaming leaves a serious off axis mid range hole in their response. Certainly the dispersion between mid and tweeter could be made smoother if ATC wanted for very little additional cost. It may have something to do with the sharp crossover design As the mid must be sharply attenuated to steer clear of resonance just outside its operating range.
 
Last edited:

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,340
Likes
5,064
They do wave guide the tweeter and 3” dome. They could crossover lower on the tweeter but the mid actually works well pushed towards the upper limit of its range. I think the intent is to push the crossover outside of the more critical (musically important) mid range. B&W often do the same (high tweeter crossover point) but B&W use a 6 inch mid and the mid range beaming leaves a serious off axis mid range hole in their response
The "waveguides" they use on the tweeters are barely even worth mentioning. It's barely larger than the diameter of the tweeter dome, not enough to substantially do any dispersion control.


Certainly the dispersion between mid and tweeter could be made smoother if ATC wanted for very little additional cost. It may have something to do with the sharp crossover design As the mid must be sharply attenuated to steer clear of resonance just outside its operating range.
Yeah, they use standard 4th order filters - 24dB/octave. Just drop it down to 3k instead of 3.5, problem (largely) solved.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom