ATC speakers / Monitors

[Count Arthur]

No because the ATCs off-axis is so ragged in comparison.

Who spends £15,000 on a pair of speakers and sits off-axis? There's Sonos for that sort of thing.

 

[richard12511]

Who spends £15,000 on a pair of speakers and sits off-axis? There's Sonos for that sort of thing.

Even if you sit directly on axis, the off axis response still greatly affects the sound you hear.

 

[stevenswall]

Did you know thousands of studio are using ATC?

Thousands of studios are also destroying generations of art by purposefully, wittingly, crippling the dynamic range. Does that justify it?

 

[ahofer]

I went into an audition of ATC speakers in early 2018 wanting to like them, just because of the studio use and reputation. I only heard passives, because there are no audio showrooms in the NY area that will show you the actives (And lots of salesman who will lie to you and tell you what a terrible idea actives are).

Anyway, I wasn’t all that impressed. scm40s, as I recall. I liked the Wilson Sabrina’s better, side-by-side. But then I liked the Harbeth SHL5+ better than both of them.

Btw, I did go to the Harmon showroom. The salesperson absolutely stunk of cigarettes, played some JBLs for me and lost interest. So I never heard the Revels.

Storefront Audio retail is such a disaster.

 

[dfuller]

If not to mix/master using as neutral as possible a monitor with sufficient bass extension, power handling etc. etc., what would these priorities be? Or alternatively, which priorities would lead an engineer to choose an ATC over a more neutral option of equivalent size/cost?

So... ever heard of the NS-10 or Auratone 5C? They're both the polar opposite of "flat" and "neutral" but we use them specifically because they're more like common, relatively low fidelity playback systems. One of the hardest lessons to learn in audio engineering is that the big fancy mains lie to you. They're great speakers, which almost invariably means that mixes don't translate.

 

[stevenswall]

So anyone has measurements of ATC's most popular model SCM 110a? OR every measurements of big boys for mastering purpose? NOBODY

Nope, but we have measurements of Genelec, by Amir and Genelec themselves, as they aren't afraid to show objective performance, so I'd stick with those if you're looking for transparency, both from the speaker and from the company.

 

[andreasmaaan]

So... ever heard of the NS-10 or Auratone 5C?

Yes, see my post #37.

ATCs are neither marketed nor deployed on the basis of their inaccuracy.

In every studio I've seen them in, they are there as a primary, supposedly neutral monitor.

They're both the polar opposite of "flat" and "neutral" but we use them specifically because they're more like common, relatively low fidelity playback systems. One of the hardest lessons to learn in audio engineering is that the big fancy mains lie to you. They're great speakers, which almost invariably means that mixes don't translate.

EDIT: This is off-topic now, but FWIW my view is that speakers like the NS10 and 5C are representative of common, low fidelity playback systems of 25+ years ago.

I tend to use earbuds and (when I had a car, which I no longer do) my car stereo for similar purposes, as these are far more representative of the systems/environments now commonly used by consumers.

Having said that, NS10s can be useful for ensuring that upper midrange energy is under control, IMHO.

 

[stevenswall]

So... ever heard of the NS-10 or Auratone 5C? They're both the polar opposite of "flat" and "neutral" but we use them specifically because they're more like common, relatively low fidelity playback systems. One of the hardest lessons to learn in audio engineering is that the big fancy mains lie to you. They're great speakers, which almost invariably means that mixes don't translate.

Flat will translate as best it can. If you test something on a speaker with dips at 100hz and 2000hz, and then try to adjust for that, it will sound even worse one a speaker that has peaks in those places because now it's peaks in the music, plus peaks from the speakers.

Instead of playing luck of the draw and playing it on colored stuff, making it work on flat speakers will mean that if there are peaks or nulls on a playback set of speakers, the user will only be hearing what their speaker normally sounds like, instead of the music being matched to another colored speaker and potentially being extra peaky or extra nulled on theirs.

I can certainly see the point though of things like the Auratone cubes to simulate stuff with roll off on the top and bottom ends.

 

[richard12511]

So... ever heard of the NS-10 or Auratone 5C? They're both the polar opposite of "flat" and "neutral" but we use them specifically because they're more like common, relatively low fidelity playback systems. One of the hardest lessons to learn in audio engineering is that the big fancy mains lie to you. They're great speakers, which almost invariably means that mixes don't translate.

But if all audio engineers started using accurate gear, the problem you describe would cease to exist. The reason the problem you describe exists in the first place is because engineers have been mixing on tools like the NS-10.

 

[stevenswall]

You think speaker design is a dice roll?.

For some companies it sure is a dice roll it sounds like! Pick some parts from a bucket, test them by ear and maybe measure them, and reach in the bucket again.

 

[tuga]

So anyone has measurements of ATC's most popular model SCM 110a? OR every measurements of big boys for mastering purpose? NOBODY

SCM150ALST

SCM40II

SCM40II

SCM50PSL

 

[Vintage57]

Well what’s the consensus?

I think good, but not SOTA, not when comparing with what’s currently available.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Well what’s the consensus?

I think good, but not SOTA, not when comparing with what’s currently available.

Agree. And overpriced/overhyped.

(I really like their industrial design.)

 

[andreasmaaan]

I apologize. There are so many trolls out nowadays that questions can take on an antagonistic appearance. I hope no harm was done.

I've never met engineers from the big studios. Because I was an amateur, I met only people in small, local outfits. A few were some of the most idiosyncratic, bullheaded people I ever knew. One refused to use anything that wasn't highly directional. That wasn't odd; there was no consideration of "room response". A certain axis relative to the speaker was chosen because it translated well for that particular engineer, and that was that. Another one wanted elevated treble response. He said it provided "clarity" in catching editing artifacts. That, also, was a somewhat common attitude. But another (not in the same studio) wanted a reduced treble. All of these rooms were treated and fairly dead, because that made differences easier to pick out.
Once, I heard that a certain engineer won a Grammy using Event monitors ..... I can't remember for sure, but it might have been the 20/20 BAS model. I mentioned this to one of the guys in the studio, and the reaction was immediate and unprintable.

And then there were people who put absolute reliability as their highest priority. I once heard one say, "You can learn to mix on any speaker except the one that's not working."

Some of the people I knew put autosound as the highest priority. Why? Sales, of course. Those people mixed magic fairy dust. Mixing for high-compression autosound was NOT easy.

But now I'm old, and I'm half deaf. Take what I tell you whichever way you please. Despite my previous comments, I won't be offended by legitimate disagreements. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Have a nice day. Jim

You too, Jim And thanks for taking the trouble to explain.

I’ve had similar experiences with sound engineers myself. Some of these experiences led to my previous comment along the lines of “IME sound engineers are only slightly less prone to magical thinking than audiophiles”. I worked with one mastering engineer who wouldn’t mix on any speaker that wasn’t linear phase (and passive, what’s more) and insisted on using a minimum 192kHz sampling rate. He produces good work IMO, but these beliefs are nevertheless irrational/unscientific. At a very well-appointed studio here in Berlin where an acquaintance works, they care about power cables and are certain these make a difference (that’s where I’ve listened to the ATC SCM2000s incidentally). An amateur engineer I know does most of her (very good IMO) work on Rokit RP6s, and yet another on cheap headphones. These two have adapted to the substandard gear they work with and are capable of getting good results with it (they both work in the electronic music realm though, which is less challenging).

I guess where I’m going with this is to say that yes, we are able to adapt to our equipment within certain reasonable limits. And ATCs are generally good enough that the amount of adaptation needed is relatively small. But I honestly can’t find anything that any model of ATC does that isn’t done significantly better and cheaper by competitors. Or to put it another way, the only reason I could imagine wanting to work on a particular ATC would be habit, ie that I’d already adapted to its specific imperfections over a long period of time, to the extent that I actually preferred working that way. But in my eyes, this doesn’t make ATCs “good” (relative to their price) by any stretch.

 

[digicidal]

Am I right in thinking that the D&D have DSP built in, so you're comparing the D&D "corrected" to the ATC "raw". Presumably, with some DSP, you could adjust the ATCs to measure similarly.

I'm sure you could... which begs the question (considering the cost) "why didn't ATC do that in the first place?" as well as a few others. To me that's an invalid support argument, because the same could be said for the room itself, the placement chosen, and any number of others. If you said "Speaker A could sound as good as Speaker B if they hadn't botched the crossover design" - would that be a reasonable defense as well?

Honestly, I almost didn't watch the rest of the video as soon as (during the introduction) two of the participants claimed that the sound of the similarly overpriced DCS DAC/clock combo "changed significantly over 2 days." Makes you wonder if their cables were properly broken in as well... LOL!

Certainly, subjectively speaking at least, it is possible to enjoy (even prefer) an inaccurate speaker - just as it's possible to decide that the warmth of tubes is far more enjoyable or vinyl is a better source media. It is physically impossible to make two speakers with different drivers, enclosures, network designs, etc. sound exactly the same (unlike most of the electronics in the signal chain). However, the fact that the LS1's and the 8C's were nearly indistinguishable from each other, yet fairly different from the SCM100's - shows that, out of the box, the ATC offering was not as accurate. The fact that several of them indicated they would prefer listening to the SCM100's, but would prefer working on the other two is pretty telling IMO.

For me, I would rather have as accurate a sound reproduction (with as little coloration as possible and within my budget) all the time. Naturally, I have to make some fairly significant compromises on the presentation side currently... but I'm also keeping 80%-90% of the MSRP of the models reviewed in my pocket. That makes those compromises much more palatable to me. If I decide that $15K+ is my budget - then having to extend that budget for DSP solutions to make it more accurate is likely a total deal-breaker.

It seems to me like ATC is a bit confused on their market. They seem like great livingroom speakers - if you are from the "old school" at least - but not so great as studio monitors. On the other hand, if they are just livingroom speakers... then they lack (IMO at least) most of the aesthetics and form-factor advantages of similarly priced offerings from Revel, Focal, KEF, KII, etc. (and naturally the D&D 8C's as well).

On the opposite side of things, they also fail to match (let alone exceed) the performance and accuracy of less expensive studio monitors from Genelec, Neumann, Adam, JBL, etc. They do however have nicer cabinet finishes in comparison - something that doesn't matter at all in the studio, and might actually be a detriment depending on how durable the top coat is.

 

[Count Arthur]

Some thoughts.

1. Is it possible that the less "accurate" of two speakers might sound better in a particular room, because the peaks, or dips in it's frequency respones just happen to work in synergy with the rooms acoustics?

2. Could it be that the innaccuracy of a speaker happens to coinside with a sound signature you like. Perhaps an emphasis in the mid bass which adds a bit of punch which you find pleasing, or some extra energy on the upper mids that gives the impression of greater clarity.

3. With nothing to compare it to, the ear/brain gets used to a particular sound and after a while it sounds OK and it sounds right. I think sometimes, if you switch speakers, or heaphones, you can very easily hear that they sound different, but sometimes you'd be hard pressed to say which actually sounds better, or more accurate.

 

[digicidal]

Some thoughts.

1. Is it possible that the less "accurate" of two speakers might sound better in a particular room, because the peaks, or dips in it's frequency respones just happen to work in synergy with the rooms acoustics?

2. Could it be that the innaccuracy of a speaker happens to coinside with a sound signature you like. Perhaps an emphasis in the mid bass which adds a bit of punch which you find pleasing, or some extra energy on the upper mids that gives the impression of greater clarity.

3. With nothing to compare it to, the ear/brain gets used to a particular sound and after a while it sounds OK and it sounds right. I think sometimes, if you switch speakers, or heaphones, you can very easily hear that they sound different, but sometimes you'd be hard pressed to say which actually sounds better, or more accurate.

Unlikely But Yes, Somewhat Yes, and Definitely Yes (hence measurements).

The bigger question for any consumer product (regardless of market):
If synergies and/or familiarity are required in order for the response to be positive, are you fine with limiting your market to only those cases? If you can design and market a truly universal product - even if it's not "perfect" in a small subset of installations - that seems a much better approach than making an overly specialized one. After all, if that's the case, in the wrong room, those ATC's would then be exaggerating problems and diminishing strengths seen elsewhere.

Working in IT for decades, I've run across that in a many cases (in very disparate markets: industrial, financial, medical). There are some companies that produce software and/or hardware solutions which expect that you either build out your entire infrastructure to their specifications, or you give up a significant number of features in order to integrate it into an existing infrastructure. In other cases, the device/application might be more infrastructure-agnostic, but required changing the workflow of the entire enterprise in order to fully utilize the solution.

I consistently avoided all of them - because often the support contracts were similarly prohibitive and resulted in paying even more in recurring costs than in initial implementation. Almost without exception the sales contacts (commissioned naturally) would snort and huff about how ridiculous and "unprofessional" our operations must be... after all, "everyone does it this way!"

Although I haven't checked... I'm guessing with the advent of distributed, cloud-based solutions which require flexibility and scalability of deployment above all else - those companies are all out of business now. Either that or they eventually had to change themselves, rather than expecting the client to do so.

 

[sfdoddsy]

I went into an audition of ATC speakers in early 2018 wanting to like them, just because of the studio use and reputation. I only heard passives, because there are no audio showrooms in the NY area that will show you the actives (And lots of salesman who will lie to you and tell you what a terrible idea actives are).

Anyway, I wasn’t all that impressed. scm40s, as I recall. I liked the Wilson Sabrina’s better, side-by-side. But then I liked the Harbeth SHL5+ better than both of them.

Btw, I did go to the Harmon showroom. The salesperson absolutely stunk of cigarettes, played some JBLs for me and lost interest. So I never heard the Revels.

Storefront Audio retail is such a disaster.

I think your post gets to the heart of the matter. None of the speakers you listened to that day are what most here would admire.

This is the Wilson:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

The Harbeth is better:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

But objectively not that great compared to far cheaper and far better measuring speakers like the KEF R3.

Yet many swear by those you enjoyed and others that are even more objectively amiss such as all recent B&W speakers, consumer PMC speakers and many many more.

If 'accuracy' did indeed translate into preference we'd all be listening to Revel, KEF, Genelec and the usual suspects.

And we wouldn't be adding a 'target curve' for the sake of preference over reference.

Judging by sales, most people prefer inaccurate.

 

[Count Arthur]

Although I haven't checked... I'm guessing with the advent of distributed, cloud-based solutions which require flexibility and scalability of deployment above all else - those companies are all out of business now. Either that or they eventually had to change themselves, rather than expecting the client to do so.

Apple seems to be doing quite well with the "my way or the highway" approach.

Their latest wheeze is to apparently identify all the individual modules within the phone to the motherboard, such that only certified Apple stores can replace batteries, cameras, etc.: https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-i...epair-unfriendly-in-a-new-video.501402.0.html

 

[Pearljam5000]

I think your post gets to the heart of the matter. None of the speakers you listened to that day are what most here would admire.

This is the Wilson:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

The Harbeth is better:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

But objectively not that great compared to far cheaper and far better measuring speakers like the KEF R3.

Yet many swear by those you enjoyed and others that are even more objectively amiss such as all recent B&W speakers, consumer PMC speakers and many many more.

If 'accuracy' did indeed translate into preference we'd all be listening to Revel, KEF, Genelec and the usual suspects.

And we wouldn't be adding a 'target curve' for the sake of preference over reference.

Judging by sales, most people prefer inaccurate.

Most people do prefer "warm" and "musical" sound, and i can't blame them, it's easier to listen to, i like accurate and flat and uncolored sound (Genelec for example)
Like they said on the video, ATC sounded like "analog" , and the D&D 8C sounded "digital".
This is why audiophiles also like Vinyl, obviously its less accurate than digital but if they like It more.