ATC speakers / Monitors

[Joachim Herbert]

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

Consider to send in a sample or a pair for measurement. I am sure Amir will be happy to take measurements.

 

[andreasmaaan]

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

I’ve seen measurements for four ATC models, ranging from cheap to expensive. All measured poorly.

1 fail out of 1 might be bad luck. 2 of 2 I’d call an indication. 4 messes out of 4 suggests failings of a more systematic nature, IMO.

Finally (and I don’t expect you to place any stock in this last point, obviously) I’ve heard the SCM2000ASL in an excellent room and was unimpressed (although admittedly it‘a the only speaker I’ve heard in that particular studio).

They do make very nice drivers, though.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I'm not sure that's a valid criteria... at least depending on the editor/contributor. They also tend to like many other products with dubious performance/value propositions. Not that this is an inherent disqualification, but being supported by advertisements by said vendors does surely account for some of the clever soft-shoe that can be seen in almost every review from them.

Certainly ATC makes relatively "great" speakers in most regards, but in their respective markets - are they objectively competitive with similarly priced monitors? I'd say not quite, but that doesn't mean that in a given installation they don't sound fantastic.

Stereophile also highly regards speakers from DeVore Fidelity (as do many other publications) and I can't wrap my head around that one either.

In 1980 I had a demo of a system which used ProAc EBS speakers. It was by far the best sound I had heard. This model used ATC mid dome and 9" bass speaker in a ProAc designed reflex enclosure.
About 15 years ago I bought a used pair on eBay for around £600. I use them in my study, so not often (I hate background music) and they still sound great to me but the retail prices for ATC have gone bonkers over the last few years
I have read the Neumann mid dome is superior to the ATC, based on FEA of breakup modes and certainly if I were in the market for a 3-way monitor the Neumann KH420 looks like a much better choice than ATC. I have been considering getting one to try out as a centre channel.

 

[andreasmaaan]

In 1980 I had a demo of a system which used ProAc EBS speakers. It was by far the best sound I had heard. This model used ATC mid dome and 9" bass speaker in a ProAc designed reflex enclosure.
About 15 years ago I bought a used pair on eBay for around £600. I use them in my study, so not often (I hate background music) and they still sound great to me but the retail prices for ATC have gone bonkers over the last few years
I have read the Neumann mid dome is superior to the ATC, based on FEA of breakup modes and certainly if I were in the market for a 3-way monitor the Neumann KH420 looks like a much better choice than ATC. I have been considering getting one to try out as a centre channel.

I don’t think anyone doubts ATC’s abilities as a driver designer/manufacturer. Indeed, all measurements I’ve seen of their drive units suggests they range from good to excellent. It’s speaker design where the company appears to fall down.

 

[digicidal]

I don’t think anyone doubts ATC’s abilities as a driver designer/manufacturer. Indeed, all measurements I’ve seen of their drive units suggests they range from good to excellent. It’s speaker design where the company appears to fall down.

I tend to think of them like Cadillacs (while ducking incoming flame posts). Subjectively speaking, the experience may be wonderful - but once cost and relative performance are included in the metrics... it fails to stand out significantly. Doesn't mean they're crap by any means... just not exceptional either. Take the SCM50/150's - at $15K/20K per pair... are they better than a pair of Genelec 8361's or Adam S5V's - possibly (under very generous conditions)... however they definitely aren't 2-4 times better by any objective measurement. So the decision would come down to either brand loyalty or marketing potential (i.e. believing your customers would be more "wowed" by ATC logos than Genelec or Adam).

If you're picking your studio/engineer based on their equipment and not on their portfolio/experience... then you deserve what you get. IMHO.

 

[Ilkless]

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

I'll do you one better. Measurements of the current ultimate special edition of the SCM150: the EL150 ASL.

Compare to a state-of-the-art speaker on the same test setup (disregard demonstrably inaudible ultrasonic behaviour, pre-empting the strawman here):

 

[Pearljam5000]

Interesting comparison of D&D 8C and ATC SCM 100A

 

[pos]

The dome midrange is the main reason for it's fame. It has some benefits and some cons anyway
http://studio-hifi.com/images/ATC75-150S_JeffBagby.pdf

Yes that driver is pretty crazy, and unfortunately not available for DIY anymore...

 

[MarsianC#]

Mid dome by Neumann is better, as mentioned FEA optimized. K+H O500C used a ATC variante, with a huge waveguide. As usual they added a backing magnet. Stock one is really tiny... hehe

Compare max SPL in mid range, KH310 (measuered by S&R too) and the already posted in #8. KH420's big waveguide is out of league...

 

[digicidal]

Interesting comparison of D&D 8C and ATC SCM 100A

Thankfully you can skip... I'd have gone nuts if I was only watching the livestream and had to sit through the entire 2.5 hours. Plus with a severe allergy to James Taylor, I'd have been needing a few shots of epinephrine to survive.

Naturally nothing translates decently through youTube, however this is one of the best I've heard with the way the microphones were setup (and I presume the quality of the recording gear used as well). Skipping back and forth between the track locations for each I came to quite a different conclusion from them... as I found the D&D's and the Grimm's to be nearly identical - so since I'll likely never be able to justify the latter... I'm even more interested in the 8C than I was before. I suppose I might have liked the ATC's better if I didn't know what the FR of the 8C's looked like... however, since I can't un-see those graphs... I could only conclude was it (SCM100A) wasn't nearly as neutral.

Maybe the lower bass was a bit better - but my LSiM703's (without a sub) in my office... made them all have almost nothing below ~50Hz. Since everything (that wasn't James Taylor) sounded fantastic all 3 times... I can conclude that I don't need anything better than my Polk's in my office, and I can confidently save the cost of all three. LOL!

 

[BDWoody]

Plus with a severe allergy to James Taylor, I'd have been needing a few shots of epinephrine to survive.

How Sweet It Is that you were willing to fight through Fire & Rain to Shower the People of the forum with a Steamroller of a post. I hope he used a Copperline for his wiring...

I'm so sorry...

 

[Pearljam5000]

Thankfully you can skip... I'd have gone nuts if I was only watching the livestream and had to sit through the entire 2.5 hours. Plus with a severe allergy to James Taylor, I'd have been needing a few shots of epinephrine to survive.

Naturally nothing translates decently through youTube, however this is one of the best I've heard with the way the microphones were setup (and I presume the quality of the recording gear used as well). Skipping back and forth between the track locations for each I came to quite a different conclusion from them... as I found the D&D's and the Grimm's to be nearly identical - so since I'll likely never be able to justify the latter... I'm even more interested in the 8C than I was before. I suppose I might have liked the ATC's better if I didn't know what the FR of the 8C's looked like... however, since I can't un-see those graphs... I could only conclude was it (SCM100A) wasn't nearly as neutral.

Maybe the lower bass was a bit better - but my LSiM703's (without a sub) in my office... made them all have almost nothing below ~50Hz. Since everything (that wasn't James Taylor) sounded fantastic all 3 times... I can conclude that I don't need anything better than my Polk's in my office, and I can confidently save the cost of all three. LOL!

You know you want the D&D 8C, don't be in denial and just buy them

 

[digicidal]

How Sweet It Is that you were willing to fight through Fire & Rain to Shower the People of the forum with a Steamroller of a post. I hope he used a Copperline for his wiring...

I'm so sorry...

I'd like to garrote him with a copper line and then burn the body with fire - whether it's raining or not at the time is immaterial.

You know you want the D&D 8C, don't be in denial and just buy them

Well I would definitely like to have a pair of them... but I have a bit of a problem selling my gear as well. So since I already have enough speakers to comfortably outfit a small dormitory... I either need a bigger house, or something has to go. Plus I tend to drive my big expenditures more than listen to them... so that decision will also require a commitment of another variety.

I really like my Supra... but I've seen a Cayman GTS making eyes at me and I've been chatting up a cute 400Z who's supposed to be coming next year... so I can't say I'm prepared to actually put a ring on it yet. Until I'm ready to settle down (for at least 5-6 years)... I need to try to neutralize the rest of my upgradeitis as much as possible.

 

[Vintage57]

I’m an ATC owner and a recent convert (2019) when I chose the KH420 and sold my 15 year old SCM 150ASL’s and haven’t looked back. The big difference is in the bass, the KH420 has a 26Hz -3 dB and you trust that number. I’ve verified it with REW. The ATC has a 60Hz -2 dB and yes I can hear and feel the difference. The second difference is the mids, I think Neumann improved on the ATC dome used prior and have engineered an improvement when one looks at volume and distortion measurements

The ATC are good speakers, I have 5 in my HT system and will be keeping them aa my subs are looking after that. For music the intergrated and seemless full range from the KH420 is better to me.

The ATC have not kept up IMHO

 

[q3cpma]

I'm new here, so pardon me if I'm barging in. I've been reading the posts in this thread, and I think there might be some slight misunderstanding regarding recording and studio work.
.Someone here had the opinion that professionals need monitors with the flattest and truest response. For project engineers, that may (or may not) be true. For editing and mixing , it is not. Audio professionals are involved in one thing and one thing ONLY; producing a finished product for their client, and that means a finished product that will sell. There are no other criteria. If the latest mega-money fad is deepfake cricket sex, then that's what they will be involved in doing. If they didn't follow that trend, they wouldn't make money.
And making money is priority number one. If they don't make money, they won't be there for their clients, and if they don't have clients, they'll have to get a job as a ditch digger. Most audio professionals make lousy ditch diggers.
So the studio personnel work at producing the finished product for the client. And like any workmen, they have their tools. Plumbers have tools, carpenters have tools, and audio personnel have tools. Tools for primary capture, tools for editing, tools for mixing, and tools to evaluate the finished product. Some tools are sophisticated and refined, and some less so.
If the tools work, then they're good, no matter how cheap they may be. If the tools don't work, then they're not good, no matter how expensive they may be. One carpenter may use Skil, one may use Milwaukee, and another may use DeWalt. But they all get the job done.
One good editor may need screeching high-mid response, to hit his target exactly. Another good editor may need screeching low-treble response. And they may not want to use EQ to get that sound; they may want to rely on native characteristics for consistency.
A mixer may need headroom more than anything, because he may need to compare raw-vs.-finished levels involving up to 30 dB difference. Some clients may want a mix that throws away the treble and boosts the bass, others may not involve themselves with bass at all. Instead, they may want to boost the mids.
As in all things, the client checks the end product and the producer okays it. The group may go back and forth several times to get the finished product.
The end product for pop usually ends up sounding NOTHING like the primary tracks.
BUT ...... then the studio personnel turn right around and work with the next client, who wants the best recording of a violin concerto. And the studio can do that. They'll probably reach into their toolbag and pull out a slightly different set of tools, but they can do it. Plumbers change tools, carpenters change tools, and audio personnel change tools. All in the interest of achieving their ends.
If you, as a client, pay for fad, you'll get fad. If you, as a client, pay for true, natural sound, you'll get true, natural sound. It will still be (maybe heavily) processed, mind you. Most people have no idea how much signal manipulation goes into 'purist" recordings.
And the people giving you that finished "purist" product? They may (or may not) be using the same screeching or booming or blatting monitors as before. They use them because they know them. They know how they correlate, both to the raw signal and to the finished product. They know and understand how to use them to produce this, or that, or some other thing.
They know how to use their tools.
And that's what counts. That, ..... and money.

Your thesis and your arguments contradict each other. Whatever the demand is ("fad or natural sound"), you need accurate monitors to provide exactly what's asked for.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm new here, so pardon me if I'm barging in. I've been reading the posts in this thread, and I think there might be some slight misunderstanding regarding recording and studio work.
.Someone here had the opinion that professionals need monitors with the flattest and truest response. For project engineers, that may (or may not) be true. For editing and mixing , it is not. Audio professionals are involved in one thing and one thing ONLY; producing a finished product for their client, and that means a finished product that will sell. There are no other criteria. If the latest mega-money fad is deepfake cricket sex, then that's what they will be involved in doing. If they didn't follow that trend, they wouldn't make money.
And making money is priority number one. If they don't make money, they won't be there for their clients, and if they don't have clients, they'll have to get a job as a ditch digger. Most audio professionals make lousy ditch diggers.
So the studio personnel work at producing the finished product for the client. And like any workmen, they have their tools. Plumbers have tools, carpenters have tools, and audio personnel have tools. Tools for primary capture, tools for editing, tools for mixing, and tools to evaluate the finished product. Some tools are sophisticated and refined, and some less so.
If the tools work, then they're good, no matter how cheap they may be. If the tools don't work, then they're not good, no matter how expensive they may be. One carpenter may use Skil, one may use Milwaukee, and another may use DeWalt. But they all get the job done.
One good editor may need screeching high-mid response, to hit his target exactly. Another good editor may need screeching low-treble response. And they may not want to use EQ to get that sound; they may want to rely on native characteristics for consistency.
A mixer may need headroom more than anything, because he may need to compare raw-vs.-finished levels involving up to 30 dB difference. Some clients may want a mix that throws away the treble and boosts the bass, others may not involve themselves with bass at all. Instead, they may want to boost the mids.
As in all things, the client checks the end product and the producer okays it. The group may go back and forth several times to get the finished product.
The end product for pop usually ends up sounding NOTHING like the primary tracks.
BUT ...... then the studio personnel turn right around and work with the next client, who wants the best recording of a violin concerto. And the studio can do that. They'll probably reach into their toolbag and pull out a slightly different set of tools, but they can do it. Plumbers change tools, carpenters change tools, and audio personnel change tools. All in the interest of achieving their ends.
If you, as a client, pay for fad, you'll get fad. If you, as a client, pay for true, natural sound, you'll get true, natural sound. It will still be (maybe heavily) processed, mind you. Most people have no idea how much signal manipulation goes into 'purist" recordings.
And the people giving you that finished "purist" product? They may (or may not) be using the same screeching or booming or blatting monitors as before. They use them because they know them. They know how they correlate, both to the raw signal and to the finished product. They know and understand how to use them to produce this, or that, or some other thing.
They know how to use their tools.
And that's what counts. That, ..... and money.

Are you suggesting that ATC speakers are marketed/deployed specifically because they have a bent transfer function, a la Yamaha NS-10 et al, and not because they are (purportedly) neutral monitors?

That would certainly be news to me.

 

[Count Arthur]

I suppose I might have liked the ATC's better if I didn't know what the FR of the 8C's looked like... however, since I can't un-see those graphs... I could only conclude was it (SCM100A) wasn't nearly as neutral.

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.

Also, looking at the video, they liked all of the speakers and in real life, we don't sit and compare different speakers, or anything else for that matter, back to back. In reality, the likelehood is that these minor, nit picking, differences wouldn't be apparent.

 

[andreasmaaan]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Ok. I intended to ask you my question to clarify your meaning, not to put words into your mouth.

think the answer is that studio engineers have a complicated mix of priorities, some of which may not be the same as here.

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?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Also they used the older ATC model, the new one has new in-house drivers.

 

[Purité Audio]

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.

Also, looking at the video, they liked all of the speakers and in real life, we don't sit and compare different speakers, or anything else for that matter, back to back. In reality, the likelehood is that these minor, nit picking, differences wouldn't be apparent.

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