• 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

Chrise36

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
1,043
Likes
359
As said when the distance of the drivers is smaller than half of the wavelength of the crossover frequency then what Keele says is achieved, the problem on the ATC and Neumann is rather the distance between the mid and the tweeter where this is not achieved (more on the ATC due to the higher crossover frequency) and vertical lobes result and additionally in a frequency range where our hearing has a higher spatial resolution.
It is true but the more we approach the coaxial design the more the distance that the summing happens decreases:
1636390950228.png
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
It is true but the more we approach the coaxial design the more the distance that the summing happens decreases:View attachment 164147
Isn't that what he said? Coaxial is the same as non-coaxial, except that the center-to-center distance is zero, i.e. ideal case. It's just that it's impossible to satisfy the half wavelength requirement at usual mid to tweeter crossover frequencies, so coaxials are a special case in that meaning.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
Isn't that what he said? Coaxial is the same as non-coaxial, except that the center-to-center distance is zero, i.e. ideal case. It's just that it's impossible to satisfy the half wavelength requirement at usual mid to tweeter crossover frequencies, so coaxials are a special case in that meaning.
Exactly and anyway I doubt that anyone would use a 3-way Neumann or ATC for less than a meter listening distance. (Neumann recommends at least 0,75 m for the KH 310).
 

Chrise36

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
1,043
Likes
359
Isn't that what he said? Coaxial is the same as non-coaxial, except that the center-to-center distance is zero, i.e. ideal case. It's just that it's impossible to satisfy the half wavelength requirement at usual mid to tweeter crossover frequencies, so coaxials are a special case in that meaning.
What i mean is that by using the mid driver as low as possible in a 3 way we approach the behavior of a 2 way.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
What i mean is that by using the mid driver as low as possible in a 3 way we approach the behavior of a 2 way.
But that's wrong: the woofer to mid center to center distance requirement can be met "easily", not the mid to tweeter.

PS: unless by "low", you meant crossing low with the tweeter
 

Chrise36

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
1,043
Likes
359
But that's wrong: the woofer to mid center to center distance requirement can be met "easily", not the mid to tweeter.

PS: unless by "low", you meant crossing low with the tweeter
I mean when we are crossing near the bass frequencies where they become omnidirectional.(200hz)
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
I mean when we are crossing near the bass frequencies where they become omnidirectional.(200hz)
@thewas already answered that:
The only thing that is important is that the distance of the drivers is smaller than the wavelength of the crossover frequency (or even better half of it), at 500 Hz we have a wavelength of 0.69 meters so its not a problem in the Neumann (if it was you would see some strong lobing in the off-axis).
Is there something missing?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
I mean when we are crossing near the bass frequencies where they become omnidirectional.(200hz)
Also the bafflestep (namely the transition from full sphere to frontal radiation) doesn't care for example if the 300 Hz are transmitted by the woofer or the mid driver, as in that region and case just the dimensions of the baffle matter as the radiated wavelengths are much larger than the dimension of the drivers.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
Also the bafflestep (namely the transition from full 2pi to frontal pi radiation) doesn't care for example if the 300 Hz are transmitted by the woofer or the mid driver, as in that region and case just the dimensions of the baffle matter as they radiated wavelengths are much larger than the dimension of the drivers.
And what about the time response?, can indique the bad integration in a 3 way?
for example this is the r3
Kef%20R3%20Step%20Response.png
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
And what about the time response?, can indique the bad integration in a 3 way?
for example this is the r3
Kef%20R3%20Step%20Response.png
This is actually not a bad but rather a typical step response for a passive or IIR filtered active 3-way and generally the step response is a poor way to visualise such problems, better is to plot the group delay function for which audibility limits have been researched.
 

Chrise36

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
1,043
Likes
359
@thewas already answered that:

Is there something missing?

@thewas already answered that:

Is there something missing?
What i understand from the Genelec chart is that the 3 way needs more distance than a 2 way for the summing to happen. On that regard if we design the mid to act from the 200hz and up we are turn it into a 2 way is that right?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
What i understand from the Genelec chart is that the 3 way needs more distance than a 2 way for the summing to happen.
No, the Genelec chart shows that their 3-way coaxial monitors needs less distance than a 2-way non coaxial of similar size, as we replied to you several times already in this thread the problem/limitation is not the woofer/mid distance which usually is smaller than the wavelength of the respective crossover frequency but the mid/tweeter distance which usually isn't (except coaxials).
 

test1223

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
503
Likes
511
Hello

a hot topic ;)

There are also other aspect to consider:
1. the vertical localisation of sound events
2. diffraction of nearby drivers
The first also benefits from nearby drivers. The second gets worse with nearby drivers and waveguides from the other drivers.
3. With more complicated chassis and waveguides and nearby diffraction sources the frequency response can change over distance.

The distance recommendations consider this and other aspects.

Best
Thomas
 

audio2920

Active Member
Joined
May 21, 2021
Messages
233
Likes
288
The job of the mixer is to ensure the music sounds good in as many speakers as possible, not just well designed speakers. I believe this is the theory behind using "fatiguing" speakers for mixing where you would never use it for luxury listening but need to use it to "hear into" worst parts of the
I agree with this.

I guess these days room correction is widespread in mixing, which of course further takes "character" out of the main monitor's FR.

I think best results are achieved by mixing on a good system (nice FR) then checking on non-ideal systems. Which is, so far as has been possible at any point in history, what mixers have always done.

Personally my approach is (if there's time!) once the mix is "done" on the main monitors, listen for problems on worse speakers and see if there's anything that stands out. If it does, go back to the mains and listen for the same thing. It might be that it was borderline and didn't get addressed on the mains (e.g. a vocal that's a bit sibliant in one overdub, or whatever....) but having heard the issue on a speaker that highlights that region, I go "oh actually, yes, that could be tweaked". Sometimes I go back to the mains and decide that what I heard on the alt speakers was just a function of their imperfections, so I don't adjust the mix for that.

For me it's often errors in matching of different recordings that stand out on different speakers. For example where a studio overdub has been patched in to a live performance, or an ADR recording to a production one. Sometimes though it's masking issues, such as; can I hear something clearly enough or is it masked by other content in the mix.

Although I don't deliberately do so myself, I do sometimes wonder if there's merit in mixing with more midrange, such as the upper-mid pushes we see on some high end studio monitors across various frequencies. By that I mostly mean that while it might not create the perfect spectral balance overall, it might show up mismatch and confict issues often exist in such frequencies. Dunno...
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Sorry for stupid question but why do all ATC mid drivers have these exposed wires?
unnamed (1).png
Screenshot_20211109-002835.jpg
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,335
Likes
5,050

test1223

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
503
Likes
511
Sorry for stupid question but why do all ATC mid drivers have these exposed wires? View attachment 164230View attachment 164231
They want a short voice coil which provides benefits in weight and consistency in mounting the coil in the magnet gap. So there is not much room inside the chassie. The longer wires are intended to provide less distortion compared to a shorter hidden wire inside the chassie. But there are pros and con for both technics. The ATC way takes longer to assemble.
 

807Recordings

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
Likes
128
Kind of:
Mastering or Mixing can be a series of compromises and many very old myths that should disappear.
There is the idea that mixing and checking on all sorts of systems will make sure everything translates well. To this point I pretty much agree. However there is an exception in mixing and mastering if you want to achieve the absolute best sound for the best systems.
So as I have mentioned before I produce Electronic Music and more towards the Dance Floor Detroit Techno variety (at least the vinyl releases).
Over the years of testing with various dub plates, PA Systems, Including Alpha Dynacord systems I was a tech for I started to notice some things in the flaws of mixing for all systems. This also was noticeable on my own gear at home I spent far too much money on (monitors).

For examples if a mix was mixed to sound good on all systems like cars, boomboxes, earbuds, etc then it would not achieve the best sound on the well tuned Big PA Systems, or better full range home productions. Sure it sounded fine but it was not as good. Dynamics often being the biggest part when compression added. The second part to this observation was in the frequency extremes. When I had worked on headphones or smaller nearfield type monitors thing may sound good in the lower bass to mid high frequencies but lacked that last low octave or rolled off high frequencies. On a big Dance floor system that last little wooomp in the 40Hz down could make the difference in modulation and groove of a bassline that just is not heard on many smaller systems. This is why too many mix engineers remove this, and even mastering engineers.

Anyways I am getting a bit off topic here and I can go on about this but I do believe the more accurate and full frequency, not underpowered a system is the better mastering and mixing will become. Right now (ATC opinion still reserved) it only serves to benefit everyone if our systems are more accurate and we dispel the myths and fiction. This board so far has been decent at starting this conversation.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
I'm still trying to understand as to why ATCs are considered the best on the planet on GS, in just about any thread.
They must have some magic to them that in missing.
 
Top Bottom