ATC speakers / Monitors

[boxerfan88]

I don't recall ATC claiming to be SOTA. From the latest ATC factory visit video ... the message that came through to me as I watched it ... is build quality, reliability, longevity and ability to take high SPL workload. Host didn't even talk about frequency response, directivity, etc.. etc..

 

[wwenze]

I would like to add, the NS10M thread fell way short of inputs from people who, not too long ago - and sometimes even today, made money using the NS10M in the studios that they are still in. To this day. I mentioned in the same thread that I never liked them, I am more of a fan of the original Auratones and still have a pair. Never heard the "consumer" ATC models, but have been in environments professionally where ATC's were used and, again, not my favourite, but you have to get paid at the ed of the day even if it's Tannoys, so be it.

So ATC went from $3,000 studio speakers to grot boxes

Waiting for the fans to either agree to disagree, this gonna be fun.

 

[dfuller]

So ATC went from $3,000 studio speakers to grot boxes

Waiting for the fans to either agree to disagree, this gonna be fun.

I... don't think that's what he was saying.

 

[Palmer]

Not sure what the grot box reference means, never bought ATC mains so I don't know how much they were, or would have been.
My point was that in the professional realm, sometimes you got into an environment that was not to your liking, and you had to have the background - and the expertise, to come out with a product that the people involved in were happy with.
I've been in all sorts of control rooms, fortunately - in retrospect, and all had some kind of idiosyncrasy, or two - but one had to get it done, regardless. That's all.
Hope that helps. Cheers.

 

[EJ3]

Did you know thousands of studio are using ATC?

So?
Why should we care about the opinions of others whom we don't even know? (I know that I don't.)
Here we don't rely on opinions.
Thousands also had JBL's in their studio's in the past, they don't usually measure that well either.

 

[dfuller]

So?
Why should we care about the opinions of others whom we don't even know? (I know that I don't.)
Here we don't rely on opinions.
Thousands also had JBL's in their studio's in the past, they don't usually measure that well either.

Having used ATCs plenty in the 15 years I've been doing recording, believe me when I say they are well within the top half of speakers that get used in studios.

I mean, if my options for full range are ATC, Dynaudio, Focal, PMC, Barefoot, or Quested... I'm choosing ATC literally every single time. By comparison they are excellent speakers. Axial response is more neutral, polars are way more even. And, of course, their distortion is very low.

Would I choose them over Neumann? Eh, maybe, depends on which Neumann and which ATC we're talking about. Over Genelec? Again, depends which ones.

Frankly, all the hate ATC gets on ASR is much better reserved for the absolute crap that Quested puts out.

 

[EJ3]

Having used ATCs plenty in the 15 years I've been doing recording, believe me when I say they are well within the top half of speakers that get used in studios.

I mean, if my options for full range are ATC, Dynaudio, Focal, PMC, Barefoot, or Quested... I'm choosing ATC literally every single time. By comparison they are excellent speakers. Axial response is more neutral, polars are way more even. And, of course, their distortion is very low.

Would I choose them over Neumann? Eh, maybe, depends on which Neumann and which ATC we're talking about. Over Genelec? Again, depends which ones.

Frankly, all the hate ATC gets on ASR is much better reserved for the absolute crap that Quested puts out.

Never seen one in person, so, I don't know much about them. Just that some people really like them & others: not so much.

 

[goat76]

Both Neumann and Genelec factory match their monitors. Neumann’s KH 120 II for instance is calibrated to within ±0.5 dB between channels and that precise match is preserved whenever the speaker goes in for service.

When the left and right speakers are level matched to within about 0.5 dB, the phantom centre locks in, panning cues stay accurate and the stereo image remains stable across the listening area. With no level imbalance for your brain to correct, cognitive load drops and listening fatigue is kept to a minimum. DSP monitors with built in room correction software can fine tune each speaker so the pair is level matched even more tightly.

What ATC was doing may be spectacular in 80s but that's not the case anymore. We keep seeing people hype up what ATC does, even though every evidence driven speaker brand has left those tricks behind over the last decade. And they do it for incredibly cheaper.

I don't know why, but some of you guys seem to be finding something negative in pretty much anything ATC does.

I find it a good thing that both Neumann and Genelec match their studio speakers to the same tolerance specification of ±0.5 dB as ATC, and I would expect other studio monitor manufacturers to do the same. What may or may not be unique is that ATC uses the same speaker matching tolerance of ±0.5 dB even for their "box-shifting" entry series of loudspeakers, and I would like to know if that is a common thing for other manufacturers of "regular" HiFi speakers. I don't think most of them have such a tight tolerance, and that is something I would have liked to see when Amir measures and reviews loudspeakers, but I guess he most of the time only receives one single speaker for his tests.

I have actually measured both my pair of ATC Entry Series speakers, the SCM11 and the SCM40 (both passive). They both match the tolerance of ±0.5 dB for the usual measured (at least what Neumann uses) range from 100 Hz to 10 kHz. Again, this may or may not be a unique thing in the "regular" HiFi world outside studio monitors, but it is at least uncommon for most manufacturers to give out that information in the spec sheets.

Have you ever measured the matching of your loudspeakers? It would have been interesting to see if they are kept to the same tolerance as my ATCs. Please share your measurements.


Here is the matched pair of my ATC SCM11. There are some larger deviations above 10 kHz, but other than that, it's kept within specs.

And here is the matched pair of my passive ATC SCM40. For both measurements, I did my best to put the loudspeakers in the same spot, at least within a mm or two, but some small deviations may be caused by positioning.

 

[goat76]

Never seen one in person, so, I don't know much about them. Just that some people really like them & others: not so much.

And that can be said for Neumann and Genelec speakers, too. Even if both of them are considered top-measuring studio speaker brands, there are still people who prefer one over the other by a big margin.

What people here should know is that no matter what brand they prefer the sound of, most of them are measuring good enough to be within the ballpark of neutrality, and that goes for ATC too. The thing that separates them is down to personal preferences.

 

[Mart68]

Of course not, who said it was? I've done both anyway.

Your example of an engineer not knowing what they were doing or talking about was not of a recording engineer. And the discussion is about suitable monitors for recording. Mixing a FOH system has very little crossover to that. A friend of mine, until he retired recently, ran a £1 million FOH system for over a decade, but he's never been anywhere near a recording session.

I never encountered a recording engineer who didn't know what they were doing. Watching them work was an education. In those days they learned everything in the field. Now you can take courses, so maybe its different, I don't know.

 

[Chr1]

Seems to me that the main issue folks here have with ATC is the price compared to the likes of Genelec and Neumann.
The same goes on threads discussing premium priced, top functioning DACs, that measure and function no better than much cheaper products from Topping, SMSL etc.

It's about relative value for money spent.

 

[thewas]

What people here should know is that no matter what brand they prefer the sound of, most of them are measuring good enough to be within the ballpark of neutrality, and that goes for ATC too. The thing that separates them is down to personal preferences.

For most ATC models there are simply not enough data to be able to tell that and for the few models for which complete spinorama exists obviously they are not on par on neutrality (direct and reflected sound) with current SOTA monitors or loudspeakers and due to their similarity in design the probability that those will be on par is rather low.
Their deviations are not huge so like dfuller wrote above they still belong to the better monitors around and in studio designs where the reflections are more damped experienced sound engineers will still have good work results with them but I don't agree that they are as great as current SOTA so there is not only personal preference that separates them but also objective qualities.

 

[goat76]

For most ATC models the are simply not enough data to be able to tell that and for the few models for which complete spinorama exists obviously they are not on par on neutrality (direct and reflected sound) with current SOTA monitors or loudspeakers and due to their similarity in design the probability that those will be on par is rather low.
Their deviations are not huge so like dfuller wrote above they still belong to the better monitors around and in studio designs where the reflections are more damped experienced sound engineers will still have good work results with them but I don't agree that they are as great as current SOTA so there is not only personal preference that separates them but also objective qualities.

I'm not sure what exactly you don't agree with me on, as I never said that the ATC speakers measure on par with Neumann and Genelec speakers.

What I said was that ATC loudspeakers measure good enough to land in the ballpark of neutrality, so the thing I meant by that is that many people may think that they prefer, say, a Genelec speaker over an ATC speaker because they measure a little better, but it can as easely just be that they simply subjectively prefer "the sound" of the Genelec over the ATC speaker, in the same way as they subjectively prefer the sound of their Genelecs over the Neumann monitor.

The above is the result of when the subjective preferences take over the objective qualities, which happens with all loudspeakers that land in the ballpark of good enough neutrality. If that weren't the case, everyone who likes a Genelec speaker should like a Neumann speaker, but I see three "camps" here, and what separates them is mostly personal preferences.

ATC speakers are not "state of the art"; they just happen to be good enough to be a serious contender when it comes to different people's preferences and tastes in sound.

 

[Count Arthur]

For most ATC models there are simply not enough data to be able to tell that and for the few models for which complete spinorama exists obviously they are not on par on neutrality (direct and reflected sound) with current SOTA monitors or loudspeakers and due to their similarity in design the probability that those will be on par is rather low.
Their deviations are not huge so like dfuller wrote above they still belong to the better monitors around and in studio designs where the reflections are more damped experienced sound engineers will still have good work results with them but I don't agree that they are as great as current SOTA so there is not only personal preference that separates them but also objective qualities.

In addition to well designed rooms, with passive sound treatment, absorption and diffraction panels, etc., I wonder how many studios also employ active room correction, from the likes of Trinnov, Sonarworks, IK Multimedia, etc..

Would these narrow the differences between some of the better performing monitors, out of the box, and those a little less so?

I imagine that for some studios, other factors might come in to play, along with price and ultimate performance, such as reliability, durability, after sales service and repair-ability. I imagine that ATC might score fairly highly on those metrics.

 

[Purité Audio]

My 50’s were definitely a little more coloured than the contemporary stuff.


Keith

 

[Count Arthur]

My 50’s were definitely a little more coloured than the contemporary stuff.


Keith

They look great though, don't they?

Not that I dislike the look of the Kii or D&D speakers, but I do have a fondness for big classic 3 ways on low stands.

 

[goat76]

I know I have posted my directivity measurements of my ATC SCM11s before, but here we go again. Can anyone see any severe directivity problems of these loudspeakers crossover region at 2.2 kHz?

 

[thewas]

I'm not sure what exactly you don't agree with me on, as I never said that the ATC speakers measure on par with Neumann and Genelec speakers.

What I said was that ATC loudspeakers measure good enough to land in the ballpark of neutrality, so the thing I meant by that is that many people may think that they prefer, say, a Genelec speaker over an ATC speaker because they measure a little better, but it can as easely just be that they simply subjectively prefer "the sound" of the Genelec over the ATC speaker, in the same way as they subjectively prefer the sound of their Genelecs over the Neumann monitor.

The above is the result of when the subjective preferences take over the objective qualities, which happens with all loudspeakers that land in the ballpark of good enough neutrality. If that weren't the case, everyone who likes a Genelec speaker should like a Neumann speaker, but I see three "camps" here, and what separates them is mostly personal preferences.

ATC speakers are not "state of the art"; they just happen to be good enough to be a serious contender when it comes to different people's preferences and tastes in sound.

I have two issues with that, first of all "ballpark of neutrality" is too vague and from the measurements/design of some models obviously you would need a very generous definition for that.

Second and my biggest issue is when people say they are good enough so they chose subjectively, which while fine for choosing home loudspeakers as it should give you joy when listening to existing recordings, is a problem when choosing monitoring devices as we continue the audio's circle of confusion.

To show this exemplary let's have a look the in room responses from a Genelec 8351A and a ATC SCM 25 SCL Pro, both measured by the Prof. Goertz for "Sound & Recording" above 500 Hz where the loudspeaker dominates:

Due to its design (driver sizes, placement and resulting directivity) the ATC shoes a presence/BBC dip which can make it sound more flattering with some existing records but can be a problem when something is used to mix or master with it as people will tend to rather add volume in that region and these recordings will sound again only neutral with similar loudspeakers continuing the "circle of confusion". Some might say and possibly truly an experienced sound engineer will know that and not compensate that dip but in the end its always easier and targeted to use neutral tools in first place.

 

[thewas]

I know I have posted my directivity measurements of my ATC SCM11s before, but here we go again. Can anyone see any severe directivity problems of these loudspeakers crossover region at 2.2 kHz?

View attachment 460433

Not at 2.2 kHz but higher, also for the directivity the vertical one is needed.

All the three ATC models for which more detailed measurements exist show not great performance there.

Measurements for speaker ATC SCM19 v1

www.spinorama.org

Measurements for speaker ATC SCM20SL MK2

www.spinorama.org

ATC speakers / Monitors

I'd imagine they would do well to get a Klippel (if they don't have access to a decent anechoic chamber already) for R&D purposes. The Klippel NFS just makes things faster and can be a help and addition for precision for the bass region if you don't have either an anechoic chamber or open big...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[thewas]

In addition to well designed rooms, with passive sound treatment, absorption and diffraction panels, etc., I wonder how many studios also employ active room correction, from the likes of Trinnov, Sonarworks, IK Multimedia, etc..

Would these narrow the differences between some of the better performing monitors, out of the box, and those a little less so?

Absorption more, diffusion and room correction rather less as it cannot correct directivity issues.

I imagine that for some studios, other factors might come in to play, along with price and ultimate performance, such as reliability, durability, after sales service and repair-ability. I imagine that ATC might score fairly highly on those metrics.

Reliability, durability, after sales service and repair-ability are definitely important so I have no problem when people mention these but only when the talk is about objective sound performance. Also it should be said that Genelec and K&H/Neumann also have quite good history in those fields.