ATC speakers / Monitors

[Blockader]

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

Probably you are talking about off-axis measurements.

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

You know these already but I would like to add a bit more information for goat76:

In-room measurements are pretty much useless for almost anything. Because direct sound is perceptually dominant over reflected sound in human auditory perception, the summation of both doesn’t really tell you how well speakers perform. An on-axis error can be masked by the reflected sound in the summation, but that on-axis problem will still be audible due to the dominance of direct sound. Similarly, a directivity error can appear corrected because of different absorption coefficients in someone’s room, but its coverage will still affect the impulse response which determines overall clarity and envelopment. There are more reasons why in room off-axis measurements are useless, but I’ll leave it at that for now, this post could get far too long otherwise.

I can't even see the off-axis angle in those measurements also. But even then, they are pretty much useless to determine anything.

 

[goat76]

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:

View attachment 460434

View attachment 460435

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.

If these supposed problems are real problems, someone must be able show some sort of evidence that they are practical problems in the real world of use. Do audio productions in general have any artifacts that could be lead to the use of the ATC SCM25A loudspeakers? If not, it's just another example of meaningless theories.

Do you have a link to the rest of the SCM25, I would like to make sure they measured the speakers at the height of the midrange driver, and not at the usual height of the tweeter. All ATC three-way speakers have their acoustic center at the height of the midrange driver.

 

[goat76]

Probably you are talking about off-axis measurements.

I am talking about both on- and off-axis measurements, and if none of them are showing any large deviations, there simply are no directivity error in the region of the crossover point between the bass/midrange driver and the tweeter driver.

You know these already but I would like to add a bit more information for goat76:

In-room measurements are pretty much useless for almost anything. Because direct sound is perceptually dominant over reflected sound in human auditory perception, the summation of both doesn’t really tell you how well speakers perform. An on-axis error can be masked by the reflected sound in the summation, but that on-axis problem will still be audible due to the dominance of direct sound. Similarly, a directivity error can appear corrected because of different absorption coefficients in someone’s room, but its coverage will still affect the impulse response which determines overall clarity and envelopment. There are more reasons why in room off-axis measurements are useless, but I’ll leave it at that for now, this post could get far too long otherwise.

I can't even see the off-axis angle in those measurements also. But even then, they are pretty much useless to determine anything.

It’s the usual 0 to 90 degree measurements, and they don't contain any room reflections as the measurements are gated.

 

[thewas]

If these supposed problems are real problems, someone must be able show some sort of evidence that they are practical problems in the real world of use. Do audio productions in general have any artifacts that could be lead to the use of the ATC SCM25A loudspeakers? If not, it's just another example of meaningless theories.

This not a meaningless theory and these rhetoric games won't bring us further, a loudspeaker with a peak or a dip in a region is more prone to recordings with the opposite direction than a neutral one.

Do you have a link to the rest of the SCM25, I would like to make sure they measured the speakers at the height of the midrange driver, and not at the usual height of the tweeter. All ATC three-way speakers have their acoustic center at the height of the midrange driver.

ATC SCM25 ASL Pro

ATC SCM25 ASL Pro Kompakter 3-Weg-Edelmonitor britischer Provenienz

www.soundandrecording.de

Even in this case the directivity plots wouldn't be really different, just offset.
S&R has measured hundreds of monitors with nobody complaining, but its of course the ATC which everyone "gets wrong" but there are no manufacturer or other measurements to show the supposed better ones...

 

[Ktacos]

And the discussion is about suitable monitors for recording. Mixing a FOH system has very little crossover to that.

Eh, kinda disagree. I do both like every week and there's a pretty huge overlap skills required to do both. Do you have experience with either scenarios?

 

[Blockader]

If these supposed problems are real problems, someone must be able show some sort of evidence that they are practical problems in the real world of use. Do audio productions in general have any artifacts that could be lead to the use of the ATC SCM25A loudspeakers? If not, it's just another example of meaningless theories.

Do you have a link to the rest of the SCM25, I would like to make sure they measured the speakers at the height of the midrange driver, and not at the usual height of the tweeter. All ATC three-way speakers have their acoustic center at the height of the midrange driver.

Speakers designed for sound reproduction aren’t meant to make already existing recordings sound “better.” Their design should follow what blind tests with enough participants consistently show and what listeners prefer specifically in terms of envelopment, clarity, and tonality.

Sound reproduction is not a creative process. It's a technical one. The creativity is in the recording. Reproduction is about delivering a consistent and agreeable presentation, an agreeable illusion of what the recording might sound like. It can never be an “accurate” recreation of the original event, which is impossible with stereo. Only experimental methods like wavefield synthesis can come close to realism.

What we aim for with stereo speakers is an on-axis tonal balance that is similar to reflections forming in a room. That’s not a guess: blind testing has confirmed it, and the resulting target curves give us measurable standards.

ATC speakers, while good, don’t meet those targets. They deviate from listener preference as defined by multiples of blind test results, which makes them unfit for state-of-the-art reproduction. Both anechoic and in-room responses show that. They’re high quality, just not SOTA. If we all agree on that, we can move on.

If someone disagrees, it's often due to a misunderstanding of the science or resistance to it. Experience in mixing or mastering doesn't override research. Reproduction is a counterintuitive process, you can’t rely on feelings or intuition to design accurate tools. We do not design cranes or bridges based on the intuition of people who has been bridge workers for 25 years, why should that be different for designing sound reproduction tools? Most audio engineers come from non-scientific backgrounds. So how can we be confident in their analytical thinking, problem solving and ability to conceptualize complex systems especially in a field as technical and counterintuitive as sound reproduction? They may be very good in intuitively understand what the music audience, what the client wants. This is a different type of talent.

And to be clear, I am not trying to be concrete minded science head here. I’m evidence based when it comes to sound reproduction. In few other areas, like bodybuilding, I trust my own experience more than research. I listen/read the research but I know the responses of my body better than the research. But sound reproduction is different. One impulse response is transformed into another, there’s no room for intuition there. Mixing/mastering requires good intuition on the other hand.

 

[Mart68]

Eh, kinda disagree. I do both like every week and there's a pretty huge overlap skills required to do both. Do you have experience with either scenarios?

No, not really any direct experience. Just a fair bit of time in studios and roadie or security at many, many gigs, but all more than 30 years ago now.

Being into hi-fi I always paid close attention to what was going on and what the engineers were doing.

I agree there's some overlap, of course, but I don't agree 'pretty huge.'

 

[Ktacos]

I agree there's some overlap, of course, but I don't agree 'pretty huge.'

No offense but it doesn't sound like you even have the experience to make this claim with any sort of confidence. Live work has made me better in the studio and my studio work has improved my live work. I can't imagine anyone who has done both would disagree with that.

 

[Avp1]

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.

And 9 out of 10 never heard ATC speakers playing and still write here, telling everyone how bad this brand is. Though I am almost sure they never heard large Genelec speakers either.

 

[goat76]

This not a meaningless theory and these rhetoric games won't bring us further, a loudspeaker with a peak or a dip in a region is more prone to recordings with the opposite direction than a neutral one.

It’s not a rhetorical game when discussing what makes a real difference or not. If you are saying that the audio productions using the ATC SCM25A will end with a peak in that frequency region, you must be able to show evidence that usually occurs, otherwise it’s simply not a real problem.

ATC SCM25 ASL Pro

ATC SCM25 ASL Pro Kompakter 3-Weg-Edelmonitor britischer Provenienz

www.soundandrecording.de

Even in this case the directivity plots wouldn't be really different, just offset.
S&R has measured hundreds of monitors with nobody complaining, but its of course the ATC which everyone "gets wrong" but there are no manufacturer or other measurements to show the supposed better ones...

This is not specifically for ATC speakers, the problem will be with every other brand of loudspeakers that have their acoustic center at another height than at the height of the tweeter.
That's why we must make sure Sound & Records have done the measurement correctly, and that is equally as important no matter the brand of the loudspeakers. I’m sure you agree on that.

 

[thewas]

And 9 out of 10 never heard ATC speakers playing and still write here, telling everyone how bad this brand is.

I don't see anyone here writing that ATC is bad, just that its not (anymore) SOTA.

 

[Mart68]

Live work has made me better in the studio and my studio work has improved my live work. I can't imagine anyone who has done both would disagree with that.

I would not disagree with that either. But I'm sure we can agree you cannot take someone with no recording experience and expect them to make quality recordings right off the bat, no matter how many times they'd run the desk. We both know that there's so much more to recording than just getting a good balance of sound in the mix.

 

[thewas]

It’s not a rhetorical game when discussing what makes a real difference or not. If you are saying that the audio productions using the ATC SCM25A will end with a peak in that frequency region, you must be able to show evidence that usually occurs, otherwise it’s simply not a real problem.

With that logic please show me which recordings where done with Auratones. Again, its simple logic that the chances are higher that someone will produce a mix which sounds well/neutral on neutral loudspeakers when using neutral loudspeakers.

This is not specifically for ATC speakers, the problem will be with every other brand of loudspeakers that have their acoustic center at another height than at the height of the tweeter.
That's why we must make sure Sound & Records have done the measurement correctly, and that is equally as important no matter the brand of the loudspeakers. I’m sure you agree on that.

I am sure they used the from the manufacturer stated (if the manufacturer does so) reference angles as they have been doing this for decades and again, even if not, it would just offset the directivity plots but wouldn't improve them.

 

[goat76]

Speakers designed for sound reproduction aren’t meant to make already existing recordings sound “better.” Their design should follow what blind tests with enough participants consistently show and what listeners prefer specifically in terms of envelopment, clarity, and tonality.

Sound reproduction is not a creative process. It's a technical one. The creativity is in the recording. Reproduction is about delivering a consistent and agreeable presentation, an agreeable illusion of what the recording might sound like. It can never be an “accurate” recreation of the original event, which is impossible with stereo. Only experimental methods like wavefield synthesis can come close to realism.

What we aim for with stereo speakers is an on-axis tonal balance that is similar to reflections forming in a room. That’s not a guess: blind testing has confirmed it, and the resulting target curves give us measurable standards.

ATC speakers, while good, don’t meet those targets. They deviate from listener preference as defined by multiples of blind test results, which makes them unfit for state-of-the-art reproduction. Both anechoic and in-room responses show that. They’re high quality, just not SOTA. If we all agree on that, we can move on.

If someone disagrees, it's often due to a misunderstanding of the science or resistance to it. Experience in mixing or mastering doesn't override research. Reproduction is a counterintuitive process, you can’t rely on feelings or intuition to design accurate tools. We do not design cranes or bridges based on the intuition of people who has been bridge workers for 25 years, why should that be different for designing sound reproduction tools? Most audio engineers come from non-scientific backgrounds. So how can we be confident in their analytical thinking, problem solving and ability to conceptualize complex systems especially in a field as technical and counterintuitive as sound reproduction? They may be very good in intuitively understand what the music audience, what the client wants. This is a different type of talent.

And to be clear, I am not trying to be concrete minded science head here. I’m evidence based when it comes to sound reproduction. In few other areas, like bodybuilding, I trust my own experience more than research. I listen/read the research but I know the responses of my body better than the research. But sound reproduction is different. One impulse response is transformed into another, there’s no room for intuition there. Mixing/mastering requires good intuition on the other hand.

I have not disagreed with anything you are saying, so I don't know who you think you are teaching.

The thing I’m saying is that the ballpark of an accurate and neutral loudspeaker, both for producing audio and reproducing audio is a way larger park than what some of you think. If you think otherwise, you'd better come up with some evidence that the fairly small deviations in the SCM25A have caused audio productions to have too much energy in said frequency band.

Give me some examples of such audio productions, then we talk.

 

[Palmer]

I have not disagreed with anything you are saying, so I don't know who you think you are teaching.

The thing I’m saying is that the ballpark of an accurate and neutral loudspeaker, both for producing audio and reproducing audio is a way larger park than what some of you think. If you think otherwise, you'd better come up with some evidence that the fairly small deviations in the SCM25A have caused audio productions to have too much energy in said frequency band.

Give me some examples of such audio productions, then we talk.

I'll give one more contribution, if you will, to this thread and then I'll take my coat...

First I'd like to say that, when going into a high end studio for a job - most of the time there's hardly any room for even just listening to the mains on audio one knows, much less make a measurement of any kind - tape is time is money is rolling, we used to say.

So @Blockader - you can forget about using science in the control room as far as the present monitors are concerned, even if you'd find any problems - I guarantee you the studio would not let you make any changes to the set-up, other than bringing in your own monitors - with limitations on size, obviously.

@thewas - One time in the RCA studio, back in about 1982 I think, the Synclavier just came out and an engineer who looked like Indiana Jones, hat and all, pointed to the Auratones when I was saying that I do love the UREI Time-aligns (813C) , which were the mains in that room. This guy managed to get the Auratones to sound like I never heard them after, granted there were no drums in the outputs of the Synclavier they were listening to, and it wasn't loud, but boy - I became a believer then. Am still.

 

[dfuller]

With that logic please show me which recordings where done with Auratones. Again, its simple logic that the chances are higher that someone will produce a mix which sounds well/neutral on neutral loudspeakers when using neutral loudspeakers.


I am sure they used the from the manufacturer stated (if the manufacturer does so) reference angles as they have been doing this for decades and again, even if not, it would just offset the directivity plots but wouldn't improve them.

This one is particularly odd, because it doesn't match other measurements. See below, the Resolution magazine measurements of axial response.

S&R overlaid with Resolution, 0dB line matched and image size scaled. There is a 5+dB mismatch in the LF and 3-4 in the top octave. I highly doubt ATC would let speakers out the door with that big of a tolerance considering they measure every single speaker against a "golden sample", so the remaining sources of error are measurement error.

 

[goat76]

With that logic please show me which recordings where done with Auratones. Again, its simple logic that the chances are higher that someone will produce a mix which sounds well/neutral on neutral loudspeakers when using neutral loudspeakers.

But I’m not the one saying there is a problem, that is the typical thought audiophiles have who think that an audio production would automatically “mirror” the loudspeakers used for the production.

Neumann, Genelec, and ATC are all neutral enough loudspeakers not to make the audio production made on them end up with a certain sound.

I am sure they used the from the manufacturer stated (if the manufacturer does so) reference angles as they have been doing this for decades and again, even if not, it would just offset the directivity plots but wouldn't improve them.

Maybe, maybe not, but I have done measurements at both the correct height of the midrange, and at the wrong height of the tweeter on my SCM40s to know it makes a big difference in a gated measurement. I have posted those measurements earlier in this thread.

Green is at the height of the midrange driver, and the orange is at the height of the tweeter. Both measurements are gated.

 

[Marin]

Da, taj driver je prilično lud i nažalost više nije dostupan za DIY...

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

There's nothing new about that topic my friend, it has light that you can clearly see...
It's normal that sound too have some form of same artefacts...
It's called reflection
Sorry for my bad English,I hope it makes sense?

 

[thewas]

This one is particularly odd, because it doesn't match other measurements. See below, the Resolution magazine measurements of axial response.


View attachment 460475

S&R overlaid with Resolution, 0dB line matched and image size scaled. There is a 5+dB mismatch in the LF and 3-4 in the top octave. I highly doubt ATC would let speakers out the door with that big of a tolerance considering they measure every single speaker against a "golden sample", so the remaining sources of error are measurement error.

View attachment 460480

Do you have a link to those measurements?

 

[5150]

This one is particularly odd, because it doesn't match other measurements. See below, the Resolution magazine measurements of axial response.


View attachment 460475

S&R overlaid with Resolution, 0dB line matched and image size scaled. There is a 5+dB mismatch in the LF and 3-4 in the top octave. I highly doubt ATC would let speakers out the door with that big of a tolerance considering they measure every single speaker against a "golden sample", so the remaining sources of error are measurement error.

View attachment 460480

That first chart looks quite nice! Flat enough and an almost total absence of distortion above 300hz... Outstanding. Shows what you pay for with an ATC

Anything about pair matching on ATC is overblown imo... A huge part of the cost of an ATC are the bespoke, spare no expense drivers they use. A dome mid that can play like that from 380hz on up... Spectacular. Starting with parts like that, everything will just naturally fall into place without any undue effort on their part.