ATC speakers / Monitors

[dfuller]

Do you have a link to those measurements?

I do, actually. They were originally written for the now-defunct Resolution magazine.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/atc-scm25a-pro-pdf.337285/

 

[goat76]

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.

ATC speakers have very low distortion. Here are the distortion measurements I've done on the SCM11 and the SCM40.


ATC SCM11 v2

ATC SCM40 v2

 

[EJ3]

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.

I do not like Neumann or Genelec because I have seen them.
Sorry, after it measures well & sounds good, it also has to fit in with my aesthetics (at multiple homes that have similar aesthetics).
From pictures, the ATC would fit the aesthetics part.
But since you push this so hard, I will never seek one out.
I like my choices that I have & see no reason to change.
Push: then I absolutely will not be swayed.
Present the information & I'll look at it & check it out.
Maybe people like you are why it's not so popular.

 

[dfuller]

I do not like Neumann or Genelec because I have seen them.
Sorry, after it measures well & sounds good, it also has to fit in with my aesthetics (at multiple homes that have similar aesthetics.
From pictures, the ATC would fit the aesthetics part.
But since you push this so hard, I will never seek one out.
I like my choices that I have & see no reason to change.
Push: then I absolutely will not be swayed.
Present the information & I'll look at it & check it out.
Maybe people like you are why it's not so popular.

So personally I'm no loyalist to any brand. I'd encourage you to give the big 3 ways a listen at some point, just to see if you like them. That said, the 3 ways bigger than the scm40 are very large indeed. The SCM50s are a hair larger than KH420s, which by no means are small speakers.

ATCs are fine, generally voiced a little warm if anything. Probably closer to a Revel than a Genelec, all things considered.

I think the passives are a mistake, they need a lot of amp (the sensitivity is generally 85dB or lower) and the actives have a bit better integration. Unfortunately their amp packs are power suckers (high idling AB) so they probably should be turned off when you aren't using them.

 

[EJ3]

So personally I'm no loyalist to any brand. I'd encourage you to give the big 3 ways a listen at some point, just to see if you like them. That said, the 3 ways bigger than the scm40 are very large indeed. The SCM50s are a hair larger than KH420s, which by no means are small speakers.

ATCs are fine, generally voiced a little warm if anything. Probably closer to a Revel than a Genelec, all things considered.

I think the passives are a mistake, they need a lot of amp (the sensitivity is generally 85dB or lower) and the actives have a bit better integration. Unfortunately their amp packs are power suckers (high idling AB) so they probably should be turned off when you aren't using them.

Overall, I prefer 3 ways (& more ways) but I rarely see them tested.
I prefer to use my amps (they can be active without being part of the speaker, if I like [and I do like it]).
The actives that have amps that are part of the speaker just means that I'll have to buy spare amps when I buy the speakers.
Since I already have 6 extremely capable stereo amps that can be bridged mono & 2 slightly lesser capable amps that also can be bridged mono, I see no reason to go integrated into the speaker active.
Now, if space is a consideration (it is for me at this time [but has not usually been an issue in my life), then integrated into the speaker actives (thus limiting your choices) is a good solution. My solution is a bigger place. Like I had before (and most of my life). Currently I am limited in my choices due to doing elderly care for my family. & that is my greatest priority.
All other things (Except my wife & son) take a back seat to that.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Totally different style of cabinet
Which should sound and measure better?

 

[boxerfan88]

View attachment 460624View attachment 460625
Totally different style of cabinet
Which should sound and measure better?

The “Pro” big baffle I think should sound better. No clue how different they would measure.

 

[goat76]

A few days ago, I made directivity measurements (0 to 90 degrees, gated) of my ATC SCM40 v2, and as expected, there are a bit of disturbance in the crossover region of the midrange driver to tweeter.

The interesting part is that ATC seems to have used that to their advantage, as the amount of directivity mismatch is regaining some of the lost on-axis energy in exactly that crossover frequency area. I know this because a few years ago, I did some small EQ adjustments and raised that area to an on-axis more flat response, but that made the these speakers sound a bit too bright.
I don't see this as a problem, as these speakers already sound perfectly flat in the listening position.

 

[dfuller]

A few days ago, I made directivity measurements (0 to 90 degrees, gated) of my ATC SCM40 v2, and as expected, there are a bit of disturbance in the crossover region of the midrange driver to tweeter.

The interesting part is that ATC seems to have used that to their advantage, as the amount of directivity mismatch is regaining some of the lost on-axis energy in exactly that crossover frequency area. I know this because a few years ago, I did some small EQ adjustments and raised that area to an on-axis more flat response, but that made the these speakers sound a bit too bright.
I don't see this as a problem, as these speakers already sound perfectly flat in the listening position.

They've intentionally made that dip in the response to compensate for the off-axis flare.

It's an old school way to improve the power response, one that is generally better dealt with via dispersion matching.

It isn't as though ATC is unfamiliar with the concept - the mid dome has some dispersion control on it, and the Seas T25CF001 tweeter they used to use has a minor amount of control as well. You wouldn't even need a big guide like on Neumanns or Genelecs, something sized about like a Seas DXT would be enough at the Fc they use.

 

[goat76]

They've intentionally made that dip in the response to compensate for the off-axis flare.

It's an old school way to improve the power response, one that is generally better dealt with via dispersion matching.

It isn't as though ATC is unfamiliar with the concept - the mid dome has some matching. You wouldn't even need a big guide like on Neumanns or Genelecs, something sized about like a Seas DXT would be enough at the Fc they use.

It’s not a ”state of the art” solution, but it works.

I have had some discussions on another fact-based audio forum, and that recessed frequency area have come up. By judging only the on-axis response, people naturally come to the conclusion that these speakers should sound somewhat recessed in that area, but the reality is that they sound totally flat. What should count in the end is the sound that is perceived in the a normal listening position, and that is achieved.

I think ATC knows exactly what they are doing, and there are many other aspects that must be considered when it comes to studio monitors, which are there main focus point. There are things like easily exchangeable drivers, low distortion, and robust constructions. They simply don’t care about small things that doesn’t make a large difference enough in real world use. ”State of the art” solutions is usually mostly used for marketing bragging, anyway, if you look at it from a broader viewpoint.

 

[Pearljam5000]

There's a myth that ATCs are more "musical" and less analytical
Is that true?

 

[goat76]

There's a myth that ATCs are more "musical" and less analytical
Is that true?

Is a myth ever true?

 

[dfuller]

There's a myth that ATCs are more "musical" and less analytical
Is that true?

LOL no. They're maybe a little more laid back than a Gennie but they tend to be very detailed especially in the range the mid driver covers.

 

[Ifrit]

There's a myth that ATCs are more "musical" and less analytical
Is that true?

to me Genelecs are more fatiguing. Or, rather, takes less time to get tired compared to ATCs. That's from about a year experience in one room with 8351s vs 50s next to each other. But Meyer AMIEs are even faster in causing my brain to tell me "shut that noise off!" FWIW.

 

[Pearljam5000]

to me Genelecs are more fatiguing. Or, rather, takes less time to get tired compared to ATCs. That's from about a year experience in one room with 8351s vs 50s next to each other. But Meyer AMIEs are even faster in causing my brain to tell me "shut that noise off!" FWIW.

Fatiguing as in more detailed? Or just bright?

 

[Ifrit]

Fatiguing as in more detailed? Or just bright?

Fatiguing as in getting tired and can’t make decisions/enjoy the music. Level of detail is about the same. HF has nothing to do with it.

 

[thewas]

A few days ago, I made directivity measurements (0 to 90 degrees, gated) of my ATC SCM40 v2, and as expected, there are a bit of disturbance in the crossover region of the midrange driver to tweeter.

Could you post them here, am sure many would be interested.

The interesting part is that ATC seems to have used that to their advantage, as the amount of directivity mismatch is regaining some of the lost on-axis energy in exactly that crossover frequency area. I know this because a few years ago, I did some small EQ adjustments and raised that area to an on-axis more flat response, but that made the these speakers sound a bit too bright.

Such "tricks" are done since more than 50 years from experienced loudspeaker designers when a directivity mismatch was the rule , that's why also single axis measurements are not a good basis for EQ.

 

[goat76]

Could you post them here, am sure many would be interested.

Okay, here you go...

ATC SCM40 v2 Directivity 0 to 90 degrees.

The same measurements, but spread out.

The average directivity response.

 

[dfuller]

This is why I continually say that if they crossed 500hz lower the directivity match would be fine. Look how narrow the pinch at the top of the mid's range is - it only starts being a thing around 3000hz.

 

[thewas]

Instead of crossing it the mid lower would rather wish they had used a larger waveguide on the tweeter which not only matches its directivity to the mid but also reduces the beaming in the last octave.