ATC speakers / Monitors

[jeremynothman]

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.

Start

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...

I don’t wish this to seem an attack on you, but have you made records before? Most people have mixed on the likes of NS-10s, Adams, etc, where the mids are quite pushed, or Barefoots and focals where the mids are hard (are they tonally forward, or just have a harder transient?).
I’m not sure that any of those is truely neutral, and I’m not 100% convinced it matters.

At the end people use the tools that help them most easily get to their intended end result, or simply use whatever they have in front of them.

 

[thewas]

I don’t wish this to seem an attack on you, but have you made records before? Most people have mixed on the likes of NS-10s, Adams, etc, where the mids are quite pushed, or Barefoots and focals where the mids are hard (are they tonally forward, or just have a harder transient?).
I’m not sure that any of those is truely neutral, and I’m not 100% convinced it matters.

At the end people use the tools that help them most easily get to their intended end result, or simply use whatever they have in front of them.

People mainly use what they think gives them the best results and as I have written also before in this thread, experienced professionals can have good results despite using suboptimal or outdated tools, not only in this industry.

 

[Avp1]

I don’t wish this to seem an attack on you, but have you made records before? Most people have mixed on the likes of NS-10s, Adams, etc, where the mids are quite pushed, or Barefoots and focals where the mids are hard (are they tonally forward, or just have a harder transient?).
I’m not sure that any of those is truely neutral, and I’m not 100% convinced it matters.

At the end people use the tools that help them most easily get to their intended end result, or simply use whatever they have in front of them.

I am listening through high quality speakers, and often I hear mixing and mastering decisions which I do not like and which damage otherwise likely good music. I suspect that the source of these decisions is insufficient quality of monitoring used by some engineers and producers. Of cause it could be intentional, but I cannot understand the reason for that.

 

[goat76]

I am listening through high quality speakers, and often I hear mixing and mastering decisions which I do not like and which damage otherwise likely good music. I suspect that the source of these decisions is insufficient quality of monitoring used by some engineers and producers. Of cause it could be intentional, but I cannot understand the reason for that.

It would be interesting to hear a few examples of mixes that you think were compromised due to poor-quality studio speakers.

 

[Ropeburn]

That's a big assumption indeed. You hear something you don't quite like, and attribute it to the monitoring situation of a professional? How? Why?

 

[Dialectic]

That's a big assumption indeed. You hear something you don't quite like, and attribute it to the monitoring situation of a professional? How? Why?

I hear a lot of things I don't like in commercial recordings. Some are intentional (e.g., excessive dynamic range compression). Others do not seem intentional (e.g., one-note bass) and bring into question the competence of--and the rooms and monitors used by--the mixing and mastering "professionals" who made those recordings.

 

[Avp1]

That's a big assumption indeed. You hear something you don't quite like, and attribute it to the monitoring situation of a professional? How? Why?

I can imagine only two reasons: intentional (and I do not understand why), or poor monitoring equipment. This assumes that engineers are qualified to do their job. If you hear some records, you simply cannot miss compromises in overall sound.

 

[Avp1]

It would be interesting to hear a few examples of mixes that you think were compromised due to poor-quality studio speakers.

Well, compare this https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/t...michael-brecker-jack-dejohnette/vdwm4917iqbb9 with that https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/i...riggi-musicali-michele-corcella/glelgvcvvilia

Both were released very recently.

 

[jeremynothman]

Sure, ATC used to be very popular and want3d brand ....like 10-20 years ago. Mostly because of their SM75-150S dome midrange, which covered essential frequencies alone. They built their reputation around this midrange, the rest of speakers were inferior so to speak. The moment companies started measuring their speakers according to some comperative standard was the moment when good speakers became popular and affordable. IMHO ATC has refused to join this club, doesnt present any proofs of superiority of their speakers over the others and I am pretty sure they gonna disappear like NOKIA mobile phones. I suspect that prices went higher due to lower sale number and they want to keep the profit around the same.

I think you just aren’t in bigger studios/are out of touch. ATC are in many of the bigger studios. In the early 2000-2010s Genelec, ADAM and Quested seemed to have more market, then PMC was flavour of the month.
Now is ATC’a time.

This may also simply be a question of geography, but I think it is also: a. one of fashion, b. What gets the job done well

I do agree that at the low end, JBL and others have the market. In the midrange, Neumann and Genelec. I don’t know why so many here seem to feel that ATC ought to also play in this field. They’ve decided on their market, and choose to produce their products locally despite the extra cost.

Northward puts ATCs in his rooms, and they are instantly recognisable. The aesthetic is an advertisement for both brands simultaneously.

I do think that if you have a smaller room, Dutch and Dutch might be better monitors, and as mains or mastering monitors, maybe Strauss are better or play in the same league, but ultimately they all do a good job in a well treated room, and many people feel the need for brand recognition (which in turn means good resale value) - all of which has little to do with their subjective merits - which are that people succeed in creating well crafted, translatable mixes on them.

 

[Rettica]

I hear a lot of things I don't like in commercial recordings. Some are intentional (e.g., excessive dynamic range compression). Others do not seem intentional (e.g., one-note bass) and bring into question the competence of--and the rooms and monitors used by--the mixing and mastering "professionals" who made those recordings.

Are you sure it’s not your room’s/monitors fault?

 

[Rettica]

Well, compare this https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/t...michael-brecker-jack-dejohnette/vdwm4917iqbb9 with that https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/i...riggi-musicali-michele-corcella/glelgvcvvilia

Both were released very recently.

both are fine

no obvious technical flaws
if something doesn't sound right for you or in your space doesn't mean the mix is bad

 

[Avp1]

both are fine

no obvious technical flaws
if something doesn't sound right for you or in your space doesn't mean the mix is bad

I am surprised you do not hear the difference in the perception of sound stage in these two records. One of them is absolutely flat with instruments sitting on top of each other without depth separation. This is why I think that limitation is in monitoring if they sound alike to you.

 

[Rettica]

of course the soundstage is different, as well as many other things
but to say that one of the mixes (the first one I suppose?) is bad...
mixing is not about the soundstage at all, sorry

 

[Dialectic]

Are you sure it’s not your room’s/monitors fault?

Yep. I have a treated and extensively measured room.

 

[Rettica]

great! then could you please give a couple examples of 'one-note bass' tracks?

 

[jeremynothman]

Are you sure it’s not your room’s/monitors fault?

I thought the same with regards to the one-note bass.
Of course it can be caused by the mixing and mastering engineer, but really, I’d hope not, and more likely, that’s a mode in your room than in the likely two, three or more rooms involved in the production process.

Many years back I contacted the composer of a techno track, telling them how much I liked it, especially the way the bass rolled out towards me, to which they responded that that sounded like it must be a modal problem on my side

 

[574stereo]

Here in the UK, most music is being made in smaller and smaller studios. Even some big name engineers are working out of incredibly small spaces.

To make things worse, most producers annd engineers don’t really know how to choose a room based on its dimensions or even have the option to make a choice like this. Then, treating and setting up a room properly is a challenge.

 

[Purité Audio]

Certainly that is my albeit limited experience, demonstrating 8Cs in ‘home’ studios.
Keith

 

[Involver]

You have to remember that making a record is a very complex process. There are many layers of decisions and every stage will have an element of taste, judgement and skill. Some people will simply like different things than you do, and that’s ok too.

 

[goat76]

Well, compare this https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/t...michael-brecker-jack-dejohnette/vdwm4917iqbb9 with that https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/i...riggi-musicali-michele-corcella/glelgvcvvilia

Both were released very recently.

Thank you for providing the two examples.
I think both mixes sound pretty well-balanced overall tonality-wise. While they have obviously gone for different approaches for the sound stage, I doubt that had anything to do with their different choices of studio monitors.

Alan Pasqua - The Law of Diminishing Returns has a phantom-centered focused sound for most of the instrumentation, except for the piano, which alone takes care of most of the width in the mix. Even though the mix is very much focused on the center-image stage, it has good layering separation between the drums, bass, and saxophone, which are pretty much on top of each other, but still has a nice depth and three-dimensional quality to it.

When analyzing the sound file, it shows that most of the dynamics are kept intact without any obvious limitations done to the mix in the mastering stage of the production. The only faults I can see are that the track is clipping five times in the left channel because they didn't leave any headroom at all, and they have strangely used a very steep low-pass filter at around 15 kHz.

This seems to have been recorded in 1993, at Sound on Sound, New York City. I have no idea what studio monitors they used back then.


With the track SICILYAN DREAM by Enrico Pieranunzi, the mixing engineer obviously went for a wider and more "airy" approach. The instruments are less focused on the phantom-centered sounds, and everything sounds "larger than life". While this gives the mix more separation when it comes to width, it loses a bit of focus when it comes to depth and three-dimensionality.

The dynamics have been reduced by approximately 3-5dB for this track in the mastering stage of the production. It also looks like this track has been more worked on to reach the final balance tonality-wise, as the level seems to have been lifted 3dB from about 2 kHz and down.

This one was recorded at Teatro Dal Verme, Milan, Italy, on April 23, 24 & 26, 2024 by Carlo Cantini.
Mixed and mastered at Digitube Studio, Mantova, Italy.

Monitoring

• Dynaudio LYD48 3-way monitors
• Adam A7X + SUB12
• Rockit KRK
• Yamaha Ns 10M Studio
• Avantone passive monitor
• Mission LX 2

Personally, I like the way the mix was done for the song by Alan Pasqua, but I can't hear any faults in either of the two mixes. They are just done differently from each other, and I can't really hear how the choice of studio monitors would have any large effects when it comes to the decisions made in mixing these tracks. I think the mix of the Alan Pasqua song has a better focus on what is needed and what drives that particular song. The energy and tempo of the drumming, the bass, and the saxophone are the driving force, and therefore, I like how those elements overlap each other as a "joint force" on the center stage of the mix. But again, there is nothing wrong with the mix of the Enrico Pieranunzi song; it's just done differently with less focus on any particular elements and with a more "airy" approach.

I don't know which one of the mixes you prefer.