ATC speakers / Monitors

[Space is the place]

Just an aside as Quincy Jones has come up above. Years ago i got into an discussion and subsequent correspondence with a guy called Bruce Swedien (forgive my ignorance!), it was about monitors and room acoustics as i recall, he was really kind and generous with his advice, i didn't realise until later who he actually was! In retrospect i would have asked him about the musicians he worked with instead!

 

[Atc4ever]

...But gear evaluation should ultimately rest on objective measurement and acoustic physics, rather than assuming an individual's hearing baseline or relying on sound-engineer pedigree as a proxy for speaker evaluation.

Yes, but as it seems that atc do not supply measurements and we still have them all over the studios, it MUST be that individual hearing and/or recomendations from some authorities play a major role in selecting atc.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Yes, but as it seems that atc do not supply measurements and we still have them all over the studios, it MUST be that individual hearing and/or recomendations from some authorities play a major role in selecting atc.

Yes, but here at Audio Science Review dot com we expect something more than the vagaries of reputation based subjectivity

 

[Frank Dernie]

As I had written in #6.631 I am not talking about the region above 10 kHz but already 10 dB at 8 kHz in the age of 50, not to talk at ages above. The good thing is that our brain compensates a part of such and since our acoustic memory is limited we don't really know what we are missing.

I am 76 and have to have 8kHz pretty loud to hear it at all and looking at the frequency spectrum of music whilst I listen I probably miss it altogether since the level at 8kHz is very low indeed, but my point still is that it isn't that important for music because there is very, very little actual music up there, just a few overtones of a few instruments.

On the music I listen to - mainly orchestral, the bulk of the sound is from 40 Hz to 1kHz, sometimes stretching to 2 to 3 kHz then rapidly plummeting to often around 40dB lower by 8kHz and still less higher.
So yes I probably can't hear above 8Hz - but there is almost nothing to hear there anyway, so I am missing nowt.

I am not talking about being a recording engineer, just a music lover whose engineering background leads me to look at data.
My grandchildren may well hear a difference but they can not afford a HiFi and are, in any case, happy listening to little Alexa blobs - which to be fair are probably capable of most of the non-bass frequencies of the music they listen to anyway.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yes, but here at Audio Science Review dot com we expect something more than the vagaries of reputation based subjectivity

You must be stark raving bonkers if you seriously believe the studios don't measure their potential systems in situ ffs.

I don't blame ATC for not publishing measurements to be picked over by internet "experts" who understand far less than they think they do.
Look at the ludicrous ASR speculation about the new KEF.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

You must be stark raving bonkers if you seriously believe the studios don't measure their potential systems in situ ffs.

I don't blame ATC for not publishing measurements to be picked over by internet "experts" who understand far less than they think they do.
Look at the ludicrous ASR speculation about the new KEF.

I’m sure they measure, and we know ATC even has a Klippel. But if you think keeping people in the dark is a positive, then you are directly opposed to the most fundamental value of this site and @amirm in particular

 

[Frank Dernie]

I’m sure they measure, and we know ATC even has a Klippel. But if you think keeping people in the dark is a positive, then you are directly oppose to the most fundamental value of this site and @amirm in particular

I think I can judge the fundamentals of ASR, which Amir invited me to join over 10 years ago, very well thank you.

Measuring loudspeakers is not as straightforward as electronics and an evangelical enthusiasm for certain preferences is making ASR a less attractive place for an engineer to hang out than it was.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I think I can judge the fundamentals of ASR, which Amir invited me to join over 10 years ago, very well thank you.

Measuring loudspeakers is not as straightforward as electronics and an evangelical enthusiasm for certain preferences is making ASR a less attractive place for an engineer to hang out than it was.

I’m sure even you understand that neither of these points is an argument of any kind, but of course if you don’t like it here and prefer to exit, that is your right.

 

[Purité Audio]

You must be stark raving bonkers if you seriously believe the studios don't measure their potential systems in situ ffs.

I don't blame ATC for not publishing measurements to be picked over by internet "experts" who understand far less than they think they do.
Look at the ludicrous ASR speculation about the new KEF.

You truly believe that is why ATC don't publish their speaker’s measurements?
Keith

 

[Frank Dernie]

You truly believe that is why ATC don't publish their speaker’s measurements?
Keith

No Keith, I don't see why they need to, they are an established brand and measurements are only of interest to a tiny minority of potential buyers, the most evangelical of whom will then nit pick ad nauseam on this forum

 

[Purité Audio]

I suspect you are correct but I find it a tiny bit depressing that loudspeakers will continue to be sold on myth and back story rather than engineering excellence.
Keith

 

[Frank Dernie]

I suspect you are correct but I find it a tiny bit depressing that loudspeakers will continue to be sold on myth and back story rather than engineering excellence.
Keith

Well I think the difference is that an established company already has a market, for better or worse.
New companies producing excellent engineering like Grimm, Dutch and Dutch, Kii and more recently Asciilab have to prove themselves to get a market, which they have successfully done to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[goat76]

I don’t think it's that hard to understand why Blackbird Studio chose ATC monitors for most of their control rooms, and I find it extremely shortsighted to think that they would gain much of anything by going with another brand.
In a studio, there are many more things to take into consideration than the flattest possible frequency response, and I very much doubt that many of the most popular brands here on ASR would handle the “abuse” in a studio environment 10-16 hours a day.

• ATC speakers measure good enough both on-axis and off-axis, which we have seen in user measurements.
• The distortion level is very low, even down to the bass region.
• The speakers can handle high SPL and are robustly built, and they can withstand extreme levels of peaks commonly happening while mixing music.
• If the speakers break, they are quite easily serviced with easy access to both drivers and amps. Most studio people will probably be able to service the speakers themselves with ease.
• ATC have shown that they can deliver “on time” within a tight schedule, and that they are service-minded as they traveled from the U.K. to the studio in Nashville to handle the delivery and help with the installation.
• Blackbird Studio has used ATC loudspeakers since day one. They know them inside out and trust the sound, and they know that mixes done with these speakers will translate well to the outside world.
• They have a long list of clients, and they obviously deliver great results as the artists keeps coming back.

So anyone who has a problem with Blackbird Studio using loudspeakers from ATC, please tell me where you think they went wrong and how you think they would do better going with another brand of loudspeakers? @thewas?

 

[AudioJester]

I’m sure even you understand that neither of these points is an argument of any kind, but of course if you don’t like it here and prefer to exit, that is your right.

I realise you believe your opinions are important, but please dont harrass members who are actually important around here to leave!

Frank's postings are highly valued for a lot longer than you have been here....

 

[Avp1]

The core issue isn't whether an individual might be an exception to biological trends, it's about evaluating equipment performance based on sound engineering principles rather than relying on authority or age-correlated perception.

While genetics play a role, age-related presbycusis combined with lifetime exposure is a cumulative physiological reality. Pointing out high-frequency attenuation at 8 kHz+ in mature ears isn't a slight against any engineer's talent, it is simply acknowledging basic human physiology. Relying on "they might be the statistical exception" as a defense for gear choices shifts the argument from measurable acoustics to speculation.

Masterful recordings are the result of exceptional talent, critical listening habits, and deep familiarity with one's monitoring environment. An engineer can produce world-class work on monitors with known limitations simply because they know how to compensate for them. A prime historical example is Quincy Jones relying on and endorsing the Auratone 5C Sound Cube, a notoriously band-limited, flat-sounding speaker nicknamed the "Horratone." The fact that a legend produced masterpieces like Thriller using them proves Quincy's genius, but it certainly doesn't mean the Auratone is the pinnacle of objective speaker design. A stellar discography proves the engineer's skill, not an infallible endorsement of a speaker's acoustic perfection.

A consensus among seasoned pros at a facility like Blackbird certainly proves that ATCs are a respected tool in high-end workflows. But market adoption by industry veterans and objective acoustic performance (such as dispersion control, distortion profiles, or frequency response linearity) are two different discussions.

No one is claiming top engineers aren't knowledgeable or that ATCs haven't been used on iconic records. But gear evaluation should ultimately rest on objective measurement and acoustic physics, rather than assuming an individual's hearing baseline or relying on sound-engineer pedigree as a proxy for speaker evaluation.

But what would you do when "objective" performance is excellent, but subjective evaluation result is just OK? This happens quite often.

 

[Avp1]

Yes, but here at Audio Science Review dot com we expect something more than the vagaries of reputation based subjectivity

How about this scientific question: why do people who are wealthy enough to choose any brand select ATC instead of <enter other brand here> if available measurements show that that other brand seems to have "cleaner" measurements?

 

[dfuller]

How about this scientific question: why do people who are wealthy enough to choose any brand select ATC instead of <enter other brand here> if available measurements show that that other brand seems to have "cleaner" measurements?

I can think of a few (in a studio setting).

1, they're used to how they sound and know how to mix on them.
2, they're reliable and serviceable with long term parts availability.
3, the studio designer uses them exclusively (see: Northward)
4, the big ones can produce very high spls for clients while being accurate enough at sane levels for the engineers and producers to work.
5, they're neutral enough that outside engineers can work on them reasonably well.

 

[thewas]

But what would you do when "objective" performance is excellent, but subjective evaluation result is just OK? This happens quite often.

I don't know of any such case, can you link to some?

 

[Blockader]

But what would you do when "objective" performance is excellent, but subjective evaluation result is just OK? This happens quite often.

Making speakers sound great in a room is not an easy task. In the same room over the last 10 years, I've had the KH 310, KH 420, Genelec 8361, and ATC SCM20ASL sitting in the same position. None of them sounded "great," even after a simple room correction. Each one benefited from a different setup in the same room: the KH 420 sounded better closer to a wall, while the 8361 sounded better positioned about two meters from the front wall. The 8361 needed a stronger high shelf filter to tame its treble, while the KH 420 measured close to perfection in room even without correction, but it introduced more ceiling reflections than the others and needed more ceiling absorption than the 8361 did.

The way I see it, making speakers sound great is an ongoing process. You need to look at measurements, understand how to diagnose each problem, and address it with the right mix of absorption, room correction, or diffusion. It takes a genuinely analytical approach. I've tried other routes too, like pouring an expensive whiskey and sitting in front of my speakers on a fake Hermès chair. That doesn't work for me and I honestly can't understand how it works for others. Either they haven't heard a truly great sounding system, so their baseline is off or they don't actually care how their speakers sound and are just going by vibes.

My point is, out of the box, no speaker sounds great. To get there, a speaker first needs to be resonance free and have a smooth on-axis response and that's just the starting point. Even the best speakers in the world won't outperform an average $300 speaker that has correct room placement and proper room correction. I also think that on ASR, which is a science based forum, we should be talking about room correction far more than we talk about speakers. Exaggerating the differences between speakers that already measure "good enough" is a very subjective forum thing to do.

 

[Atc4ever]

...Exaggerating the differences between speakers that already measure "good enough" is a very subjective forum thing to do.

No need to exaggerate...differencies in sound do exists even between speakers which measure "excellent".
To choose one between them, the one to give cash for and take it home, is highly subjective thing to do indeed, and the most important decision we have to make.
How we would do that, I will leave to each pearson...
Once we made a choice, than we should try to get the most of it at home.

When I was younger, I used to spent so much time fine tuning systems and components, but that is largely out of my interest today.
In my close to 70ties, I am in a different approach now...not with whiskey, more in favour of prostate tea...

And that is exactly why I love my atc 50 so much...they bring me so much music with so little effort from my side...