ATC speakers / Monitors

[RexrothPigeon]

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....

The trend of appeals to authority arguments is troubling and unscientific

 

[Blockader]

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...

I'll get a bit personal here because you mostly talk about you, your subjectivity, your ears, what you like etc.

For me, everyone who has great critical listening skills and a keen ear to hear flaws in recordings can't really avoid investing their time in understanding measurements and the science behind audio reproduction. What leads people to understand a concept as complex and mind-boggling as 'measurements' and the 'math' behind sound quality? It's people who could hear a problem in every speaker they've heard, people with a keen perception for hearing problems rather than seeking easy fascination. When every speaker fails to satisfy that kind of ear fully, measurements become the only way left to explain what's actually wrong and find the best balance and the best sound reproduction. *

Learning how to interpret measurements is a struggle. One has to sit down and learn the different data points, most of which are counter-intuitive to the human mind and not only connect them to each other but connect them to every listening experience gathered over years. Think about it: are we afraid of something as mundane as just choosing a speaker subjectively and is that why we go looking for solutions in measurements instead? Do you think subjective selectiveness is the epitome of selectivity, the true sign of critical listening skills and outstanding hearing ability? A kid can do that!

Personally, the way I see it, people who can combine their subjective biases with understanding measurements and audio science, but also don't take every piece of research in the field as god's last word, who understand the limitations of each study and find their own way, are the ones who truly have really good ears and/or have really good critical skills. Sorry, but I'm not fascinated and can't really get inspired by your speech when you come to this forum with a nickname like 'Atc4Ever!' and talk big about the ATC SCM50, which I personally heard and did not like at all.

*People will probably tell me that audio science can also be used by people who aren't passionate enough about audio and want to justify their purchases through external approval. Maybe true, but the group of people I'm pointing at is different. And my point is different too: I can't imagine people who have good hearing ignoring the reality of measurements so easily. It is inevitable because especially for stereo reproduction every speaker is heavily compromised one way or another.

 

[Atc4ever]

I'll get a bit personal here because you mostly talk about you, your subjectivity, your ears, what you like etc.

For me, everyone who has great critical listening skills and a keen ear to hear flaws in recordings can't really avoid investing their time in understanding measurements and the science behind audio reproduction. What leads people to understand a concept as complex and mind-boggling as 'measurements' and the 'math' behind sound quality? It's people who could hear a problem in every speaker they've heard, people with a keen perception for hearing problems rather than seeking easy fascination. When every speaker fails to satisfy that kind of ear fully, measurements become the only way left to explain what's actually wrong and find the best balance and the best sound reproduction. *

Learning how to interpret measurements is a struggle. One has to sit down and learn the different data points, most of which are counter-intuitive to the human mind and not only connect them to each other but connect them to every listening experience gathered over years. Think about it: are we afraid of something as mundane as just choosing a speaker subjectively and is that why we go looking for solutions in measurements instead? Do you think subjective selectiveness is the epitome of selectivity, the true sign of critical listening skills and outstanding hearing ability? A kid can do that!

Personally, the way I see it, people who can combine their subjective biases with understanding measurements and audio science, but also don't take every piece of research in the field as god's last word, who understand the limitations of each study and find their own way, are the ones who truly have really good ears and/or have really good critical skills. Sorry, but I'm not fascinated and can't really get inspired by your speech when you come to this forum with a nickname like 'Atc4Ever!' and talk big about the ATC SCM50, which I personally heard and did not like at all.

*People will probably tell me that audio science can also be used by people who aren't passionate enough about audio and want to justify their purchases through external approval. Maybe true, but the group of people I'm pointing at is different. And my point is different too: I can't imagine people who have good hearing ignoring the reality of measurements so easily. It is inevitable because especially for stereo reproduction every speaker is heavily compromised one way or another.

I have no problem with anything you said.
But your story is just not my cup of tea.
And why I am speaking over and over again about atc...because it is an atc thread.
O, you don't like scm50?...my heart is broken...

 

[574stereo]

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.

This is 100% my own experience. There’s a myth floating around on this forum that ‘all you need is a speaker with great on and off axis performance’ and off you go… minimal treatment needed etc… simply not true.

Once a speaker is within ‘flat territory’ or ‘near flat’, it becomes all about the implementation of the speaker in the room and how the space is set up. Neumann monitors are exceptionally flat but mine measure less flat in-room than my ATCs because positioning has been harder to make the Atmos setup work (SCM50 are for stereo work only, Neumann for Atmos). NB, considering selling my Neumanns as much as I like them, the Atmos buzz is over and done. I can focus back on stereo finally.

 

[thewas]

There’s a myth floating around on this forum that ‘all you need is a speaker with great on and off axis performance’ and off you go… minimal treatment needed etc… simply not true.

I would differentiate there and repeat what Toole says, high room treatment is needed more when the radiation of the loudspeaker is uneven, that is why such was used in older studios. A loudspeaker with great on and off axis performance doesn't need much, but of course some equalisation of the room modes. Talking about:

Neumann monitors are exceptionally flat but mine measure less flat in-room than my ATCs

This can be also a result of their more linear bass response and not really a disadvantage, even more at professional use, could you post these comparative measurements here?

 

[napfkuchen]

This is 100% my own experience. There’s a myth floating around on this forum that ‘all you need is a speaker with great on and off axis performance’ and off you go… minimal treatment needed etc… simply not true.

I would disagree with that. In my opinion, the manufacturer of my speakers presents this well in the product description: "It was specifically designed to control the directivity [...]. By directing the energy towards the listener and away from the rear and side walls, it reduces undesired room effects and the need for extensive room treatment." So there is no magic at work, but at least the need for further acoustic measures is reduced.

Once a speaker is within ‘flat territory’ or ‘near flat’, it becomes all about the implementation of the speaker in the room and how the space is set up. Neumann monitors are exceptionally flat but mine measure less flat in-room than my ATCs because positioning has been harder to make the Atmos setup work (SCM50 are for stereo work only, Neumann for Atmos).

I've had several sets of speakers in the same living-room now, all supported by the same two subwoofers. Standard book-shelf at first (Klipsch RB81 IV), then on-wall speakers (Jamo D500 LCR). My line of reasoning was simple: the AVR has a room calibration feature and would handle the adjustments. After all, I usually sit in the "sweet spot" anyway. Yet, I was never satisfied with the sound (without getting bogged down in flowery audiophile jargon). So I opted for a final upgrade with speakers optimized for Spinorama and in practice was already very happy with the sound even without any DSP intervention. Everything optimized by DiracART is even more coherent. Another advantage is that there is no longer any audible difference between calibration up to 300–400 Hz and full-range calibration. To me, this indicates that the speakers are performing as intended in my room.
The room has remained unchanged for the three different main speaker pairs. With my previous wall-mounted speakers, I experimented extensively with room correction software but never achieved satisfactory results.

NB, considering selling my Neumanns as much as I like them, the Atmos buzz is over and done. I can focus back on stereo finally.

The Atmos catalog on Apple Music is steadily growing and I listen to multi-channel music whenever possible because the imaging and separation of individual voices/instruments are simply outstanding. Of course, not every Atmos mix showcases the format's strengths, but the same applies to stereo.

 

[goat76]

I would differentiate there and repeat what Toole says, high room treatment is needed more when the radiation of the loudspeaker is uneven, that is why such was used in older studios. A loudspeaker with great on and off axis performance doesn't need much, but of course some equalisation of the room modes.

While it’s probably true that a loudspeaker with an uneven dispersion (which is not the case with ATC speakers I’ve seen measurements of) can benefit even more from room treatment, that is hardly the main reason it is used.

In a music studio, you want to make sure that what you hear is actually what goes into the recordings, so an environment with a lot of strong reflections is definitely not beneficial in that case, no matter how even the dispersion is for your loudspeakers.
The same goes for home listening, where a dominating direct sound is important if you strive to hear everything that goes on in the recording, especially if you want to hear the reverberation and the three-dimensionality of the recorded space without too much interference from your own listening environment.

 

[thewas]

While it’s probably true that a loudspeaker with an uneven dispersion (which is not the case with ATC speakers I’ve seen measurements of) can benefit even more from room treatment, that is hardly the main reason it is used.

In a music studio, you want to make sure that what you hear is actually what goes into the recordings, so an environment with a lot of strong reflections is definitely not beneficial in that case, no matter how even the dispersion is for your loudspeakers.
The same goes for home listening, where a dominating direct sound is important if you strive to hear everything that goes on in the recording, especially if you want to hear the reverberation and the three-dimensionality of the recorded space without too much interference from your own listening environment.

In many modern studios absorption isn't used as much as in the past but rather diffusion which can be more expedient with good quality loudspeakers. Especially at many home and home studios absorption is often used wrongly i.e. too much, at wrong locations and most of all too frequency dependent as continuous wide band absorption is expensive and bulky. Yes, for monitoring a decent percentage of direct sound is needed, which also can be achieved by reducing the listening distance.

 

[goat76]

In many modern studios absorption isn't used as much as in the past but rather diffusion which can be more expedient with good quality loudspeakers.

Do you have examples of these many modern studios where absorption isn't used much and where they primarily use diffusion?

Especially at many home and home studios absorption is often used wrongly i.e. too much, at wrong locations and most of all too frequency dependent as continuous wide band absorption is expensive and bulky.

I don't see why we have to discuss homes and home studios where absorption has been used wrongly? Don't you find it strange to say that absorption is an overall bad choice for acoustic treatment just because there are people out there who are using it wrongly?

What I'm talking about is correct use of absorption, where it is used to reduce the decay times evenly over as large a part of the spectrum as possible. Measurements are done to determine what the room needs to reach shorter and more even decay times.

Yes, for monitoring a decent percentage of direct sound is needed, which also can be achieved by reducing the listening distance.

It can, but I don't see many home hifi-listeners sitting that close to their speakers. According to a poll here on ASR, most people are sitting 2 to 4 meters away, and I think we can assume most of them are sitting around 3 meters away.

 

[thewas]

I don't see why we have to discuss homes and home studios where absorption has been used wrongly? Don't you find it strange to say that absorption is an overall bad choice for acoustic treatment just because there are people out there who are using it wrongly?

What I'm talking about is correct use of absorption, where it is used to reduce the decay times evenly over as large a part of the spectrum as possible. Measurements are done to determine what the room needs to reach shorter and more even decay times.

The problem is that a huge percentage use it wrongly and many use even measurements like reverberation time (RT60 etc) which really don't work in small spaces.

It can, but I don't see many home hifi-listeners sitting that close to their speakers. According to a poll here on ASR, most people are sitting 2 to 4 meters away, and I think we can assume most of them are sitting around 3 meters away.

Most of those don't do monitoring.

 

[Avp1]

The Atmos catalog on Apple Music is steadily growing and I listen to multi-channel music whenever possible because the imaging and separation of individual voices/instruments are simply outstanding. Of course, not every Atmos mix showcases the format's strengths, but the same applies to stereo.

This statement shows your tolerance to sound quality deficiencies. Apple Music Atmos is lossly encoded similar to MP3 in its day 20 years ago. What you say means that you cannot appreciate lossless vs. lossy digital audio.

The only consumer oriented delivery media for lossless Atmos is Blu-ray disk. Not very many are released.

 

[Deleted member 93733]

The problem is that a huge percentage use it wrongly and many use even measurements like reverberation time (RT60 etc) which really don't work in small spaces.


Most of those don't do monitoring.

We measure RT’s all the time in small rooms. You have to do this when measuring the airborne sound insulation of separating elements in the receiver room. The rooms are always unfurnished and without floor finishes, you then correct the room’s RT in that state back to a reference RT of 0.5seconds (i.e. furnished and unoccupied).

 

[dfuller]

In many modern studios absorption isn't used as much as in the past but rather diffusion which can be more expedient with good quality loudspeakers. Especially at many home and home studios absorption is often used wrongly i.e. too much, at wrong locations and most of all too frequency dependent as continuous wide band absorption is expensive and bulky. Yes, for monitoring a decent percentage of direct sound is needed, which also can be achieved by reducing the listening distance.

Not really true; diffusion doesn't really "solve" the reverberation time problem. Speaking from experience, it's really tricky to judge spatial cues in a room that gets close to diffuse-field. I don't know what Blackbird was doing covering that entire room in diffusion, but it's definitely not what I would do. The best stereo imaging etc that I have ever heard was in a Northward room - and that has barely any diffusion and is heavily absorbent almost everywhere.

 

[thewas]

We measure RT’s all the time in small rooms. You have to do this when measuring the airborne sound insulation of separating elements in the receiver room. The rooms are always unfurnished and without floor finishes, you then correct the room’s RT in that state back to a reference RT of 0.5seconds (i.e. furnished and unoccupied).

The measurement is wrong as it's based on a premise that isn't valid in small rooms:

RT60 Measurements Don't Work in Small Studios - Here's Why

Learn why RT60 measurements are meaningless in bedroom studios and what to focus on instead. Stop chasing fake numbers and achieve balanced acoustic treatment.

www.acousticsinsider.com

 

[thewas]

By coincidence Dr. Toole just posted an as usual thorough related post to the topic of studio vs home acoustics in another thread here:

Electrostatic speakers?

I suspect you have either heard poor diffusers, diffusers that were placed too close to the listening position or a combination of these two. If multiple diffusers are used, one needs to follow the barker sequency to avoid periodicty and lobing. In a control room they should be placed so they...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Deleted member 93733]

The measurement is wrong as it's based on a premise that isn't valid in small rooms:

RT60 Measurements Don't Work in Small Studios - Here's Why

Learn why RT60 measurements are meaningless in bedroom studios and what to focus on instead. Stop chasing fake numbers and achieve balanced acoustic treatment.

www.acousticsinsider.com

You need to familiarise yourself with the contents of BS EN ISO 16283. And your link is referring to absorptive spaces not unfurnished rooms with no floor covering. You measure in at least three locations using interrupted noise or impulse methods. It’s standard stuff in our industry.

 

[thewas]

You need to familiarise yourself with the contents of BS EN ISO 16283. And your link is referring to absorptive spaces not unfurnished rooms with no floor covering. You measure in at least three locations using interrupted noise or impulse methods. It’s standard stuff in our industry.

We are discussing here about studio audio related measurements, the ISO you mention is about transmission of sound in buildings.

 

[goat76]

By coincidence Dr. Toole just posted an as usual thorough related post to the topic of studio vs home acoustics in another thread here:

Electrostatic speakers?

I suspect you have either heard poor diffusers, diffusers that were placed too close to the listening position or a combination of these two. If multiple diffusers are used, one needs to follow the barker sequency to avoid periodicty and lobing. In a control room they should be placed so they...

www.audiosciencereview.com

By reading that, Toole doesn't seem to be a big fan of diffusion:

"Diffusion of the sound field in listening rooms is of no benefit. In fact, if too energetic and from the wrong direction it degrades the delivery of directional and spatial information encoded in the stereo recording."

"Diffusers in small rooms should be used to attenuate reflections by sending most of the energy off in other – hopefully non-destructive – directions. However, the energy remains in the room, which may not be an advantage. The performance of diffusers that matters most in small rooms is how they alter the attenuated sound reflected in the direction of the listener, a performance factor that is rarely specified."

 

[napfkuchen]

This statement shows your tolerance to sound quality deficiencies. Apple Music Atmos is lossly encoded similar to MP3 in its day 20 years ago. What you say means that you cannot appreciate lossless vs. lossy digital audio.

The only consumer oriented delivery media for lossless Atmos is Blu-ray disk. Not very many are released.

MP3 was developed at Fraunhofer IIS in 1991 ... I am not a trained listener, and in a blind test using headphones, was unable to distinguish even 256 kbit/s MP3s from lossless CD quality. Don't you think that codec development has advanced at least a little bit (pun intended ^^) in 35 years? And now a data rate of 768 kbps is available on Apple Music for all "objects" (not channels). In my (time-delayed) comparisons of Apple TV and Blu-ray using "Yello - Point" and various Steven Wilson productions, could not detect any definitive, obvious differences. Perhaps Tidal Music is a worthwhile alternative.

 

[goat76]

Most of those don't do monitoring.

There's really no difference.
If a high ratio of direct sound is needed in the studio to hear what actually goes into the recording, such as the three-dimensionality of the recorded space, the same is needed to hear the same things while listening at home to that same recording.

If the reflections in the listening room are allowed to dominate what is heard, you are basically listening to the sameness of your own listening room over and over, instead of hearing all the differences that the recordings contain down to the finest details.