The difference of course is that using speakers as a tool when designing in spatial cues =/= listening for enjoyment at home. If you like how side wall reflections enhance the sense of spaciousness, there's no problem there. Doesn't work great in a studio environment when you're dialing in reverb levels.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
ATC speakers / Monitors
- Thread starter Pearljam5000
- Start date
D
Deleted member 93733
Guest
I know what it relates to as i use it everyday in my profession. I was specifically correcting your statement “reverberation time (RT60 etc) which really don't work in small spaces”.
To make educated assessment of sound quality you have to be trained (formally or self-), there is no workaround here. Atmos stream is usually decoded to 13 discrete channels. Now calculate how much bits are related to each of these 13 channels in 768 kbps stream. Or do a simple experiment: disconnect front 3 speakers and listen what went to the rest.
napfkuchen
Addicted to Fun and Learning
If this training means audio artifacts are always perceived by me, then as a consumer, what's the point? Spatial Audio on Apple Music has the largest catalog. Tried various platforms with Auro3D, unfortunately there is far too little content. Same with BluRay-discs. As I said, might give Tidal a chance and then try switching off the LCR speakers for comparison though so thanks for that input.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,175
Also not of absorption, especially as it is usually done at the first reflection points.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,175
And it is still flawed per definition in small rooms, even if it's used as a tool for the different task you mention.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,175
As Toole and the research has shown in a reasonable amount, spectral similarity (another reason why smooth directivity is necessary) and timing (early) reflections are not contraproductive but can even enhance intelligibility. That doesn't mean that I am against a balanced direct/reflected sound ratio (I personally also enjoy nearfield listening), just that unfortunately most often acoustic treatment it is done wrongly without understanding as Toole wrote in the other thread and then it often even is contraproductive.
If the part about “intelligibility” is about “speech intelligibility”, my view on that matter is that it should definitely come with the reverb/room sound in the recording itself, and not be expected to somehow be created in the unknown listening rooms at the home of the music consumer.
On that point, I actually think that Toole is mistaken if he tries to apply one research about human speech in a room, to another research which is about reproducing a complete recording of a speech/vocal that already should have the speech intelligibility “baked in” with the direct sound of the speech/vocal on the recording.
Please tell me if you think I have misunderstood what was really meant by “intelligibility” in this situation.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,175
You are free to discuss with him in the other thread if you disagree with him, would recommend though first reading his whole related chapters as he bases them on several researches.
These results though are not only for speech but also audio engineers showed no clear preference and result difference between leaving those early reflections, diffuse or absorb them:
In a recent AES paper titled: The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments authored by Richard King, Brett Leonard and Grzegorz Sikora, controlled listening tests were conducted in small rooms with a panel of 26 professional recording and mixing engineers, editors and producers, and students of sound recording. The goal was to determine if there was a preference among absorption, diffusion or reflection for the lateral surfaces (first sidewall reflection points relative to the front speakers). The study focused specifically on the working audio professional and the audio production environment. The results correlate the presence of strong lateral energy with an initial reduction of subjects ability to complete the task within normal tolerances, but adaptation soon occurs, restoring the subjects to practically normal pace and accuracy. Statistically, "no main effect was found for acoustical treatment". In terms of the personal preferences expressed by these experienced mixers, eleven voted for reflection, eight for diffusion and seven for absorption. This evidence tells us that even though the different situations produced audible changes, the pros adapted quickly to differing circumstances. While there were personal preferences, they were not unambiguously associated with better performance at the mixing task. The tests were done blind.
Source: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/small-room-acoustics
I am afraid many of the "common wisdoms" are results of non blind testing which admittedly is very hard to perform on such. And as we know human bias will tend to make us believe the more complex and expensive a solution is, the better it sounds, I have been myself in the loophole before, plastering everything with thick Basotect absorbers.
These results though are not only for speech but also audio engineers showed no clear preference and result difference between leaving those early reflections, diffuse or absorb them:
In a recent AES paper titled: The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments authored by Richard King, Brett Leonard and Grzegorz Sikora, controlled listening tests were conducted in small rooms with a panel of 26 professional recording and mixing engineers, editors and producers, and students of sound recording. The goal was to determine if there was a preference among absorption, diffusion or reflection for the lateral surfaces (first sidewall reflection points relative to the front speakers). The study focused specifically on the working audio professional and the audio production environment. The results correlate the presence of strong lateral energy with an initial reduction of subjects ability to complete the task within normal tolerances, but adaptation soon occurs, restoring the subjects to practically normal pace and accuracy. Statistically, "no main effect was found for acoustical treatment". In terms of the personal preferences expressed by these experienced mixers, eleven voted for reflection, eight for diffusion and seven for absorption. This evidence tells us that even though the different situations produced audible changes, the pros adapted quickly to differing circumstances. While there were personal preferences, they were not unambiguously associated with better performance at the mixing task. The tests were done blind.
Source: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/small-room-acoustics
I am afraid many of the "common wisdoms" are results of non blind testing which admittedly is very hard to perform on such. And as we know human bias will tend to make us believe the more complex and expensive a solution is, the better it sounds, I have been myself in the loophole before, plastering everything with thick Basotect absorbers.
D
Deleted member 93733
Guest
Why is it still flawed? If your general principles of Acoustics are good you will know the ‘other’ formula to use in place of Sabine’s. You specifically said that it is flawed to test in small spaces (R60). From that and your link to some youtuber, I am taking that to mean highly treated small studio rooms. I test these spaces all the time. My testing is validated by ISO Standards and submitted to the Association of Noise Consultants. So I will politely refrain from further debate with you. I will give you a clue to the formula to use in spaces where absorption coefficient is >or = 0.2:
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 93733
Guest
I am with you on absorption in home studio rooms. We are only concerned with the direct field, we don’t want to hear the room as it were. What I haven’t seen discussed is the fact that more absorption in these spaces can assist with a lower reverberant noise level from external sound breaking into the room and also with room to room sound transmission. We know that home studio rooms aren’t built to the same standards as professional dedicated spaces. The structural separating elements in homes are intended to achieve minimum airborne sound reductions of 45 dB Rw or 56 dB Rw in my country. For a dedicated music room in a home, that can cause issues for neighbours and others within the home. Sound transmission calculations (outside to inside & room to room) use the amount of absorption in the receiving room to predict the reverberant noise in that space. Higher amounts of absorption in the calculation result in a lower reverberant noise level overall. A lower reverberant field level will result in less noise breakout and a lower level in the room from external noise breaking in. It’s a win win.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,205
- Likes
- 29,175
See for example this link
Lyd & Akustikk | Små rom og etterklangstid
www.lydogakustikk.no
ISO EN / DIN consortiums are made from many different backgrounds (also industry lobby) to create norms that provide practical applicable tools, that doesn't make them automatically scientifically correct., myself have even participated in the creation of few at the DIN centre in Berlin (about mechanic engineering). Some even are unfortunately completely wrong, see exemplary Tooles comment:
An Enticing Marketing Story, Theory Without Measurement?
I've been reading the whole thread today, and while it is not possible to adress all topics raised, I think one important aspect is: which acoustic space do I want to be in when listening to music ? I think this is a preference and nothing you can argue about. I prefer most of the times to have...
www.audiosciencereview.com
I finally had time to measure my passive ATC SCM20PSL Classic today. I expected them to measure quite well just based on how great they sound.
The first picture shows the gated measurements at 1 meter, horizontal directivity, from 0 to 90 degrees.
The directivity looks pretty even except for a slight disturbance around 4.5 kHz, mostly seen in the 20-degree measurement. I believe it is baffle-edge diffraction, as that disturbance moves up to 6 kHz with the speaker grille on.
I forgot to take measurements for the horizontal directivity. Sorry about that, but that will have to wait until next time, as I don't want to move the sofa again to make room for the measurements.
This is what the average of the directivity measurements looks like:
And here are the distortion measurements done at 86 dB:
The first picture shows the gated measurements at 1 meter, horizontal directivity, from 0 to 90 degrees.
The directivity looks pretty even except for a slight disturbance around 4.5 kHz, mostly seen in the 20-degree measurement. I believe it is baffle-edge diffraction, as that disturbance moves up to 6 kHz with the speaker grille on.
I forgot to take measurements for the horizontal directivity. Sorry about that, but that will have to wait until next time, as I don't want to move the sofa again to make room for the measurements.
This is what the average of the directivity measurements looks like:
And here are the distortion measurements done at 86 dB:
I finally had time to measure my passive ATC SCM20PSL Classic today. I expected them to measure quite well just based on how great they sound.
The first picture shows the gated measurements at 1 meter, horizontal directivity, from 0 to 90 degrees.
The directivity looks pretty even except for a slight disturbance around 4.5 kHz, mostly seen in the 20-degree measurement. I believe it is baffle-edge diffraction, as that disturbance moves up to 6 kHz with the speaker grille on.
I forgot to take measurements for the horizontal directivity. Sorry about that, but that will have to wait until next time, as I don't want to move the sofa again to make room for the measurements.
View attachment 554967
This is what the average of the directivity measurements looks like:
View attachment 554968
And here are the distortion measurements done at 86 dB:
View attachment 554969
Load it into vcad for more viewpoints of the data.
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. Vcad what, and why?
I'm fine looking at my measurements using REW.
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. Vcad what, and why?
I'm fine looking at my measurements using REW.
Vituixcad, it will generate a spin for you similar to what you see in speaker reviews here. Will reveal quite a bit more about the speakers performance. Not quite klippel but still somewhat interesting to see.
Last edited:
I will look into that when I get time. Thank you.
VituixCAD can definitely be useful here, especially for getting a better overall picture of the directivity than a few individual REW plots.
one thing I would add is that for a listening or mixing room, I would be careful not to interpret a spinorama in isolation
The interaction between the speaker’s directivity, the room geometry, listening distance and the timing/level of the early reflections can be just as important.
That’s actually one of the reasons I find it more useful to look at the speaker and the room together rather than trying to establish a universal rule about absorption vs diffusion.
And your measurements are already interesting in that respect
the relatively smooth directivity you’re seeing is probably one of the reasons the SCM20 works so well in a room.
bby the way, I’ll take this opportunity to share a few photos from an ATC studio where I checked an Atmos mix a few months ago.
one thing I would add is that for a listening or mixing room, I would be careful not to interpret a spinorama in isolation
The interaction between the speaker’s directivity, the room geometry, listening distance and the timing/level of the early reflections can be just as important.
That’s actually one of the reasons I find it more useful to look at the speaker and the room together rather than trying to establish a universal rule about absorption vs diffusion.
And your measurements are already interesting in that respect
the relatively smooth directivity you’re seeing is probably one of the reasons the SCM20 works so well in a room.
bby the way, I’ll take this opportunity to share a few photos from an ATC studio where I checked an Atmos mix a few months ago.
Attachments
Designed as a studio monitor, scm20 (passive) has found its way into home systems, due to its rare combination of power and subtlety. Plus compact size.
Besides, scm20 is not difficult to set up, it can work very well even without super precise positioning and with little room acoustic treatment. It is not too demanding in this regard (me too) its performance shines through.
But you must have a right power amp and a room not larger than 20m2.
Speaking about amps, few days ago I had opportunity to listen scm20 + pass aleph 0 monoblocks.
Unlikely combination since the specified power is only 75w.
But in practice that was match made in heaven !
Besides, scm20 is not difficult to set up, it can work very well even without super precise positioning and with little room acoustic treatment. It is not too demanding in this regard (me too) its performance shines through.
But you must have a right power amp and a room not larger than 20m2.
Speaking about amps, few days ago I had opportunity to listen scm20 + pass aleph 0 monoblocks.
Unlikely combination since the specified power is only 75w.
But in practice that was match made in heaven !
Last edited:
Similar threads
