ATC speakers / Monitors

[andreasmaaan]

This is the Wilson:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

That actually measures a lot better than other Wilson speakers.

 

[Purité Audio]

‘Warm‘ and ‘musical’ and ‘analogue’ have no meaning whatsoever.
Keith

 

[Mesh]

Without being a professional in this area, wouldn't an overall representation that is what the mixer (for instance) is used to since X years be a big deciding factor? I know that applies to other domains than work with sound, as a familiar tool is often preferred over a potentially new tool as the familiar tool completely disappears from the consciousness of the user. As a person interested in sound and music, I'm intrigued by the differences in the tools for music and sound production, but if I worked in the area I would also be aware of each hour spent getting used to something new is in practice a cost compared to just using what I already know completely.

It would for sure have been better to learn with tools that are particularly good, but that quirky old unbalanced hammer I grew up with still feels better to me than my new fancy SOTA I got as a present. Thus, I literally ask if there may simply be legacy experience that has some preferring the ATC over more actually SOTA speakers? Paying for a slight improvement on what you already know extremely well may simply feel safer than swapping to something new. I mean, that's also why ppl stay with certain brands in other areas no matter if the production and QA is done by a completely different place. Deciding to go with something new also opens the Pandora's box on which new products to even consider, and how long will that take to test out (read: how much paying work will I have to put on hold or be later than normal with)?

As a (non-sound) engineer, I love a systematic review and as objective answer as possible (with current test capabilities), but I'm still flabbergasted at how often the world around me simply views other aspects as more useful drivers for decisions. I also know the same ppl avoid going to me for answers when they are looking for a quick one, rather than a systematic one.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Interesting factory tour

 

[richard12511]

‘Warm‘ and ‘musical’ and ‘analogue’ have no meaning whatsoever.
Keith

Agree with the latter two, but “warm” does have meaning to me. Whenever someone describes a speaker as “warm”, I assume they’re talking about a speaker with either elevated bass, or rolled off treble.

 

[Count Arthur]

‘Warm‘ and ‘musical’ and ‘analogue’ have no meaning whatsoever.

What about Dark and Bright?

My active speakers have a switch on the back with settings for Dark, Neutral and Bright, so it must be a thing.

They also have both and analogue and a digital input.

 

[BDWoody]

What about Dark and Bright?

My active speakers have a switch on the back with settings for Dark, Neutral and Bright, so it must be a thing.

Maybe that's for the lights!

 

[ahofer]

I think your post gets to the heart of the matter. None of the speakers you listened to that day are what most here would admire.

This is the Wilson:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

The Harbeth is better:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-sabrina-loudspeaker-measurements

But objectively not that great compared to far cheaper and far better measuring speakers like the KEF R3.

Yet many swear by those you enjoyed and others that are even more objectively amiss such as all recent B&W speakers, consumer PMC speakers and many many more.

If 'accuracy' did indeed translate into preference we'd all be listening to Revel, KEF, Genelec and the usual suspects.

And we wouldn't be adding a 'target curve' for the sake of preference over reference.

Judging by sales, most people prefer inaccurate.

Btw, I listed to the KEF R7, and the KEF Reference 5, as well as Legacy and a few other brands. I preferred the Harbeth over the R7, but I think the Ref 5 were excellent. The Harbeths seemed bigger than the R7, somehow. All subjective, time between switching, etc.

It isn’t just that I may have preferred “inaccurate” (although the Harbeth is less inaccurate than it is lacking in good directivity behavior, which is slightly different). I also think auditioning preferences and preferences for long-term use can be different. I certainly learned that in a formative early audio experience I recounted here - http://andrewhofer.com/blog/2020/11/10/blind-listening-tests-introduction/ .

 

[digicidal]

Btw, I listed to the KEF R7, and the KEF Reference 5, as well as Legacy and a few other brands. I preferred the Harbeth over the R7, but I think the Ref 5 were excellent. The Harbeths seemed bigger than the R7, somehow. All subjective, time between switching, etc.

It isn’t just that I may have preferred “inaccurate” (although the Harbeth is less inaccurate than it is lacking in good directivity behavior, which is slightly different). I also think auditioning preferences and preferences for long-term use can be different. I certainly learned that in a formative early audio experience I recounted here - http://andrewhofer.com/blog/2020/11/10/blind-listening-tests-introduction/ .

Agreed. Especially considering that when concentrating/focused on the minutiae of a specific product, it's entirely possible to overlook another aspect. When I've auditioned speakers in the past, I would carefully position both them and myself - when what I should have been doing is deliberately messing up both. With the exception of my desk, almost every system in my house seems to have the most comfortable seat located off to one side - so dispersion (esp. horizontal) becomes significantly more important than on-axis FR.

If a dedicated setup with a single sweet-spot and well treated room is available - I'd guess I would be happy listening to at least 70% of the speakers currently on the market (certainly for an hour or so). With DSP/REQ that might even hit 80%+... but move 6 ft to the right of that seat or stand up... and it drops down into the teens at most. Add in a poorly mixed album or TV show... and I'm basically at single digits.

 

[black_flag]

So i just measured my ATC SCM50ASL classic's - don't look too bad when measured in line with the mid dome. Not so good when measured in line with the tweeter, but i listen at mid dome level.

Details:
Left Channel only, measure in room using 20-20kHz sweep
Motu M2 ADC/DAC - loopback calibrated
iSEMcon EMX-7150 Microphone - factory calibrated
Mic aligned to mid dome, 250mm from dome surface
REW Software

 

[Scholl]

Thanks for the measurement !

According to ATC the acoustic axis of their 3 way speakers is the center of the dome midrange. It would seem logical that it has the best FR measured that way then. It is the proper way to listen to them.

 

[Pearljam5000]

So i just measured my ATC SCM50ASL classic's - don't look too bad when measured in line with the mid dome. Not so good when measured in line with the tweeter, but i listen at mid dome level.

View attachment 93523

Details:
Left Channel only, measure in room using 20-20kHz sweep
Motu M2 ADC/DAC - loopback calibrated
iSEMcon EMX-7150 Microphone - factory calibrated
Mic aligned to mid dome, 250mm from dome surface
REW Software

How do they sound? What other monitors did you consider before buying them?
What do you think about all the negative comments about them not being accurate around here lol.

 

[ctrl]

So i just measured my ATC SCM50ASL classic's - don't look too bad when measured in line with the mid dome. Not so good when measured in line with the tweeter, but i listen at mid dome level...
Mic aligned to mid dome, 250mm from dome surface.

With a baffle size of 71.6 x 35.1 cm, 25cm measurement distance is too close to the DUT. A measurement at a distance of 100cm (maybe 70cm) and with gate to fade out the room resonances should give more realistic results.

The rule of thumb for the measurement distance recommends a distance of three times the largest baffle dimension (in your case the diagonal), in order to definitely capture the baffle influences completely - which usually cannot be realized in normal rooms.

It would also be important to make at least one or two angle measurements (e.g. 30°, 60°) to get an indication of how smooth the horizontal radiation is.

 

[black_flag]

How do they sound? What other monitors did you consider before buying them?
What do you think about all the negative comments about them not being accurate around here lol.

Despite recent commentary i find them an exceptional mix of neutral FR, HF detail and sheer dynamic, muscular energy. With epic headroom to boot. I had SCM40A's and loved them for years before missing some HF detail and 'slam'/dynamics. I wanted to retrofit the S-spec tweeter & mid to 40's but ATC refused for a couple of good reasons. In comparison the ported 50's excite the room more but it's only an issue playing 90dB+ which is next to never. I'll be playing with eq in coming weeks. But i found them a wholesale step up from the 40's.

I've heard D&D 8c's, Kii Three's, ME-Geithains and host of consumer speakers but not in my room. I'll give the D&D's & Kii's a run at some stage but i don't have any reason to change. I'll mod the 50's first.

 

[black_flag]

With a baffle size of 71.6 x 35.1 cm, 25cm measurement distance is too close to the DUT. A measurement at a distance of 100cm (maybe 70cm) and with gate to fade out the room resonances should give more realistic results.

The rule of thumb for the measurement distance recommends a distance of three times the largest baffle dimension (in your case the diagonal), in order to definitely capture the baffle influences completely - which usually cannot be realized in normal rooms.

It would also be important to make at least one or two angle measurements (e.g. 30°, 60°) to get an indication of how smooth the horizontal radiation is.

Ok mate will give it a go. Do you rotate the mic for the angle measurements so it points toward the driver radially or 'translate' it so it's aligned with the horizontal and vertical planes.?

 

[ctrl]

Ok mate will give it a go. Do you rotate the mic for the angle measurements so it points toward the driver radially or 'translate' it so it's aligned with the horizontal and vertical planes.?

The measuring microphone always points to the reference point (in your case the midrange driver or between midrange driver and tweeter).
Then either turn the loudspeaker or move the measuring microphone by the appropriate angle.

... and if you don't have a anechoic chamber available, it makes sense to position the loudspeaker so that the reference point for the measurement is halfway up the room (UPDATE: actually, the woofer should be located halfway up the room to achieve the best possible results at low frequencies) - to achieve the longest possible gate.

 

[black_flag]

Deleted, see below for plot with early reflection removed

 

[andreasmaaan]

On mid dome axis & gated at 5.9s (only 1m from the wall so reflect still in there). Can't be sure everything is aligned properly, need a laser with H/V.

View attachment 93557

I'm afraid you need to reduce the gate to the point where the reflection is gated out for the measurement to be of any value

 

[black_flag]

Measured on mid dome axis 1m from driver & gated to remove early reflection:

 

[thewas]

Measured on mid dome axis 1m from driver & gated to remove early reflection:

Could you also measure them approximately in the middle between the mid and tweeter, as maybe then they will measure smoother?