ATC speakers / Monitors

[thewas]

Which would be?

For example the current Neumann 75 mm mid dome.

Neumann used the ATC dome in their former flagship O 500 C. The newer KH 420 uses their own driver which is superior to the older ATC design in terms of non-linear distortion (up to 10 dB), below measurements show this:

The ATC dome mid is basically a 30 year old design (ATC SM-75 1508 SUPER) which was fantastic for its time and still is very good with today standards (same holds also for the 75 mm Yamaha mid berrylium dome from 1974), but of course technology has also progressed.

 

[andreasmaaan]

HD always seems to be a bit high in Troels's driver tests in my opinion. Here on Jeff Bagby's review of the same driver, HD does not go higher than -60dB in its operating range.

Actually, those Bagby measurements are of the more expensive "S" version. And he doesn't state the measurement SPL, which is frustrating. Clearly, it's an excellent driver though.

Re Troels' measurements, I hadn't noticed that they were generally off. Could you point me to some measurements he's taken that demonstrate this?

Anyway, please don't take me to be saying the ATC is a poor driver. I think very highly of it. I just don't see it as being in its own league, not by a long shot.

 

[Chrise36]

For example the current Neumann 75 mm mid dome.

Neumann used the ATC dome in their former flagship O 500 C. The newer KH 420 uses their own driver which is superior to the older ATC design in terms of non-linear distortion (up to 10 dB), below measurements show this:

View attachment 106251

View attachment 106252

The ATC dome mid is basically a 30 year old design (ATC SM-75 1508 SUPER) which was fantastic for its time and still is very good with today standards (same holds also for the 75 mm Yamaha mid berrylium dome from 1974), but of course technology has also progressed.

Is it same Amir measured in the KH 310;

 

[q3cpma]

And of course measurements is not everything Amir has shown this in many reviews.

So what can be heard but not measured? Hint: nothing.

He did not like many good measuring speakers. In the end it comes down to personal taste.

I have not seen one review where a perfect loudpspeaker wasn't lauded, please give one.

 

[thewas]

Is it same Amir measured in the KH 310;

Yes.

 

[Chrise36]

Actually, those Bagby measurements are of the more expensive "S" version. And he doesn't state the measurement SPL, which is frustrating. Clearly, it's an excellent driver though.

Re Troels' measurements, I hadn't noticed that they were generally off. Could you point me to some measurements he's taken that demonstrate this?

Anyway, please don't take me to be saying the ATC is a poor driver. I think very highly of it. I just don't see it as being in its own league, not by a long shot.

Troels suggested Audiotechnology drivers are up to the level to the ATC and some ceramics maybe but really there are not many options.

 

[Chrise36]

So what can be heard but not measured? Hint: nothing.

I have not seen one review where a perfect loudpspeaker wasn't lauded, please give one.

KEF R3

 

[Chrise36]

Yes.

They are using it much higher than the ATC ideally we would want the frequencies above 200hz coming from one unit?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Troels suggested Audiotechnology drivers are up to the level to the ATC and some ceramics maybe but really there are not many options.

What frequency range are you interested in? I presume something like 380-3,000Hz?

 

[Scholl]

Actually, those Bagby measurements are of the more expensive "S" version. And he doesn't state the measurement SPL, which is frustrating. Clearly, it's an excellent driver though.

Re Troels' measurements, I hadn't noticed that they were generally off. Could you point me to some measurements he's taken that demonstrate this?

Anyway, please don't take me to be saying the ATC is a poor driver. I think very highly of it. I just don't see it as being in its own league, not by a long shot.

Yes, it is indeed the "S" version. Since it is the model ATC use on all of their models from the SCM50 and up, I think it is fair to consider this one. Jeff did not specificy the SPL indeed, it would have been helpful.

I don't think that Troels measurement are really "off" so to speak. It is just that his HD numbers generally seem to be a bit higher than those on Hificompass or other websites (for identical drivers and SPL of course). The HD numbers on Audioxpress are also a bit higher than average.
Since these numbers depend on the type of microphone used and other factors, the absolute numbers do not matter too much if the test protocol is always the same.

As I said, what differentiates the ATC mid-dome to most of its rivals is its ability to play quite low (most mid-domes hate that). Since there are not much comparable competitors mid-domes to begin with (Volt, PMC, Neumann), in a way the ATC mid-dome is still quite unique. But since good midrange cone drivers can achieve pretty much the same or better (especially in the low-end), while being less cumbersome than this ATC driver, the question is whether the mid-dome configuration is really that useful in the first place. This is my opinion at least.

 

[TimVG]

KEF R3

That was due to a room mode in the bass which has nothing to do with the R3.
In the Revel F35 review he addresses it after putting in one or two PEQ filters:

Beauty of Roon is that its filters can be switched on and off in a second. Boy, was that a miracle fix! Gorgeous detail was there with almost no loss in total bass energy. Indeed bass was now tighter. The "magic" that I heard in the Revel M16 was now imparted into KEF R3.

The R3 sounds as every bit as good as the measurements indicated

 

[q3cpma]

KEF R3

Mild but broad mid scoop and mono testing on a relatively narrow dispersion speaker. KEF's strange port tuning might also play a role.
EDIT: and the room mode issue, didn't remember this

 

[andreasmaaan]

Yes, it is indeed the "S" version. Since it is the model ATC use on all of their models from the SCM50 and up, I think it is fair to consider this one. Jeff did not specificy the SPL indeed, it would have been helpful.

I don't think that Troels measurement are really "off" so to speak. It is just that his HD numbers generally seem to be a bit higher than those on Hificompass or other websites (for identical drivers and SPL of course). The HD numbers on Audioxpress are also a bit higher than average.
Since these numbers depend on the type of microphone used and other factors, the absolute numbers do not matter too much if the test protocol is always the same.

As I said, what differentiates the ATC mid-dome to most of its rivals is its ability to play quite low (most mid-domes hate that). Since there are not much comparable competitors mid-domes to begin with (Volt, PMC, Neumann), in a way the ATC mid-dome is still quite unique. But since good midrange cone drivers can achieve pretty much the same or better (especially in the low-end), while being less cumbersome than this ATC driver, the question is whether the mid-dome configuration is really that useful in the first place. This is my opinion at least.

Yep, and I would be willing to accept that, among the very limited (for good reason IMO) pool of midrange domes, the ATC is in the top tier, although apparently it falls significantly short of the Neumann that replaced it. As to your opinion that it performs better below 500-600Hz than the Neumann, this strikes me as highly speculative. It's not impossible, but without measurements, who knows...?

Anyway, when I argued it was not the best midrange out there, I was comparing it to both cones and domes. After all, it's what comes out of the driver that matters.

In the context of both dome and cone midrange, the ATC is very good, but not the best out there, and certainly not any better than some cone midrange drivers costing a fraction of the price.

 

[thewas]

They are using it much higher than the ATC ideally we would want the frequencies above 200hz coming from one unit?

As long as the driver distances are smaller than half of the wavelength at the crossover frequency to not cause vertical loving problems and there is directivity discontinuity there is no such requirement. The woofer/mid transition is there usually less problematic than the mid/tweeter transition due to much larger wavelengths and usually almost spherical radiation.

 

[andreasmaaan]

KEF R3

That was due to a room mode in the bass which has nothing to do with the R3.
In the Revel F35 review he addresses it after putting in one or two PEQ filters:

The R3 sounds as every bit as good as the measurements indicated

Mild but broad mid scoop and mono testing on a relatively narrow dispersion speaker. KEF's strange port tuning might also play a role.
EDIT: and the room mode issue, didn't remember this

Let's not forget either that the measurements are not supposed to be able to predict which speakers Amir will like best.

 

[Chrise36]

That was due to a room mode in the bass which has nothing to do with the R3.
In the Revel F35 review he addresses it after putting in one or two PEQ filters:



The R3 sounds as every bit as good as the measurements indicated

He also liked the ATC after EQ

Let's not forget either that the measurements are not supposed to be able to predict which speakers Amir will like best.

Are we comparing with or without EQ? He also liked the ATC after EQ.

 

[Chrise36]

Yep, and I would be willing to accept that, among the very limited (for good reason IMO) pool of midrange domes, the ATC is in the top tier, although apparently it falls significantly short of the Neumann that replaced it. As to your opinion that it performs better below 500-600Hz than the Neumann, this strikes me as highly speculative. It's not impossible, but without measurements, who knows...?

Anyway, when I argued it was not the best midrange out there, I was comparing it to both cones and domes. After all, it's what comes out of the driver that matters.

In the context of both dome and cone midrange, the ATC is very good, but not the best out there, and certainly not any better than some cone midrange drivers costing a fraction of the price.

My feeling is the ATC is too expensive to reproduce.Neumann managed to build/buy a similar unit in a much lower price.

 

[tw99]

Pretending in house stuff is somehow magically better and turning up one's nose at off the shelf components that would improve the speakers is audiophile BS, just like tuning by ear and guessing and checking with a crossover or purposefully using a 1st order crossover just for marketing is BS.

I don't think it's audiophile BS at all. They've just chosen a super-conservative approach, and are totally upfront about it. There's plenty of choice of other options out there for those that want slightly flatter measurements, modern dsp technology or whatever. The overriding philosophy is to be able to support the products for 20 years plus. That's different to the "hey we have a new speaker this year that's 29x better than last year's" that is more common in the industry.

If I was looking for new speakers today, I'm not sure I'd be looking to get scm50s because they're soooo expensive, but it doesn't stop me respecting what they've chosen to do.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I don't think it's audiophile BS at all. They've just chosen a super-conservative approach, and are totally upfront about it. There's plenty of choice of other options out there for those that want slightly flatter measurements, modern dsp technology or whatever. The overriding philosophy is to be able to support the products for 20 years plus. That's different to the "hey we have a new speaker this year that's 29x better than last year's" that is more common in the industry.

If I was looking for new speakers today, I'm not sure I'd be looking to get scm50s because they're soooo expensive, but it doesn't stop me respecting what they've chosen to do.

Genelec supports their monitors for about 30 years and are also able to innovate and and improve the SQ, so I don't think these things are a contradiction

 

[andreasmaaan]

My feeling is the ATC is too expensive to reproduce.Neumann managed to build/buy a similar unit in a much lower price.

Seems plausible, sure. But doesn't change that the Neumann is objectively better.

Are we comparing with

Neither I'm comparing drivers' objective performance.