ATC speakers / Monitors

[Ilkless]

I don't see why we are mollycoddling brazen anti-intellectualists who refuse to engage with the research evidence already given to them to refute their points, and dismiss such evidence without being qualified to do so, or raising anything remotely as valid. I'm not sure how it is at Gearspace or whatever superficially empirical-but-actually-indulgent-of-subjective-waffle forum, but intuition and anecdotes don't fly here to refute research.

And now we have to hear them act the victims for being challenged robustly with empirical research they have clearly never encountered in their lives despite passing themselves off as "engineers".

No one has challenged the phase/transient audibility research of Lipshitz/Vanderkooy and Möller et al. linked further up this thread but seem content on referring to some ineffable quality of ATC transients beyond the effect of less room mode excitation. Not to forget the overwhelming data on directivity.

And the disingenuous shifting of goalposts that ATCs work best with a room built around them and therefore anechoic data is irrelevant. As if an evidence-based, modern design wouldn't perform better in every demonstrably psychoacoustically-relevant metric when a room is similarly built around it. Be it a KH420, 8361/8351 + optional subs, S360, M2, Kii BXT, DD 8C + subs. But somehow a provably lower amount of colouration is always "clinical" and "cold" to a fault, rather than accurate. The KH420 I heard was immensely colourful and revealing because the recordings played on it were.

 

[YSC]

And the disingenuous shifting of goalposts that ATCs work best with a room built around them and therefore anechoic data is irrelevant. As if an evidence-based, modern design wouldn't perform better in every demonstrably psychoacoustically-relevant metric when a room is similarly built around it. Be it a KH420, 8361/8351 + optional subs, S360, M2, Kii BXT, DD 8C + subs. But somehow a provably lower amount of colouration is always "clinical" and "cold" to a fault, rather than accurate. The KH420 I heard was immensely colourful and revealing because the recordings played on it were.

And this is my whole point of arguement. Yea the atc (a good but far from best in important matrix’s to competitions) working with a room tailored to them of course will sound great if not better than other speakers in that same room. As that room is tailored to cancel out/minimise the flaws of of them, hence you randomly put something else inside and it will measure/ sound weird compared to the ATC. As for Northwood yes your built room should be great but then if same effort (not same room) is built around the other speaker choice I am pretty sure you’re able to built a room with similar if not better results with other speakers if they are not far from anechoic neutral with good extension and low distortion.

For the above quote saying in room measurement is the most important. From all those research shared here it seems the conclusion is basically above Schroeder Freqency direct sound affects us more on sound listened and imaging, so one would feel the anechoic flat speaker a better one above those. That’s why the big guys always built their costly anechoic chambers or develop system like Klippel NFS to measure them during development. Below that Schroeder Freqency we just use the room treatment and eq, multiple sub to fix the issues. That complete setup resulting in room measurement is what is important

 

[turnip_up]

That is not correct as our hearing is more complex than a measured in-room response at the listening position, for example above transition frequency the perceived tonality is mainly influenced by the direct sound. That's why also just equalising some loudspeakers to a desired LP target isn't usually successful, see the first link in my signature about more details about it.

But that isn't what I said. You said the word measurement, not I. I am simply referencing the reality the Toole's work is built on preference based listening tests, and not the other way around. To put it another way - where do you exist relative to every single one of the identified trends in all of Toole's tests? Because you aren't a trend line... you're a data point. As individuals, we all are.

Ostensibly, I don't think Torbachkristensen or Dominik's points are that far apart at all. If individuals have implemented much of Toole's testing methods and have resulting data that doesn't necessarily align wholly with Toole's, who are we to argue? Likewise, you can flick to page three hundred and something and see the relatively recent revisit to preference-based listening tests of newer speaker designs and see the that there wasn't really any difference in preference ratings between two speakers with spinorama data that would be considered... quite different on ASR.

Much of ASR seems to infer the complete opposite - that we are all just a trend line, and that our hearing really isn't that complex because we all hear like the same robot.

 

[caught gesture]

Aren’t the measuremeets that special?
Is that why you aren’t keen to share?
Keith

What’s your problem? Show me your accountant certified sales figures. Aren’t they that special? You seem to have a problem with ATC and, by association, now a well-respected acoustic designer who uses ATC monitors in his installations. What’s with the sniping now with Northward?

 

[turnip_up]

What’s your problem? Show me your accountant certified sales figures. Aren’t they that special? You seem to have a problem with ATC and, by association, now a well-respected acoustic designer who uses ATC monitors in his installations. What’s with the sniping now with Northward?

I wholehearted agree. The tone of Keith's posts have been absolutely reprehensible.

The tone of a handful of people is absolutely reprehensible.

 

[Blockader]

But that isn't what I said. You said the word measurement, not I. I am simply referencing the reality the Toole's work is built on preference based listening tests, and not the other way around. To put it another way - where do you exist relative to every single one of the identified trends in all of Toole's tests? Because you aren't a trend line... you're a data point. As individuals, we all are.

Ostensibly, I don't think Torbachkristensen or Dominik's points are that far apart at all. If individuals have implemented much of Toole's testing methods and have resulting data that doesn't necessarily align wholly with Toole's, who are we to argue? Likewise, you can flick to page three hundred and something and see the relatively recent revisit to preference-based listening tests of newer speaker designs and see the that there wasn't really any difference in preference ratings between two speakers with spinorama data that would be considered... quite different on ASR.

Much of ASR seems to infer the complete opposite - that we are all just a trend line, and that our hearing really isn't that complex because we all hear like the same robot.

This is not about preference ratings or Toole. Timbre of reflections in nearfield and farfield listening distances are determined by the directivity of speakers. Speakers with good directivity form reflections with great accuracy and resolution. ATC is not one of them. They are not accurate in that regard. ATC is stuck in 80s with their designs. I dont care what kind of sound signature you prefer but precedence effect makes it very clear that we humans like what we hear more when reflections and direct sound have very similar tonal balance profiles between each other.

i am writing with my phone, I couldn't go into details much.

 

[Ilkless]

What’s your problem? Show me your accountant certified sales figures. Aren’t they that special? You seem to have a problem with ATC and, by association, now a well-respected acoustic designer who uses ATC monitors in his installations. What’s with the sniping now with Northward?

Unlike the likes of Gearspace, we aren't impressed with "well-respected acoustic designers" ignorant of the empirical evidence of psychoacoustics of directivity, phase and timing, but instead trade in rules of thumb, intuition and anecdotes.

 

[Geert]

Why I think the estimated in room response is generally irrelevant, is because so much of what makes up the perceived sound quality is 300hz and below. Uneven response in 20-300hz can make any speaker sound terrible, while anomalies higher up in the spectrum is more forgiving

Anomalies in the frequency response can sound equally bad anywhere in the frequency spectrum, and I would say especially in the upper midrange where our hearing is the most sensitive (according to the equal loudness curve). As Toole illustrated the low end allows lots of wiggle room, as its a matter of preference. Lots of people even enjoy music on small speakers which don't reach below 100Hz. It is known our brain makes up missing fundamental frequencies via the harmonics. Try a high cut above 300Hz and see how enjoyable that sounds.

“Anechoic” in quotation marks was just a comment on the amount of anechoic data being posted, where I don’t find it quite as important in actual roomdesign and listening experience.

You believe anechoic data is not that important, while earlier you confirmed higher up the spectrum that data gives a good representation of what we hear. That doesn't add up.

however EQ’ing and adding subs to alleviate room modes is not a good solution IME, it does not come close to well controlled decay times

No one on this forum underestimates the importance of good acoustics. However, in a domestic environment the options to improve it are very limit. That means that in practise for the most people on this forum multiple sub's and EQ-ing are the best solution. And even in professional studios EQ-ing is often used to handle the lowest room modes.

But it is worth remembering that narrow bandwidth PEQ introduces significant amounts of either A) Pre-ringing with FIR filters B) Phase Shift with IIR Filters.

When done well, PEQ actually corrects phase shifts and there won't be any audible pre-ringing.

in a room with even decay, FR becomes less critical and can be easier adjusted to taste/target

A good room allows you to hear the sound more accurately (like using a good headphone), so how can the frequency response become less critical? And why for a good room would we choose speakers that need to be corrected? More even directivity also works in a good room. You think Genelec and Neumann are wasting their time on things that don't matter?

 

[Purité Audio]

I'm not keen to share because the measurements of a FTB room aren't trivial to interprete since those spaces are dual (hence there are two types of measurements made: speakers to engineer/room response and room to engineer response also known as "self-noises cues environmental response".)

Both aspects are fundamental to the performance and reliable translation of the work. Those spaces are a system of systems. It's very far from "how flat is the FR".

Honestly, seeing the kind of misinterpretations of "normal" data I witness on a regular basis, I can't see how sharing that data with users that come across as only out for blood but that don't necessarily have the tools or background information/ knowledge to understand what they're actually looking at is going to be a pleasant conversation for me.

This "death to expertise" mentality over the internuts, where it's more about some users with no actual real world experience or background doing all they can to prove the experts wrong online and get their ego boost (often relying on data they did not understand or claiming impossible / unrealistic results) rather than a constructive, open conversation.

I have zero time and energy to give to that.

Irl, this seldom happens. So I much, much prefer geeking out about that stuff around a drink on a sunny terrace, or during a hang at the office / studio or construction site.

I share data, just not in all circumstances or to just anybody who asks.

Just a REW plot from the main listening position would be fine, I am certain many here would be interested.
Your work is held in high esteem, it would just be nice to see some corroborative measurements.
Thanks,
Keith

 

[Geert]

Honestly, seeing the kind of misinterpretations of "normal" data I witness on a regular basis, I can't see how sharing that data with users that come across as only out for blood but that don't necessarily have the tools or background information/ knowledge to understand what they're actually looking at is going to be a pleasant conversation for me.

I fully understand your position. On the other hand, by not sharing any knowledge or data people will never understand how, in their eyes, outdated speaker design can work in a studio. The general believe of the audiophile community is that most engineers are mainly using crappy speakers and don't even know how music is supposed to sound.

So anything that can provide insights is welcome I believe. We'll help to manage trolls.

 

[tuga]

A good room allows you to hear the sound more accurately (like using a good headphone), so how can the frequency response become less critical? And why for a good room would we choose speakers that need to be corrected? More even directivity also works in a good room. You think Genelec and Neumann are wasting their time on things that don't matter?

Most if not all control and mixing rooms are treated for side-wall and ceiling early reflections. This makes off-axis response less or not critical.

For domestic applications, where the chance of no treatment is extremely likely, narrow directivity is better than wide as that will not only avoid the nefarious effects of early reflections but also deal with the probability of asymmetrical side wall and/or reflections.

 

[Ilkless]

I fully understand your position. On the other hand, by not sharing any knowledge or data people will never understand how, in their eyes, outdated speaker design can work in a studio. The general believe of the audiophile community is that most engineers are mainly using crappy speakers and don't even know how music is supposed to sound.

So anything that can provide insights is welcome I believe. We'll help to manage trolls.

Not that such in-room measurements with legacy speaker designs and old-school brute force acoustics are terribly technically interesting compared to what users here like @dallasjustice, @mitchco and @Dialectic are pulling off with state-of-the-art speakers, state-of-the-art DSP (including really avant garde stuff like BACCH), state-of-the-art configurations like optimised multisubs in realistic domestic environments with comparatively light treatment.

 

[thewas]

But that isn't what I said. You said the word measurement, not I. I am simply referencing the reality the Toole's work is built on preference based listening tests, and not the other way around. To put it another way - where do you exist relative to every single one of the identified trends in all of Toole's tests? Because you aren't a trend line... you're a data point. As individuals, we all are.

The blindly performed preference tests of Toole and Olive have shown though a strong correlation to measurements like smooth on and off axis responses.

Ostensibly, I don't think Torbachkristensen or Dominik's points are that far apart at all. If individuals have implemented much of Toole's testing methods and have resulting data that doesn't necessarily align wholly with Toole's, who are we to argue? Likewise, you can flick to page three hundred and something and see the relatively recent revisit to preference-based listening tests of newer speaker designs and see the that there wasn't really any difference in preference ratings between two speakers with spinorama data that would be considered... quite different on ASR.

Much of ASR seems to infer the complete opposite - that we are all just a trend line, and that our hearing really isn't that complex because we all hear like the same robot.

The problem though is that the most normal individuals have not performed such testing methods which need blinded condition, level matching or even placement of the loudspeakers in the same exact position like the Harman loudspeaker shuffler does. And even if then few individuals should for whatever reasons prefer than something else, that is not really the point of the discussion here as taste cannot be discussed, what is questioned though is a supposed objective superiority which isn't seen in the data. I have no problem when someone said he prefers A to B, but only when he claims A is objectively better than B without delivering proof for it.

 

[thewas]

Most if not all control and mixing rooms are treated for side-wall and ceiling early reflections. This makes off-axis response less or not critical.

As in Toole's book that is though a more old school studio design where side wall reflections where strongly damped as a result of the poor directivity of many monitors like some Altecs back then, nowadays less absorption and more diffusion is used as side wall reflections can be very helpful im stereo reproduction for parameters like envelopment, even more for mastering where ideally the setup shouldn't be too different to the final domestic rooms.

 

[tuga]

As in Toole's book that is though a more old school studio design where side wall reflections where strongly damped as a result of the poor directivity of many monitors like some Altecs back then, nowadays less absorption and more diffusion is used as side wall reflections can be very helpful im stereo reproduction for parameters like envelopment, even more for mastering where ideally the setup shouldn't be too different to the final domestic rooms.

The RFZ design doesn't use absoption, instead it deflects towards the rear wall, improving both imaging and perceived "envelopment".
Would you be able to provide data supporting the idea that a higher number of modern studios use early-reflection diffusion instead of deflection?

Focusing on "envelopment" higher than any other parameter is not old school but Toole's school. It is his preference but does not mean it's everyone's or the ideal to aim form.

 

[tuga]

As in Toole's book that is though a more old school studio design where side wall reflections where strongly damped as a result of the poor directivity of many monitors like some Altecs back then, nowadays less absorption and more diffusion is used as side wall reflections can be very helpful im stereo reproduction for parameters like envelopment, even more for mastering where ideally the setup shouldn't be too different to the final domestic rooms.

Also, the goal in the studio is to hear the mix. Add "envelopment" though room-generated distortion will interfere with the main goal of monitoring.

 

[Torbachkristensen]

Anomalies in the frequency response can sound equally bad anywhere in the frequency spectrum, and I would say especially in the upper midrange where our hearing is the most sensitive (according to the equal loudness curve). As Toole illustrated the low end allows lots of wiggle room, as its a matter of preference. Lots of people even enjoy music on small speakers which don't reach below 100Hz. It is known our brain makes up missing fundamental frequencies via the harmonics. Try a high cut above 300Hz and see how enjoyable that sounds.



You believe anechoic data is not that important, while earlier you confirmed higher up the spectrum that data gives a good representation of what we hear. That doesn't add up.



No one on this forum underestimates the importance of good acoustics. However, in a domestic environment the options to improve it are very limit. That means that in practise for the most people on this forum multiple sub's and EQ-ing are the best solution. And even in professional studios EQ-ing is often used to handle the lowest room modes.



When done well, PEQ actually corrects phase shifts and there won't be any audible pre-ringing.



A good room allows you to hear the sound more accurately (like using a good headphone), so how can the frequency response become less critical? And why for a good room would we choose speakers that need to be corrected? More even directivity also works in a good room. You think Genelec and Neumann are wasting their time on things that don't matter?

There are no “anomalies in the mid-range”, speakers that need to be corrected or other implied contradictions in my post. You are reading your assumptions into it. Your point about band limited reproduction is moot - that is not relevant for what was discussed. Psychoacoustic phenomena is not directly about sound quality, but how we perceive sound and how our brains can fill in the blanks. That does not make it desirable.

Point is that FR is never perfect in a room, and it doesn’t have to be as long as the compromises are balanced and system is harmonious. Unless there are obvious deficiencies of course. Even decay time is more important than percect on-axis FR, IME. Neumann and Genelec are great speakers, I have zero problems with any of them - they are just not my preference. I would rather build a room around a pair of ATC’s, as IMO they exceed the others in most aspects when properly integrated into a room - and of course that also means adressing aspects of the speaker that does not work well as a free standing installation. No one has said the opposite - I have in fact multiple times stated that I would not prefer them under circumstances that does not emphasize the inherent qualities. And that is basically what it is all about, finding the right design for a system to perform desirably. You just can not get what they offer in a room like Northwards from any other speaker-room system. Some may think that is not good enough, to my ears it is close to perfect

The blindly performed preference tests of Toole and Olive have shown though a strong correlation to measurements like smooth on and off axis responses.


The problem though is that the most normal individuals have not performed such testing methods which need blinded condition, level matching or even placement of the loudspeakers in the same exact position like the Harman loudspeaker shuffler does. And even if then few individuals should for whatever reasons prefer than something else, that is not really the point of the discussion here as taste cannot be discussed, what is questioned though is a supposed objective superiority which isn't seen in the data. I have no problem when someone said he prefers A to B, but only when he claims A is objectively better than B without delivering proof for it.

Who here have said that ATC were objectively a better speaker in all use cases? I certainly haven’t. For someone like Northward it is about consistency and controlled environment and results everytime, as that is what his clients expects. So it makes sense to create what he deems an end-game speaker-room system to employ everytime, instead of having to build around a new speaker design everytime. And for designs like his driver quality is high on the priority list - few manufacturers offer the consistently great performance and output as the ATC pro series. Compared to alternatives (PMC, quested, Augspurger or customs designs) ATC is basically the better speaker AND a bargain price.

However in a well treated and balanced room, I personally do not like the narrow directivity of something like the Dutch 8C, as it ends up sounding rather small and somewhat dull. But they can be a perfect compromise in a less controlled environment, where narrow directivity is desirable, and the quite obvious low mid distortion can be accepted.

 

[thewas]

The RFZ design doesn't use absoption, instead it deflects towards the rear wall, improving both imaging and perceived "envelopment".

That's what I wrote above with diffusion.

Would you be able to provide data supporting the idea that a higher number of modern studios use early-reflection diffusion instead of deflection?

Only what Toole writes, can you provide any data supporting the opposite? By the way I didn't write about early but side wall reflections.

 

[thewas]

Who here have said that ATC were objectively a better speaker in all use cases? I certainly haven’t. For someone like Northward it is about consistency and controlled environment and results everytime, as that is what his clients expects. So it makes sense to create what he deems an end-game speaker-room system to employ everytime, instead of having to build around a new speaker design everytime.

That is absolutely fine as a part of his job, same as the NS-10 being a consistency standard around different studios but not really the centre of discussion here.

And for designs like his driver quality is high on the priority list - few manufacturers offer the consistently great performance and output as the ATC pro series. Compared to alternatives (PMC, quested, Augspurger or customs designs) ATC is basically the better speaker AND a bargain price.

You can always find worse examples, why don't you compare with Genelec and Neumann which also have highest driver quality and are usually cheaper?

 

[Frgirard]

That's what I wrote above with diffusion.

Only what Toole writes, can you provide any data supporting the opposite? By the way I didn't write about early but si wall reflections.

The rfz is clearly define. Réflexion free zone.
1. Speakers in wall.
2. No réflexion at the LP.
The way to treat the reflection can be made by absorption or not.