I think I will stop this discussion now. I simply can't waste more time having a conversation with someone who clearly doesn't understand, or not even reading the replies, or both, probably caused by the fact you lack any experience in mixing music. I think we leave it at that, is that okay for you?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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
sure to just stop the endless debate/discussion on that, especially when I don't get it what's the mixing relevance on this topic, which in the beginning is if the said speaker is better while you failed to explain to me or some others why a more neutral tool (speaker), taking out the adaption to old gear part, with the same procedures and the aid of other tools (aid of NS-10 for mixing lens, or like the new focal solo6 having the single driver mode or even some sort of EQ to boost certain frequency of a neutral speaker etc.) is not preferred. it seems that you are as not understanding/reading my points as I am to you.
But you are wrong that the NS-10 was used in the studio to somehow get a reference to something that regular people had at home, that's the typical audiophile misunderstanding of what a secondary monitor is used for in a studio. The NS-10 was used as a "looking glass" for details in the mix, a secondary monitor that was highly revealing of faults mostly in the critical area of the mix. If nothing wrong could be heard in the midrange of the mix in that little monitor, it most likely couldn't be heard anywhere else, no matter the end-users reproduction systems quality, good or bad.
But with that said, I'm sure you can find some mixing engineers who used it both as main monitors and got the idea that the NS-10 was representative of most speakers in people's homes.
Note that some roll off in treble and fast bass decay are desirable in a studio - especially at higher SPL typical of live music (where loads of compression may not yet have been applied, as it is often done for final production for consumers). So measurements are ONLY part of the story - it seems listening levels and intended application are affecting a listeners preferences. Of course I know this from live sound reproduction where narrow dispersion horns are often preferred to control directivity to a large audience and arrays are used to attain better throw.
It seems to me the measurement types need to learn more about what works better in specific application - horses for courses. There is no reference set of measurements that defines a perfect speaker - because application varies and this changes the requirements. So all these didactic attitudes dealing in absolutes just demonstrate puerile ignorance and inexperience.
Last edited:
It's not hard at all to understand your idea of how things work, it's the same basic audiophile idea that as long as the mixing engineer's sound system is considered completely neutral measurement-wise, the final mix will also sound natural and tonally "neutral". That's simply not the case for most people mixing music because their hearing will adapt fast to the tonal balance of the music that is mixed. And at that point, it doesn't really matter if the sound system was completely neutral measurement-wise, to begin with.
But it helps that the mixing engineer finds his sound system has a neutral sound to him while listening to well-known good reference material, even if his preference for a neutral sound happens to have, as an example, a bit more elevated bass than the average person, otherwise (and without reference material) he will probably overcompensate for the (according to him) lack of bass and the result will end up bass-heavy anyway.
And just for the sake of it, don't get the idea that this got anything specifically to do with ATC, I consider them to be on the neutral side sound-wise.
Which, the roll off and decay time is a type of measurement..
I think I didn’t disagree with this part of your points in any time, maybe it’s language. It doesn’t matter much for a system to be completely neutral (which nothing on earth produced by human will ever be). Nor any human will be completely consistent in their judgment from time to time, that’s agreed completely.It's not hard at all to understand your idea of how things work, it's the same basic audiophile idea that as long as the mixing engineer's sound system is considered completely neutral measurement-wise, the final mix will also sound natural and tonally "neutral". That's simply not the case for most people mixing music because their hearing will adapt fast to the tonal balance of the music that is mixed. And at that point, it doesn't really matter if the sound system was completely neutral measurement-wise, to begin with.
But it helps that the mixing engineer finds his sound system has a neutral sound to him while listening to well-known good reference material, even if his preference for a neutral sound happens to have, as an example, a bit more elevated bass than the average person, otherwise (and without reference material) he will probably overcompensate for the (according to him) lack of bass and the result will end up bass-heavy anyway.
And just for the sake of it, don't get the idea that this got anything specifically to do with ATC, I consider them to be on the neutral side sound-wise.
Reference materials are a must for sure, same as white balance is needed for photography as a calibrated equipment can’t make a guy to perceive white consistently without a ref, and audio have a bigger circle of confusion than sight.
My point is never a standard speaker in a standard room must be used to produce good mix nor reference materials can be thrown away with the neutral speaker. And I can’t bother less about how the engineer do the mix, if he can use a gramophone to do it great, it’s his freedom.
I forgot how long ago in this thread it’s derailed to what makes a good mixing engineer or a mixing engineer’s tool, it started as a discussion on ATC monitors, being lacking in some department as SOTA.
And tbh at least personally speaking, I admire and think they are good and that’s the bash or Criticism or whatever you call it - say they aren’t SOTA and overpriced (looking at domestic free standing speakers anyway, soffit mounted main monitors have no clues for public to determine the performance or price). If for something say, Bose, or some lifestyle only sound making device, I will just say they are crap for being hi-fi.
It makes me recall the debate on suspension of Porsche, they keep using strut front suspension and performs good, so some defenders saying those who criticise them not using wishbone suspension being unprofessional or explains why it don’t work, only when the 992 GT3 did have a wishbone front and bam, outrun the Ferraris. Point is that they are neutral speakers on axis, but if they can get directivity right it will be better, not a worse speaker.
Yes and what is the point of these circular arguments that a measurement is in and of itself sufficient (without understanding intended use). And what point is it to take Earl Geddes and Floyd Toole statements as being absolute - I don’t think either of them ever speak in such absolute terms as the folks here. Just looking on this site at other threads - there is a cult of self anointed elitists who worship measurements in an absolute sense rather than being pragmatic about things. Elitists here are questioning the choices and gullibility of audio professionals all over the globe solely on some measurements.
For example, I have not seen anywhere on this thread a discussion of thermal compression and the steep rise in distortion at high SPL that plagues most speakers like the O300s. Funny that! ATC are particularly good at clean dynamics and low distortion at extreme SPL - the kind of speaker that can present the mixing engineer a window on highly dynamic raw signal of actual uncompressed audio - prior to compression for consumers. If any of the measurement types here thought about it then they would realize that Floyd Toole proved that not ONLY dispersion is important but also low distortion. Many speakers in fact almost all speakers are pretty good at low SPL - but very few can provide similar performance at extreme SPL. A studio does not need extreme SPL day in day out, however, having a powerful magnifying microscope to zoom in on the recording or being able to check how a dance track might sound (bass check) at high club levels or simply to impress multi-millionaire clients and their producers at a listening session is very important to the viable business of a high end studio. For large studio mains, owners/staff are often looking for not only the most revealing and reliable designs but also the most impressive speaker (loud, dynamic, clean) that they can buy. And they often choose ATC and Genelec. And they aren’t suffering group think, hypnosis or being hood winked by crafty marketing from disingenuous engineering companies. More than likely they are trying to keep up with the Jones’ - who have top of the line ATC soffit mounted in an architecturally designed acoustically engineered space.
Last edited:
DSJR
Major Contributor
Quite some time ago, I was told that senior mix engineers often took their favourite monitors with them for important work. When I owned big ATC actives it was speakers like Urei's for example. I learned that balance and recording/mix/mastering engineers can adapt to the regular monitors they use and 'hear through' them.
NS10's originally were fine if used on a bookshelf tight to the wall, the 'glare' being mellowed by bass re-enforcement into a 'brightly lit' tone which was very clear and not unpleasant. It's the 'very clear' and smear-free presentation which I suspect enabled sound people to hear deep into the part of the frequency band which can make or break a mix.
Looking back and reading some of the negative comments in this thread, I've heard active ATC's sound bland and almost muffled, most notably a dem at a show using the curvy but to me ugly 70ASL with their top preamp (SCA2) and fed by a Linn CD12 player. Knowing the source and having owned that preamp, I remember both items 'understating' the musical dynamics a bit. I never heard the 70's again, but would have liked to have heard them with source and preamp offering a more natural perspective of dynamics (back then, the UK made AVI preamp was a good sonic match to domestic active ATC's despite the need for RCA to XLR interconnects).
---
I know, I know, all ancient history for you guys where ten years ago is 'Jurassic era' basically, but one more thought before I shut up - the peeps here who rate ATC's and own/have used them at length for some time - Do ANY of you feel they're still fully state of the art as accused by the detractors here, or do 'we' feel they're damned good well established monitors which give a predictable and good sound in a wide range of rooms and enable well mixed final recordings if used professionally? Compared to many domestic speakers loaded by boomy ports, I found all ATC's to not be so bothered by positioning (believe it or not) and to a large degree, they could be 'plonked down and played' as recommended by the maker, with little audiophool angst as to exact toe-in, height within reason (they had papers discussing optimum positioning) and so on.
NS10's originally were fine if used on a bookshelf tight to the wall, the 'glare' being mellowed by bass re-enforcement into a 'brightly lit' tone which was very clear and not unpleasant. It's the 'very clear' and smear-free presentation which I suspect enabled sound people to hear deep into the part of the frequency band which can make or break a mix.
Looking back and reading some of the negative comments in this thread, I've heard active ATC's sound bland and almost muffled, most notably a dem at a show using the curvy but to me ugly 70ASL with their top preamp (SCA2) and fed by a Linn CD12 player. Knowing the source and having owned that preamp, I remember both items 'understating' the musical dynamics a bit. I never heard the 70's again, but would have liked to have heard them with source and preamp offering a more natural perspective of dynamics (back then, the UK made AVI preamp was a good sonic match to domestic active ATC's despite the need for RCA to XLR interconnects).
---
I know, I know, all ancient history for you guys where ten years ago is 'Jurassic era' basically, but one more thought before I shut up - the peeps here who rate ATC's and own/have used them at length for some time - Do ANY of you feel they're still fully state of the art as accused by the detractors here, or do 'we' feel they're damned good well established monitors which give a predictable and good sound in a wide range of rooms and enable well mixed final recordings if used professionally? Compared to many domestic speakers loaded by boomy ports, I found all ATC's to not be so bothered by positioning (believe it or not) and to a large degree, they could be 'plonked down and played' as recommended by the maker, with little audiophool angst as to exact toe-in, height within reason (they had papers discussing optimum positioning) and so on.
I honestly wonder what ATC engineers do all day.
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
- Messages
- 590
- Likes
- 989
Here are a few (digestible) references to supposed psychoacoustic principles in established audio publications that should remind you of audio snake oil marketing.
Some basic and more broad in their subjects, some closely related to our work. The AES one in particular about canonical spaces is very interesting.
Let me know if it's not enough.
Have a good read.
Merci beaucoup
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,904
- Likes
- 16,937
Many of these are well known, I don't see anything about your "self-noises cues principle". Just linking to existing literature is not enough, anyone can do that.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,904
- Likes
- 16,937
On the first I don't agree, on the second the faster decay of the NS10 doesn't bring much if doesn't really have bass, look at the O198 of the same article which has fast decay with some actual decent bass, this is good engineering. (nowadays there are even better successors).
But these are measurements you just wrote about?
Maybe because this thread is about ATC? Also I have seen in other threads that owners agree that the old O300 are not suitable for high SPL as compact closed boxes.
Not really better though than other SOTA monitors of the same size class, so this argument doesn't really hold.
They seek to square the circle.
Self noises cues are a type of environmental cues, specifically tailored to our studio design's environmental response. I don't understand what you don't understand. How is this confusing?
If many of these are well known to you, then I guess you read them. Which makes you not putting two and two together all the more surprising.
You're in the troll category I fear. I have no interest in having any sort of conversation in here. There's nothing to be gained.
Let's be nice, everyone .
