ATC speakers / Monitors

[Torbachkristensen]

That’s what I call part of what SOTA speakers can do. Is it perfect? Of course not, one could simply eq it for even better results, bass distortion can be better with say some aid of sub to kill off room mode.

No it can not just be EQ'd, that is not how nulls and room modes work. You can flatten the frequency response peaks, but it will not necessarily sound better, as decay time especially also has to be taken into account. These forums are simply only scientific, when it coincides with the desired personal opinion.

I have left my measurements (added waterfall) here, for anyone truly interested in optimal system design to review. This discussion about directivity and validity of newer design etc is over for me, and I don't have any objections to their validity, I was certainly impressed with both Kii and C8. But they could not stand up to what was in the walls, and my room is pretty close to optimal for either designs.

Again if anyone is interested in how a system like this actually sounds, swing by if you want.

 

[Purité Audio]

I will dig out my 8c/kii/ATc active 50 measurements, in domestic rooms the cardioid designs have significantly tidier FR, and that is true in every single room I have measured.
I agree with Torb though the absolute ‘ideal’ is a fully treated room within a room .
Unfortunately for domestic listeners that simply isn’t feasible designs such as the 8Cs/kiis are designed to go some way towards that ideal.
Keith

 

[Torbachkristensen]

the D&D in Erin's room overlay shows it's actually flatter than the ATC above 50hz by quite a bit.

No it does not show that. If that is really your take on these measurements, then it is completely impossible to discuss. Do you mean 500hz? That is no surprise as I have a big flat desk in front of me, that will inevitably create problems in the mids and high-mids. Again, I stated this in the original post. And I would not necessarily call it flatter. Different yes.

take aside the roll off past 10khz, this is a heavily treated mixing room of yours vs. an audiophile's living room, which, all that furnitures and furnance etc. don't have those massive bass traps etc. clarity wise I can't comment for sure, but taken into account of the total cost one would need, and in the listening environment required, don't you think the D&D do quite some amazing achievement for the tech?

See above post. I am only advocating that the design goal can not be taken out of the in-room integration. You have to adapt the room to the speakers or vice versa, but none of the solutions in this thread is right or wrong. I would certainly expect a pair of ATC50 or 100 to sound worse in Erin's room, and the typical consumer as well. Much worse. But that does not destroy the inherent good qualities of the speaker.

 

[YSC]

No it does not show that. If that is really your take on these measurements, then it is completely impossible to discuss.

See above post. I am only advocating that the design goal can not be taken out of the in-room integration. You have to adapt the room to the speakers or vice versa, but none of the solutions in this thread is right or wrong. I would certainly expect a pair of ATC50 or 100 to sound worse in Erin's room, and the typical consumer as well. Much worse. But that does not destroy the inherent good qualities of the speaker.

overlain with roughly the same alignment. FR wise they don't really differs that much if any,

have to say again the ATC with the room as a whole is of course, better when FR are similar and the decay, distortion is considered. (If they failed in that with the much more massive drivers, higher power demand and all those room treatments I won't say it's not SOTA compared to 8C, I will say that it's a robbery and crap).

point is, what SOTA is and if the company keep up with what can be done, and 8C is NOT the be all end on, killing everything else holy grail solution to every single situation. can ATC achieve similarly in a more domestic solution and price point, in a living room? very probably not. if the best ATC is better than the 8C in the pro studio having to do all the sub integration, various sound treatment? sure it is or it will be dead soon if not already. and just saying, if the 8C in your room will be even better measuring? sure, which I doubt it FR wise won't be better than the ATC, distortion will always depend on volume, which, even in the threads recommending the 8C, will state that if you listen far field, and requires volume, you better add sub or having a floorstander.

 

[lherrm]

I don't have any objections to their validity, I was certainly impressed with both Kii and C8. But they could not stand up to what was in the walls, and my room is pretty close to optimal for either designs.

Do you have the same in-room measurements as your ATC's for the Kii and 8C?

 

[turnip_up]

I think this is going to blurring the subject.

For a speaker to be "better" as a general terms, it can be better in 2 ways IMO:

1) being a more neutral speaker, with parameters like directivity and say, in room issue countering measures etc. being better.

• the more anechoically neutral, and better say bass mode attenuation methods implemented, especially those similar to say, GLM can get one closer to what the recording actually sounded like, no extra colouration to the music, hence, more High Fidelity.
• more even directivity makes EQ in room more even and less prone to weird effects

2) having a tuning where in a "typical" room (well, I think we know that no room is really typical), or in a controlled environment, most ppl would prefer.

if a speaker failed in both, it is by definition not a "better" one objectively, but then it's another issue for individual choice, say if I am old and almost deaf to highs, a massivly sloping up highs profile will sound more realistic to me, just like using hearing aids, but then that tuning, is tailored for me, so not really a better speaker as it will sound like crap and off to those with normal hearing. or say I am tone deaf, anything making a sound would work, so I treasure a fancy design over anything, that's not a wrong choice.

So it's not bashing one who owns and loved their ATC being (please forgive me if it sounded rude) "stupid", "trowing cash into the sea" etc. still, it's not SOTA but still very good, yet not really the top performer at the most competitive pricing, both are facts that ATC are fine tools or entertainment, but also true if purely looking at performance and price, there is something better out there, period.

It is far too idealistic, if you ask me. While the measurement model gives some great indication of speakers that will be viewed favourably by audiences in quite generic listening environments, it doesn't really correlate directly to audio production. If you consider just one tiny aspect of production, like the treatment of 'esses' and sibilance in dialogue for example, there really is no real notion of 'realistic'. Hand the same line of dialogue to 20 audio engineers to mix on the same speakers, in the same room, and you will get 20 different interpretations of what 'realism' is. Hand those 20 engineers the top 50 ranking speakers on ASR, and you will get 20 different conclusions about which is actually best for creating that realism. And that is before you even consider how unique every individual room sounds, and how lacklustre room correction generally is. I have GLM-equipped speakers. I have a Trinnov. It isn't a magic bullet. It helps, but if you ask me, sonic nirvana doesn't begin and end with a speaker measurement. It begins and ends with a specific room designed around specific speakers.

Out of curiosity, how much time have you spent comparing the representation of 'esses' in dialogue on speakers? I have... spend... a lot. It is frightening really, because that tiny portion of the audio range accounts for so much that we are preprogrammed to understand as right or wrong. My experience in short - I find Neumanns are too lifeless in that part of the dialogue range, which results in me overcompensating and delivering too lively a mix. 2-way metal dome Genelec's sound too hard across the upper midrange, almost veiled which result in me under compensating and delivering mixes that seem a bit sloppy up top. The One 3-ways are more open up top, but still a bit too stiff for my liking. The ideal middle ground for me, considering budget and sound quality is the S360. It is controlled, and even... but sounds relaxed with life and depth. The result is good translation, and good speed and efficiency. "Better" is what gets the work out, keeps the client smiling, and keeps them coming back. It is easy to misconstrue the medium with the message, but when it comes to 'realism', the speakers really have little to do with it. Audio production is one of the most contrived things on the planet. There is nothing "real" about it. The role of an audio engineer is not to mimic real life... it is to dupe you into believing what you are hearing is real by swiftly abusing your own brain's capacity to suspend disbelief.

It also isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore. I have never personally used ATC monitors, but while many seem to love grabbing their pitchforks and kerosene lanterns, it is worth considering that even Floyd Toole himself has said... on this very forum... that if he were to conduct the same preference based testing he did all those years ago, today... that he would expect the results to be very different, and much harder to interpret. Times have changed. That is the legacy of the measurement model. That is the legacy of Toole's work. Not some trend of 'look at how great my benchmarks are while it fails to be meaningful in day to day existence'.

I know enough audio engineers, and respect so much of their work to know that ATC speakers are ABSOLUTELY nothing like NS10s. Anyone can run a test tone through a speaker and assert that they are the best thing since sliced bread... but to prove that they are the best tool to create aurally pleasing content? That is a whole different different ball game.

 

[Ilkless]

View attachment 226344

overlain with roughly the same alignment. FR wise they don't really differs that much if any,

have to say again the ATC with the room as a whole is of course, better when FR are similar and the decay, distortion is considered. (If they failed in that with the much more massive drivers, higher power demand and all those room treatments I won't say it's not SOTA compared to 8C, I will say that it's a robbery and crap).

point is, what SOTA is and if the company keep up with what can be done, and 8C is NOT the be all end on, killing everything else holy grail solution to every single situation. can ATC achieve similarly in a more domestic solution and price point, in a living room? very probably not. if the best ATC is better than the 8C in the pro studio having to do all the sub integration, various sound treatment? sure it is or it will be dead soon if not already. and just saying, if the 8C in your room will be even better measuring? sure, which I doubt it FR wise won't be better than the ATC, distortion will always depend on volume, which, even in the threads recommending the 8C, will state that if you listen far field, and requires volume, you better add sub or having a floorstander.

Also, he's cherry picking 8C and Kii measurements in a much less treated room that the ATC would not likely do half as well in. Meanwhile, radio silence on the quad sub + room correction + JBL M2 setup that obliterates his ATC, except for puritanical and unsubstantiated DRC fear mongering. But in-room is a red herring anyway when the contention was about:

- the mediocre (if even that) anechoic performance in psychoacoustically relevant measures, with at least four authoritative peer reviewed papers already mentioned, and the informed opinion of eminent researchers, to explain why

- the shifting of goalposts between claims of objective accuracy and fidelity and ineffable subjective properties whenever convenient with no coherent theory or controlled testing. Instead of the self-awareness and integrity to not make objective claims without evidence, and the awareness that non-acoustic factors like backstory, feeling of belonging to some enlightened in-group and aesthetics invariably taint sighted evaluation to the point of uselessness. And impossible to tune out or cut through as these disingenuous people try to pretend it to be.

- the tiresome and patronising Dunning-Kruger, anti-intellectualism in the face of such informed opinion and peer-reviewed research

 

[Frgirard]

Also, he's cherry picking 8C and Kii measurements in a much less treated room that the ATC would not likely do half as well in. Meanwhile, radio silence on the quad sub + room correction + JBL M2 setup that obliterates his ATC, except for puritanical and unsubstantiated DRC fear mongering. But in-room is a red herring anyway when the contention was about:

- the mediocre (if even that) anechoic performance in psychoacoustically relevant measures, with at least four authoritative peer reviewed papers already mentioned, and the informed opinion of eminent researchers, to explain why

- the shifting of goalposts between claims of objective accuracy and fidelity and ineffable subjective properties whenever convenient with no coherent theory or controlled testing. Instead of the self-awareness and integrity to not make objective claims without evidence, and the awareness that non-acoustic factors like backstory, feeling of belonging to some enlightened in-group and aesthetics invariably taint sighted evaluation to the point of uselessness. And impossible to tune out or cut through as these disingenuous people try to pretend it to be.

- the tiresome and patronising Dunning-Kruger, anti-intellectualism in the face of such informed opinion and peer-reviewed research

Peer review? Proove this thing.

 

[Ilkless]

Peer review? Proove this thing.

ATC speakers / Monitors

If said room is not anechoic, the following per Toole applies: Further to this, why is a great room an excuse for a deliberately crippled speaker? Why not both? Is it because it is difficult to admit that the world has left ATC behind and clinging on to the mystique as a status symbol all its...

www.audiosciencereview.com

For instance, in response to the usual anecdotes about transient response and phase I cited Moller, as well as Lipshitz and Vanderkooy.

 

[YSC]

It is far too idealistic, if you ask me. While the measurement model gives some great indication of speakers that will be viewed favourably by audiences in quite generic listening environments, it doesn't really correlate directly to audio production. If you consider just one tiny aspect of production, like the treatment of 'esses' and sibilance in dialogue for example, there really is no real notion of 'realistic'. Hand the same line of dialogue to 20 audio engineers to mix on the same speakers, in the same room, and you will get 20 different interpretations of what 'realism' is. Hand those 20 engineers the top 50 ranking speakers on ASR, and you will get 20 different conclusions about which is actually best for creating that realism. And that is before you even consider how unique every individual room sounds, and how lacklustre room correction generally is. I have GLM-equipped speakers. I have a Trinnov. It isn't a magic bullet. It helps, but if you ask me, sonic nirvana doesn't begin and end with a speaker measurement. It begins and ends with a specific room designed around specific speakers.

Out of curiosity, how much time have you spent comparing the representation of 'esses' in dialogue on speakers? I have... spend... a lot. It is frightening really, because that tiny portion of the audio range accounts for so much that we are preprogrammed to understand as right or wrong. My experience in short - I find Neumanns are too lifeless in that part of the dialogue range, which results in me overcompensating and delivering too lively a mix. 2-way metal dome Genelec's sound too hard across the upper midrange, almost veiled which result in me under compensating and delivering mixes that seem a bit sloppy up top. The One 3-ways are more open up top, but still a bit too stiff for my liking. The ideal middle ground for me, considering budget and sound quality is the S360. It is controlled, and even... but sounds relaxed with life and depth. The result is good translation, and good speed and efficiency. "Better" is what gets the work out, keeps the client smiling, and keeps them coming back. It is easy to misconstrue the medium with the message, but when it comes to 'realism', the speakers really have little to do with it. Audio production is one of the most contrived things on the planet. There is nothing "real" about it. The role of an audio engineer is not to mimic real life... it is to dupe you into believing what you are hearing is real by swiftly abusing your own brain's capacity to suspend disbelief.

It also isn't the 1980s or 1990s anymore. I have never personally used ATC monitors, but while many seem to love grabbing their pitchforks and kerosene lanterns, it is worth considering that even Floyd Toole himself has said... on this very forum... that if he were to conduct the same preference based testing he did all those years ago, today... that he would expect the results to be very different, and much harder to interpret. Times have changed. That is the legacy of the measurement model. That is the legacy of Toole's work. Not some trend of 'look at how great my benchmarks are while it fails to be meaningful in day to day existence'.

I know enough audio engineers, and respect so much of their work to know that ATC speakers are ABSOLUTELY nothing like NS10s. Anyone can run a test tone through a speaker and assert that they are the best thing since sliced bread... but to prove that they are the best tool to create aurally pleasing content? That is a whole different different ball game.

I agree completely that when mixing and definition of realism as a whole varies from individuals or even same individual, same room, same song and different days, and standard goal post speaker doesn't exist as of yet or in the foreseeable future.

Thing like timbre or reverb is still, now a too complicated issue being an effect of all those reflections, speaker distance, group delay etc. but I do believe that anechoic accurate FR is an entry point to what is a top tier speaker, followed by directivity and then of course, distortion at the intended SPL. that's why if you put say KEF, JBL, Revel, Neumann, Genelec, Adam (the S line at least), D&D, Kii, Vivid, Buarchdt etc. I would say they belonged to the same ball park of top tier, SOTA speakers with different dispersion and decay etc making them sounding different in practice, but still, in this regard, ATC is lagging behind for say, half a generation.

and of course, ATC and NS10 are different speakers and any current ATC is by far better than the NS10 which is pretty chewed up in every aspect. Brought it up just to say if more pros used them as a tool is a proof of it's a better speaker, then the NS10 is hard to beat in that regard. A best tool to create aurally pleasing content is probably something of a mix of a SOTA neutral speaker plus some really bad ones where everyone uses, and then checked by some of the boom boxes or bassless phone speakers and create something which sounds good enough for both end of the customer base. the best is difficult to define but performance class should be easier.

 

[Frgirard]

ATC speakers / Monitors

If said room is not anechoic, the following per Toole applies: Further to this, why is a great room an excuse for a deliberately crippled speaker? Why not both? Is it because it is difficult to admit that the world has left ATC behind and clinging on to the mystique as a status symbol all its...

www.audiosciencereview.com

For instance, in response to the usual anecdotes about transient response and phase I cited Moller, as well as Lipshitz and Vanderkooy.

You don't understand. What review published in Nature, Science...and not the AES: Association representing the audio business.

 

[caught gesture]

Typically a potential customer visits, we have ATCs and say 8Cs set up side by side, ( always sited the ATCs in the their ‘least worse’ position)
We listen, discuss, the ATCs are larger, more expensive, yet with limited bass extension , they have no adjustability in the ‘consumer’ range at least.
In listening the 8cs have deep tight bass, the cardioid and constant directivity allows you to hear that bit more into the mix.
ATC justifiably kicked us off because of low sales but when visitors directly compared for themselves…
Keith

Are you sure they didn’t kick you off because of how you described them on gearslutz whilst also being a stockist?

 

[617]

I've not been keeping track of this thread but does anyone have 3d measurements of a 3 way ATC model? Active or passive.

 

[Frgirard]

I've not been keeping track of this thread but does anyone have 3d measurements of a 3 way ATC model? Active or passive.

Is it humor? ATC measurements are what we are asking for. Do you have ?

 

[617]

Is it humor? ATC measurements are what we are asking for. Do you have ?

No. I assumed that this thread wouldn't have reached 71 pages unless someone had found a directivity sonogram of a higher end ATC model.

I doubt they look that refined, what with the corner mounted tweeters and flat baffles.

 

[Purité Audio]

Are you sure they didn’t kick you off because of how you described them on gearslutz whilst also being a stockist?

I don’t believe I ever disparaged them just stated that I was a little disappointed having heard so much about the ATc mythical ‘midrange’.
They are still solid loudspeakers, still better than the majority of audiophile product just haven’t moved with the times, perhaps now that the founder has passed away, they might be change.
Keith

 

[caught gesture]

I don’t believe I ever disparaged them just stated that I was a little disappointed having heard so much about the ATc mythical ‘midrange’.
They are still solid loudspeakers, still better than the majority of audiophile product just haven’t moved with the times, perhaps now that the founder has passed away, they might be change.
Keith

I remember reading your comments and then being fairly shocked to go to your website and seeing that you were a stockist. I remember at the time thinking that you wouldn’t be appreciated by ATC. That was quite a few years ago and the event stands out in my mind. YMMV

 

[Purité Audio]

Possibly I have upset a number of manufacturers over the years, I simply state the facts if the company relies on BS then I won’t be associated with them.
Keith

 

[goat76]

Possibly I have upset a number of manufacturers over the years, I simply state the facts if the company relies on BS then I won’t be associated with them.
Keith

What bullshit does ATC rely on?

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t consider ATC a BS company, although they don’t actively disavow the mythical dome midrange.
Keith