• 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

Avp1

Active Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2022
Messages
208
Likes
178
result looked fairly good, but at 9ft distance and the averaging of listening position is not actually varying the angle to speaker but much of a real difference, so it won't show up much if any difference in room IMO, but the wide dip and peaks above ~300hz do looked like directivity mismatch and with reflection summing up.

Can be reflection from ceiling. I will probably try to add absorbtion there. But most sound impact is from bump between 100 and 200Hz. When this is brought down by Dirac, overall sound gets much more balanced. Actually full Dirac features may not be needed here. Parametric equalizer with 4-5 of low Q correction points will be sufficient to have almost flat (+-2dB) in room response.

Also you can see that in-room bass is good down to 30Hz. So I cannot complain about lack of it for music I play in this room.

These speakers replaced B&W 802D and I should say that it was an improvement, mostly in mid-range presentation.
 
Last edited:

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
Thank you, you're welcome. Banalities and yet it was impossible to have a simple conversation.
I think this thread shows clearly what has happened in these forums, which were supposed to avoid pseudo science and hearsay - it has gone so "scientific" that everyone is just yelling at each other. A lot of people are just here to bash at something they have never heard, and of course you cannot post measurements, as it would reveal targets and validation requirements for your rooms, anyone should be able to understand that. It really isn't worthy of the time of a world-class pro like you, though I admire your effort earlier in this thread. As you say, most people here simply do not really know how to deduct useful information from measurements, as they have grown accustomed to just looking at Klippel "anechoic" measurements, directivity hysteria and completely ridiculous "estimated in-room responses".

The penny dropped for me when linked to a suite of measurements of JBL M2 with various carefully placed subwoofers, with the sole purpose of chasing a rulerflat FR measurement at LP in a clearly unlinear room with lots of room mode issues - simply ridiculous :facepalm: It is so scientific it doesn't even need the real world anymore. Have fun listening to all those perfect FR measurements :)
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,050
Likes
12,148
Location
London
Yes, Northward just did not want to share any measurements did he, pity.
Keith
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,050
Likes
12,148
Location
London
Nope don’t understand why he wouldn’t , because they are not all they are cracked up to be?
Keith
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,050
Likes
12,148
Location
London
Why wouldn’t you want to publicise to the world how fine your work is?
It would be extremely interesting for us domestic listeners and something we might work towards.
Keith
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
I think this thread shows clearly what has happened in these forums, which were supposed to avoid pseudo science and hearsay - it has gone so "scientific" that everyone is just yelling at each other. A lot of people are just here to bash at something they have never heard, and of course you cannot post measurements, as it would reveal targets and validation requirements for your rooms, anyone should be able to understand that. It really isn't worthy of the time of a world-class pro like you, though I admire your effort earlier in this thread. As you say, most people here simply do not really know how to deduct useful information from measurements, as they have grown accustomed to just looking at Klippel "anechoic" measurements, directivity hysteria and completely ridiculous "estimated in-room responses".

The penny dropped for me when linked to a suite of measurements of JBL M2 with various carefully placed subwoofers, with the sole purpose of chasing a rulerflat FR measurement at LP in a clearly unlinear room with lots of room mode issues - simply ridiculous :facepalm: It is so scientific it doesn't even need the real world anymore. Have fun listening to all those perfect FR measurements :)
Wait, so posting final in room measurement will reveal the secret sauce target of Northwood where everyone would rave and change their own target in use? Which… form your previously posted right before final target, is… just… very harman in room curve where a lot of folks here EQ their speakers to..

And who in real world didn’t own some of their liked speakers and listening? Just not most ppl would pay a huge money on a fully treated studio with big flush mounted speakers but how’s that “real world is not needed”?

If showing a target perfectly aligned to a known target curve and shows, say vanishing low distortion and very smooth group delay, I doubt it would benefit any other individuals as you don’t show how you get there, much like seeing any members in room curve won’t give us a clue of what they actually did. Of course, if you say there is a in house target which is wildly better and different from the known targets there, say “my huge bump in here did magic where nobody knows”, then yea, it’s trade secret and keep it.

And yea I think quite a lot ppl here are enjoying the in perfect FR speakers with room treatment and some eq to bring it to the +\- 1-2 db following the Harman or other target curve with low distortion.
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
Wait, so posting final in room measurement will reveal the secret sauce target of Northwood where everyone would rave and change their own target in use? Which… form your previously posted right before final target, is… just… very harman in room curve where a lot of folks here EQ their speakers to..

And who in real world didn’t own some of their liked speakers and listening? Just not most ppl would pay a huge money on a fully treated studio with big flush mounted speakers but how’s that “real world is not needed”?

If showing a target perfectly aligned to a known target curve and shows, say vanishing low distortion and very smooth group delay, I doubt it would benefit any other individuals as you don’t show how you get there, much like seeing any members in room curve won’t give us a clue of what they actually did. Of course, if you say there is a in house target which is wildly better and different from the known targets there, say “my huge bump in here did magic where nobody knows”, then yea, it’s trade secret and keep it.

And yea I think quite a lot ppl here are enjoying the in perfect FR speakers with room treatment and some eq to bring it to the +\- 1-2 db following the Harman or other target curve with low distortion.
You are jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting on purpose, a common theme for this thread. All points have been made earlier, this is just and endless spiral.
 

FeddyLost

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
752
Likes
542
when linked to a suite of measurements of JBL M2 with various carefully placed subwoofers, with the sole purpose of chasing a rulerflat FR measurement at LP in a clearly unlinear room with lots of room mode issues - simply ridiculous
It's not ridiculous, it's called "real home entertainment room use case".
It's more useful and representative for hi-fiers than dedicated studio control room.
So, it's kind of impolite to completely ignore needs of a vast group of enthusiasts.

For studio use case it would be plain wrong, I agree. But some people also live in their room with speakers and have big restrictions from e.g. family.
 

Darkman

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
13
Likes
2
I must ask
ATC monitors are considered to be one of the best if not the best monitors on the planet, it's also a consensus on Gearslutz
But around here they're not very popular
I must understand why :)
Hello
From my 32-year-old fun as a hobby and profession regarding ATC, from my point of view I will write this:
Passive only to be driven with tri-wiring with significant strengthening of the lower section.
(I ignore the need to replace the wiring and the poor quality of the terminals)
The active ones are specific.
When someone grew up on old Goodmans or Altec studio cabinets, he has a lot of pretensions.
 

Darkman

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
13
Likes
2
SCM25, which is expensive and marketed as a studio monitor, was measured by Sound&Recording.

View attachment 92720

Not as poor as their home hifi speakers, but not good enough for studio use IMO.

And the main difference between this and their other top-of-the-line studio monitors is the size and number of woofers, which suggests that the issues within the passband of the midrange and tweeter are present throughout the entire range.

Also I’ve heard a few, including some of their most expensive models, and was never impressed...
ATC for listening can be taken into account from the model 35. The smaller ones, with their low efficiency, are still unsatisfactory.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
It's not ridiculous, it's called "real home entertainment room use case".
It's more useful and representative for hi-fiers than dedicated studio control room.
So, it's kind of impolite to completely ignore needs of a vast group of enthusiasts.

For studio use case it would be plain wrong, I agree. But some people also live in their room with speakers and have big restrictions from e.g. family.
I just can't get it by what reason one can't share measurements to let us appreciate how great the whole setup is, a end produce can't make ppl reverse engineer how he did it no? as for target in specific parameters one did not need to share to show how good the FR, distortion etc. is, and even beyond all that, ok, that big flush mount ATC is best in the world, then it still don't justify their still expensive, lesser siblings in home audio which is not bad, but not up to competition in the metrics
 

Darkman

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
13
Likes
2
Currently, for 30 years he has been in charge of every company that has left the garages of Bookkeeping
The prototype, in principle, differs from what is in the store.

In fact, less and less is being said / written about sound and more and more about aesthetics.

The word High End has devalued, now there is Artisan Audio :)

It is not without reason that old equipment is still the object of sighs.
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
It's not ridiculous, it's called "real home entertainment room use case".
It's more useful and representative for hi-fiers than dedicated studio control room.
So, it's kind of impolite to completely ignore needs of a vast group of enthusiasts.

For studio use case it would be plain wrong, I agree. But some people also live in their room with speakers and have big restrictions from e.g. family.
No it is not "real home entertainment room use case" - have you seen it? The room is scattered with cables, speakers and subs, and basically unusable for anything but listening in a 10x10 inch listening position. That is not a use case.

And still the only thing “correct” about it is the FR - Obvious from both pictures and measurements it will sound far from perfect. But no, here in this forum it is used as an example of the pinnacle of modern design and Audio Science. Because a profound understanding of acoustics and measurements are non-existent - it is all pseudo science derived from anechoic measurements. That sort of “evidence” can only come from someone who has not ever once heard a good speaker in a good room.
 

Darkman

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
13
Likes
2
Moja odpowiedź na pasywne małe i nowoczesne monitory TO
DALI 7A, rekablowanie, tłumienie i....Polecam.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
I just can't get it by what reason one can't share measurements to let us appreciate how great the whole setup is, a end produce can't make ppl reverse engineer how he did it no? as for target in specific parameters one did not need to share to show how good the FR, distortion etc. is, and even beyond all that, ok, that big flush mount ATC is best in the world, then it still don't justify their still expensive, lesser siblings in home audio which is not bad, but not up to competition in the metrics
Maybe I misremember this, but wasn’t Torbachkristensens installation made by Northward. If so, why isn’t that enough proof for you of a fantastic measuring installation?
 

Torbachkristensen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
166
Likes
189
Maybe I misremember this, but wasn’t Torbachkristensens installation made by Northward. If so, why isn’t that enough proof for you of a fantastic measuring installation?
No, to make it perfectly clear, my room is not a Northward room. The dimensions are too small to fullfill the requirements, and I would very much assume a Northward installation would work with tighter specifications and measure even better than mine. But a lot of the design principles are the same.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
No, to make it perfectly clear, my room is not a Northward room. The dimensions are too small to fullfill the requirements, and I would very much assume a Northward installation would work with tighter specifications and measure even better than mine. But a lot of the design principles are the same.
Ah, okey. Thank you for the correction. :)
 

dominikz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
803
Likes
2,626
I think this thread shows clearly what has happened in these forums, which were supposed to avoid pseudo science and hearsay - it has gone so "scientific" that everyone is just yelling at each other. A lot of people are just here to bash at something they have never heard
May I suggest not to generalize on the >37000 members based on a few unpleasant interactions / threads? There are a lot of both very knowledgeable and kind people here, and IME a lot of opportunities to learn from them. I personally hope you and others stay and engage / contribute - even if you disagree! :)

Let me start by saying that I hope you don't see this post as combative - I will just try to clarify a few concepts that I feel might be misunderstood; I hope you may find it useful!

As you say, most people here simply do not really know how to deduct useful information from measurements, as they have grown accustomed to just looking at Klippel "anechoic" measurements, directivity hysteria and completely ridiculous "estimated in-room responses".
I wonder why you put the word anechoic under quotation marks? Anechoic stands to mean "without reflections", but doesn't really specify how this is achieved:
  • Klippel NFS achieves this by measuring loudspeaker output in the relative nearfield and then applying clever mathematics to remove reflections.
  • Another way to do it is to measure the loudspeaker in a calibrated anechoic chamber (which are never truly anechoic in the low bass, BTW - this is why they are calibrated) out of its acoustic nearfield.
  • A third way is to use the quasi-anechoic methods (appropriately time-gating the HF measurement and splicing with ground-plane or baffle-step-compensated nearfield LF measurements to get the full-range anechoic response).
All three approaches result in anechoic measurements (since in all cases the effect of reflections is removed) which, if done correctly, give the same qualitative response and are very comparable. The difference is usually just resolution - NFS having the highest resolution, quasi-anechoic usually the lowest.
If you are interested, this amazing web resource by @pierre contains measurements made by various methods, and you can even compare them directly.

Regarding the estimated in-room response / PIR, may I ask why do you think it is 'ridiculous'? I ask because I notice people sometimes mistakenly assume the PIR is supposed to show what we hear at the listening position. If you read the research it will be clear that PIR is instead meant to represent what would be measured at the listening position (but only above the room's transition frequency, as it doesn't account for SBIR, room size/treatment and placement). Below the transition frequency room modes and loudspeaker / listener positioning take control and PIR isn't meant to model that - which is also clear from the research.
In my experience doing loudspeaker measurements PIR has proven really successful in predicting how the actual in-room measured response looks like, see e.g. here for some examples.
Research also implies that what we hear is definitely not the same as what we measure in-room - we hear more of the loudspeaker direct sound (i.e. its anechoic response) in the mid and high frequencies than what is suggested by the in-room steady-state response.

Related to this, unfortunately there is a common misconception among hobbyist that good sound can be achieved by EQ-ing any loudspeaker's in-room measured response to a specific target (e.g. the Harman target). If you read dr. Toole's book you will see this is never claimed (see also this post for a reference) - it is actually the other way around - in-room measurements of various good loudspeakers result in a curve resembling what is commonly called the "Harman target". So it is not really a target for EQ - it is the expected result when using good loudspeakers.
EQ still has its place in achieving good reproduced sound - it helps to fix certain issues in the bass (mainly reducing peaks / resonances) and it can also be used to improve tonality of loudspeakers that otherwise have even / good directivity.
Blindly EQ-ing towards a tidy-looking full-range in-room response can definitely make things sound worse, and this is IME actually well understood by many people on this forum!

The penny dropped for me when linked to a suite of measurements of JBL M2 with various carefully placed subwoofers, with the sole purpose of chasing a rulerflat FR measurement at LP in a clearly unlinear room with lots of room mode issues - simply ridiculous :facepalm: It is so scientific it doesn't even need the real world anymore. Have fun listening to all those perfect FR measurements :)
I don't know which specific M2 system you are referring to (I must admit I didn't follow all posts), but please note that in the low frequencies humans hear the combination of the room and loudspeaker response, and the in-room steady-state response is indeed instructive to what is heard in that frequency range. Given that the loudspeaker-room system is largely linear and time invariant (LTI), Fourier transform allows us to go from time to the frequency domain (and vice-versa). A resonance in the frequency domain means ringing in the time domain - so addressing the resonance (by room treatment/layout, multiple subwoofers arrays and/or EQ) also addresses the ringing / reduces decay-time at the problematic frequency. I.e. achieving a close to ideal FR in the bass means also no ringing in the time domain. What multiple subwoofers bring to the table is a chance to fill dips in the bass response and make the response more similar across multiple seats - but not necessarily flat response (at least not without EQ).
In short: there may be more than one road to Rome. :)

Lastly, in case you haven't done so already, I'd really recommend to give a chance to dr. Toole's "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Room, 3rd edition" book. IMHO it is a really good overview of the field, even if you disagree with some conclusions. There's much more insights, structured clarifications, arguments and references there than one can find in a few forum posts. :)
 
Top Bottom