ATC speakers / Monitors

[tuga]

Since the distortion graph is included, which is not a single number, I'll leave interpretation up to you. I'm just honestly curious about the mentioned issues. I'm not here argue for or against either brand.

Looking at the bottom plot I would say that the ATC produces less distortion but I don't think that such particular measurement is that useful.
I prefer a more comprehensive representation of individual harmonics as well as THD and measured at a civilized listening level.

 

[Chrise36]

First of all thank you for your contributions here.

Genuinely interested though in some hard data on these particular claims.

The only apples to apples comparison I have is from Anselm Goertz (S&R) on the similarly priced ATC 25 and Gelenec 1038CF.
While both loudspeakers perform well within their own design criteria it does appear the Genelec performs better in terms of frequency response, distortion and pair deviation.

View attachment 231429

It does not perform better in frequency response it has less bass extension and level. Remember there should be a 10 db tilt.

 

[Elkios]

I would like to hear that the issues of the

Interesting! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed some rather odd port behavior on some Genelecs...

Yeah I know it's called group delay as far as the sluggish bass goes . About 9 months ago maybe a year Genelec made headway with the Ones . I personally contacted them numerous times in this regard and assume others have as they have offered a mode in Glm to lower it . I have not heard the result but the 8361 is starting to look acceptable but not state of the art on the new specs . Port noise on my sold 8341's was noticeable but they were not designed for high output to begin with .

 

[YSC]

Looking at the bottom plot I would say that the ATC produces less distortion but I don't think that such particular measurement is that useful.
I prefer a more comprehensive representation of individual harmonics as well as THD and measured at a civilized listening level.

not really... look at the axis, the genelec graph have a 10db higher SPL on the Y axis... and that is the volume it reaches 3% THD so most likely represents the distortion quite well, it chops off at 10khz though.

 

[TimVG]

It does not perform better in frequency response it has less bass extension and level. Remember there should be a 10 db tilt.

There's a difference between extension and linearity. Neither is designed nor advertised as being full range. I'm unsure of what you mean by "there should be a 10dB tilt". On axis regression from an anechoic p.o.v. should aspire to be a straight line as far as I'm concerned (0)

 

[tuga]

It does not perform better in frequency response it has less bass extension and level. Remember there should be a 10 db tilt.

On the other hand the peaks of distortion are much higher in amplitude which may indicated more severe issues.
Measurements need to be complemented by listening.

 

[thewas]

Sorting out this "audio's circle of confusion" cliché is a fantasy, even in the production stage let alone at domestic level.
Studios sound different, the best-performing speakers sound different (even over Youtube the Grimm LS1be, D&D 8C and ATC 100ASL on that famous comparison). Does it matter?
What a weird obsession...

For "documental" recordings of classical music the mics chosen for the recording and their distance to the sound source will set the tone, from them onwards it's all downhill.
And what about the close-mic'ed studio productions that are processed with effects and EQ to sound interesting, is there even a point in aiming for absolute fidelity when reproducing such a recording?

Do you agree that direct sound on-axis linearity and bass region LP smooth response is necessary leaving only directivity wideness as a variable?
The mic setup doesn't matter there as the tonality will be corrected at the mixing and mastering stages.

 

[thewas]

Elkios said:

Yeah I know it's called group delay as far as the sluggish bass goes . About 9 months ago maybe a year Genelec made headway with the Ones . I personally contacted them numerous times in this regard and assume others have as they have offered a mode in Glm to lower it . I have not heard the result but the 8361 is starting to look acceptable but not state of the art on the new specs . Port noise on my sold 8341's was noticeable but they were not designed for high output to begin with .

Could you show some group delay measurements that show it? I don't see why it should be very different from other brands with similar FR.

 

[thewas]

I don't really get it. What exactly is it that makes you question Northward Acoustics' knowledge of room acoustic and professional studio speaker installations?

The people who hire them to do these installations are highly dependent on the sound quality to make a satisfying and good job for their clients, otherwise, they will lose their customers. And if the studios were dissatisfied in any way with the end result with the room acoustics, or the speakers used for the installation, they wouldn't promote these rooms and installations as being good and would have done something about it.

Don't underestimate the people working with audio, if they don't like what they hear they can't do their job day in, day out.

Am sure his studios sound fine as they have quite some effort behind, I just question his USP which make his studios supposedly better than others because of the missing coherent theory and measurements.

 

[Frgirard]

First of all thank you for your contributions here.

Genuinely interested though in some hard data on these particular claims.

The only apples to apples comparison I have is from Anselm Goertz (S&R) on the similarly priced ATC 25 and Gelenec 1038CF.
While both loudspeakers perform well within their own design criteria it does appear the Genelec performs better in terms of frequency response, distortion and pair deviation.

View attachment 231429

Stop fixing on the price but compare speakers with comparable characteristics.
Your comparison is ridiculous and shows total incompetence on what a speaker is.

 

[TimVG]

Stop fixing on the price but compare speakers with comparable characteristics.
Your comparison is ridiculous and shows total incompetence on what a speaker is.

First of all, some modesty and decorum would suit you well. I've yet to start taking advice from boorish individuals. I'm not a child that needs berating.

We're looking at several things and it is the only apples to apples comparison (same anechoic chamber, same process) we have.
If you cannot see beyond the 1x 8" ATC woofer compared to the 2x 8" on the Genelec and look at things such as pair deviation, linearity of response (which were issues mentioned) then I'm afraid it's you showing total incompetence.

 

[807Recordings]

If you ask me what I personally think of mastering, then I can tell you that I don't think the mastering engineer should alter the sound of the tracks in any significant way. In a perfect-world scenario, the audio should only be sculptured in the mixing stage of the production, and the mastering engineer's job should just be a final quality check for faults like clicks and pops, song-to-song level adjustments, sorting out the gaps between songs, add the metadata, and just maybe do some very small EQ adjustments if that's necessary. In short - "mixing the album" and not much more than that.

Mastering should be about the final touch ups and overall balancing to finish up an album or a track. It usually is only 1-2dB changes in EQ (if that) on a well balanced mix. As said the mixdown and production stages make the bigger picture.
That said and in general I have never seen an industry with the word engineer used to such an unqualified title.
I have spend a great deal of my own funds and tested many so called Master Engineers and yes from well known houses and projects.
Some have technical knowledge, many more simply play with a black art and have done more damage to my music and other artists I work with due to lack of skill, not listening semi-objectively or just their own mastering setup not being accurate.

This is not a flag against Northwood as I seen Thomas in many forums share a wealth of very good knowledge. Sure it would be great to see his reasoning for his choices but it is a private business and he is under no obligations to do so. But this is a science forum and when things come up to challenge such measurements then subjective measurements need to be shown to prove otherwise. There are many other places to talk subjectively of course.

From my perspective I am here to learn and sometimes in the process we have to challenge results and ask questions. It should not come down to I know better because I worked for 20 years. In my day job in IT Security Consulting I will always look at something that challenges me, go back to the CBK and then come back with an appropriate response. Sometimes even the best knowledge isn't infinite but sometimes there are well established and tested things.

 

[Doogie Howser]

The mic setup doesn't matter there as the tonality will be corrected at the mixing and mastering stages.

That is a total misconception. The absolute vast majority of what hits a microphone is firmly baked into the resulting recording. Stuff like EQ can help carve out a space in a mix for a sound source, but corrective EQ has very severe limitations as it very, very quickly throws the tonal balance of the recording off. Recordings aren't like speaker measurements. They aren't static. They change quite a lot tonally over time, based on performance, register, dynamics, physical movement of the performer, etc. EQing that one imperfection in the lower register, will mess up the recording when the player moves to the upper register, etc, etc.

The circle of confusion really is a cliché. It purely reflects the notion of a listener's experience being similar to that of the mix engineer's, regardless of whether both of those experiences were absolute abhorrent trash due to the limitations in the original recording quality. To have a conversation about better sound quality inherently involves a whole lot of hard data that most people on ASR simply aren't interested in. Stuff like budgets, profitability and return on investment and so on.

In many ways, the plight of ASR is inconsequential within the wider picture of content creation, particularly after Covid and societal lockdowns sent everything else in the opposite direction of 'good'. That is the problem with the notion of adaptation. People don't just adapt to the sound of a speaker in a room. They have an inherent ability to adapt to the message rather than the medium.

 

[goat76]

Am sure his studios sound fine as they have quite some effort behind, I just question his USP which make his studios supposedly better than others because of the missing coherent theory and measurements.

I think the measurements will be hard to provide, I mean, at which positions do you place the measuring microphones to show you how the "self-noise" thing works in the room?

And for the theory, it's not that hard to understand the concept. First, you have the sound that reaches the listers position in the room from the sound sources/speakers. This sound should mostly contain the direct sound without sounding unnatural and too "dry", and we can assume this target is reached with the use of absorption placed in strategic places in the room for this to occur.
Then we have diffusion panels that are placed in strategic places for the "self-noise" to be heard, one placement that can be seen in the photos is pretty much right above the listener's chair. As an example, all the noises that will come from rolling that chair around will probably bounce from the floor to the ceiling, and from there it will probably be scattered around the room by the diffusion panels that are placed there.

The above is of course just a guess from my side about why that specific placement is used for the diffusion panels. I have never had a chance to visit a room like that so I don't know how it sounds. Every single company out there tries to find its unique USP, if this "self-noise" concept work or not, and if that really is the big selling point I don't know, but I'm sure the room sounds great for the intended use, otherwise, studios wouldn't hire Northward to do the job because the studios are highly dependent on good sound quality translation.

 

[Frgirard]

First of all, some modesty and decorum would suit you well. I've yet to start taking advice from boorish individuals. I'm not a child that needs berating.

We're looking at several things and it is the only apples to apples comparison (same anechoic chamber, same process) we have.
If you cannot see beyond the 1x 8" ATC woofer compared to the 2x 8" on the Genelec and look at things such as pair deviation, linearity of response (which were issues mentioned) then I'm afraid it's you showing total incompetence.

the atc25 is a 6.5"
the 1038cf is 2x 8 "
At least find out what these two are speakers.
All is ok for you ?

This thread is the professionals with hard numbers without evidence and their pseudo science against audiophiles full of their prejudices and their pseudo knowledge.

 

[TimVG]

the atc25 is a 6.5"
the 1038cf is 2x 8 "
At least find out what these two are speakers.
All is ok for you ?

This thread is the professionals with hard numbers without evidence and their pseudo science against audiophiles full of their prejudices and their pseudo knowledge.

It doesn't matter what the size is. I'm asking (and I'm not asking you) where these distortion components, phase issues, linearity issues and pair deviation issues are in the Genelec speaker. As a reference I have included an ATC loudspeaker tested by the same person, in the same anechoic chamber, which happens to sell at a similar pricepoint - which shows worse lineair behaviour and worse pair deviation. As a consequence, I'm wondering about the data as collected by Northward, if there are things missing from the S&R test, that could explain the discrepancies he mentioned. For the final time, I have no interest in either brand - only data.

As for your last sentence, I've no clue what that even means. Perhaps if you're not fluent in English, I suggest to use simple sentences so we can understand what you're trying to convey.

 

[Frgirard]

studios wouldn't hire Northward to do the job because the studios are highly dependent on good sound quality translation.

Why they don't publish the reality of their acoustics ? I agree: for the loudness war sound anything is good.

 

[Frgirard]

It doesn't matter what the size is.

Ridiculous. Compare a berinhger 2031 with the ATC 25 ....

 

[Chrise36]

There's a difference between extension and linearity. Neither is designed nor advertised as being full range. I'm unsure of what you mean by "there should be a 10dB tilt". On axis regression from an anechoic p.o.v. should aspire to be a straight line as far as I'm concerned (0)

The straight response usually means elevated treble in lp and maybe lack of bass as shown in many reviews here or the measurements in previous posts.

 

[Curvature]

Sorting out this "audio's circle of confusion" cliché is a fantasy, even in the production stage let alone at domestic level.
Studios sound different, the best-performing speakers sound different (even over Youtube the Grimm LS1be, D&D 8C and ATC 100ASL on that famous comparison). Does it matter?
What a weird obsession...

For "documental" recordings of classical music the mics chosen for the recording and their distance to the sound source will set the tone, from them onwards it's all downhill.
And what about the close-mic'ed studio productions that are processed with effects and EQ to sound interesting, is there even a point in aiming for absolute fidelity when reproducing such a recording?

Have you ever mixed music or spent time attempting translation?

Edit: I'll give my perspective to save time. I don't care if spaces or speakers "sound different". That's spurious and not the goal. The goal is translation. It is extremely frustrating to hear elements that you struggled to shape not coming through correctly. To satisfy the latter a lot can be different about speakers, spaces, ambience, whatever. Standardization of requirements for studios is something else entirely and requires precision, beginning with speakers.

Having the same "sound" is impossible with stereo. Immersive and beyond is about synthesizing and reproducing acoustic environments, where the "same sound" is a defined goal and a reasonable expectation.