Habu
Active Member
Last edited:
-
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
Gregg Hermetech
Member
Yep, why did they spend like a quarter of a million quid on those crappy measuring ATCs when they could have just used those incredibly cheap and flat measuring Neumann monitors instead? 
Yep, why did they spend like a quarter of a million quid on those crappy measuring ATCs when they could have just used those incredibly cheap and flat measuring Neumann monitors instead?
Because it is actually possible for "engineers" to not know better. Making recordings with speakers does not make one an authority on speaker engineering, the speaker-room interaction, and human auditory perception. Instead we take our cue from research by subject matter experts substantiated with evidence. It has literally been shown how the ATC approach is not supported scores of peer reviewed research into acoustics and human perception. If Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, Toole, Geddes, and Hammershøi and Muller are all unknown references to you, as you have shown, you haven't even attained the basic level of knowledge required to engage with the evidence that disfavours the ATC approach. You do not get to equate your opinion's validity with that of the weight of contrary evidence.
I and many other posters here will not stand for this patronising Dunning-Kruger anti-intellectualism and science denialism. Unlike other forums we are thoroughly unimpressed by appeals to popularity, anecdotal experience, sighted listening reports (a peer-reviewed metaanalysis presented here) and layman intuition.
Last edited:
Agree with Ilkless but as a customer/client one couldn’t help but be impressed with that space. ( and after all that’s what it is all about)
Keith
Keith
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2020
- Messages
- 806
- Likes
- 2,637
In addition, after a point the audible differences between good loudspeakers become IMHO less relevant. I'm sure the referenced Miraval studio sounds great, but it would probably also sound great with various other good loudspeakers - as long as they can play loud enough and the whole setup is similarly optimized!
The whole "which is best" discussion seems to me a bit misguided - human auditory perception is IME quite flexible. We don't normally do A-B comparisons on a daily basis!
Also, I'm sure audio engineering quality and sound quality are not the only factors considered when designing professional studio spaces.
Gregg Hermetech
Member
Neither does hanging out on this forum, TBF.
Torbachkristensen
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 166
- Likes
- 189
Exactly. Just go back through this thread. The people most concerned about perfect anechoic measurements and most aggressive keyboard warriors are always the ones with very little to zero experience with designing, listening to and using high-end listening environments. And hence exhibit a complete lack of understanding of what compromises go hand in hand, how a truely great integration of speakers in room is achieved and what aspects are important to high quality reproduction.
Last edited:
Such as the compromise of 10dB lower max SPL and a rougher directivity index that somehow conveniently adds up to superior performance?
We are saying, with evidence, that these compromises are avoidable and there are vastly more optimal, evidence-based configurations. Not evidence as in haphazard anecdotes of individual setups. Actual empirical, generalisable evidence based on human auditory perception, based on the physics of moving air.
Why didn't he use ATC's? Because he *likes* Genelec's more. You do not have to dig deeper than that. Professionals in this business do not have to be incredibly rational and make only evidence-based decisions.
Torbachkristensen
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 166
- Likes
- 189
You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to actual real world design, performance and compromises, that has been illustrated multiple times here, with links to suggested "evidence" that proved to be theoretical examples or simply misguided use of measurement and scientific approach. You are only quoting selected research that coincides with your bashing agenda, with no practical understanding of real world sound reproduction or room design principles. It is easily discernible for anyone working every day in the audio field where the only thing that matter is actual system performance, and it perfectly illustrates the limitations of this forum, where there is little to no understanding of actual in-room behaviour.
Well wouldn’t it be great if ATC were to submit some speakers for contemporary measurement.
Keith
Keith
They don't have to indeed. My issue is with those pretending they are and insisting their anecdotes are fact against the weight of evidence. And then blithely dismissing the evidence when given to them.
Who are they, the ones you are talking about that are pretending, and do you have any examples of that?
OP
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 5,258
- Likes
- 5,501
- Thread Starter
- #2,414
Some cool photos
Curious what textbooks recording engineers are taught with? I'm curious what the actual level of understanding of speaker performance they have. I looked at the textbook used by Berklee and the section on speakers was extremely basic.
Not many people are trained to understand psychoacoustics or loudspeaker performance. I have tried to learn as much as I can over the years, but have been humbled when I see the level of research and experimentation carried about by the relatively few researchers in this field. I still don't understand the Gedlee distortion metric papers, even though the abstract is one of the most interesting things I've ever read about audio.
It's okay not to understand loudspeakers. The level of discourse on ASR is not researcher-level. If it was, I wouldn't be able to participate.
I don't see much if any differentiation between 'professional' audio and audiophiles. Both seem to rely on a huge amount of folk knowledge, or outdated knowledge. That's perfectly fine, to me. It's not their job to make speakers. Choosing a monitoring solution based on client expectations or 'what sounds good' seems a bit silly though. Plenty of performant monitor systems that are both impressive looking and extremely expensive. Also, nobody is making you use just one.
I work with a lot of engineers whose negligence can lead to loss of life. I always wondered how they feel about other people who use the term 'engineer' to describe what they do.
Not many people are trained to understand psychoacoustics or loudspeaker performance. I have tried to learn as much as I can over the years, but have been humbled when I see the level of research and experimentation carried about by the relatively few researchers in this field. I still don't understand the Gedlee distortion metric papers, even though the abstract is one of the most interesting things I've ever read about audio.
It's okay not to understand loudspeakers. The level of discourse on ASR is not researcher-level. If it was, I wouldn't be able to participate.
I don't see much if any differentiation between 'professional' audio and audiophiles. Both seem to rely on a huge amount of folk knowledge, or outdated knowledge. That's perfectly fine, to me. It's not their job to make speakers. Choosing a monitoring solution based on client expectations or 'what sounds good' seems a bit silly though. Plenty of performant monitor systems that are both impressive looking and extremely expensive. Also, nobody is making you use just one.
I work with a lot of engineers whose negligence can lead to loss of life. I always wondered how they feel about other people who use the term 'engineer' to describe what they do.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,285
- Likes
- 2,940
I think the main difference is that studio people, as part of one phase of their job, directly compare live sound and loudspeaker sound dozens or hundreds of times a day. Most - not all - audiophiles listen in a bubble with no real interest in live sound.
Ironically, in my experience this makes studio people less interested in loudspeaker choice, not more. You learn fast that no loudspeaker is remotely capable of reproducing the real thing. All you need is a tool with enough clarity to let you hear the reductive job you're doing. Everyone has half a dozen types they're happy with. Most people have personal favorites and comfort choices, but very few have dealbreakers.
I do doubt this part, in my understanding the recording/mixing guy in the mixing room, can only listen to loudspeaker sound which comes from the mic-> speaker, where only the artist in the recording room listen to live sound?? I thought their experience is tuning the sound to be "good" for replay using the systems they use, or have in mind what earbuds/car speakers/BT speakers would sound good while not F up the mix in higher res gears. If I am one of the producing chain guy actually I won't care too much of say, off axis or even if the speaker in "neutral" or "honest", only "good enough" as I would need to have some reference to make the average Joe's speaker still sound ok/good for my mix, so anything not limited in SPL and kind of neutral could get the job done, after all, the audiophile with hundreds of thousand dollar system and room are the <0.01%.
IME Hobbist usually seek for perfection way more than pro in the gears they use, say only geeks seek out the latest computer/cameras every generation, for pros, they choose the best/adequate setup they can, dump big money into it, and continue business until the gear breaks/ fall behind too much to get the job done right, then go for next upgrade, usually the pros choose on reliability, instant replacement service within warranty and familiarity of use over absolute quality. say for photography which is once my part time job, using the same brand of camera is always my choice as I don't need to re-adapt to the controls every new camera, even if my used to brand is falling behind half or even one generation in technical perfection, I think same goes for studios, if you adapted to some good enough but maybe less good speakers and you already adapted that to how it translate to the layman's system, you won't want the balance of it to change, even it's changing to be more transparent to source/ even live performance, coz the 99% of wild speakers out there is what feed you
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,285
- Likes
- 2,940
The actual recording process - why I said "one phase of their job" - is 99% about microphone placement, which means constant in and out from the control room to the live room and back again, adjusting, checking, over and over again.
Mixing is different, sure, and is done later, often elsewhere, sometimes on a different continent.
ah get what you mean now, but somehow I feel the off balance likely comes from the mic mostly? IIRC I read somewhere that you can't use the speaker measuring mic for recording as the recording mic have some kind of curve?
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,285
- Likes
- 2,940
Measurement mikes are usually small omnis, which are rarely useful for recording. But yeah, their flatness would be a problem too. Recording is essentially reduction, compression, taming. To add excitement back, in a way that domestic replay can handle, favorite recording mikes have broad peaks and dips that create punch, warmth, pleasant smoothness, etc. Initial EQ decisions are made by mike choice and then mike position. The more care you take there, the less you have to do later.
