• 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

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City
You might want to review your definition of Nearfields, mid-fields and Farfield/Main monitors because those Monitors are Enormous Main monitors.

In comparison, a nearfield monitor is about 1/20 of the size that you see in this picture.
I'm talking about listening distance, not speaker size: how you USE it, not the product definition. The closer you get to the speaker, the less reflected sound is important, therefore the less uneven dispersion will affect the listening experience. This is consistent with what I said before which is that ATC may have shortcomings in the home environment that don't matter in the studio (and may have virtues that are less important in the home environment).

I strongly suspect that every studio worth its salt runs some kind of EQ process at the listening position. Again, I could be wrong, but I challenge the assertion that they don't.

Finally - these are the active monitors (in the photo). We've definitely heard plenty of evidence that there are differences.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
I'm talking about listening distance, not speaker size: how you USE it, not the product definition. The closer you get to the speaker, the less reflected sound is important, therefore the less uneven dispersion will affect the listening experience. This is consistent with what I said before which is that ATC may have shortcomings in the home environment that don't matter in the studio (and may have virtues that are less important in the home environment).

I strongly suspect that every studio worth its salt runs some kind of EQ process at the listening position. Again, I could be wrong, but I challenge the assertion that they don't.

Finally - these are the active monitors (in the photo). We've definitely heard plenty of evidence that there are differences.

This is still far away. It might be an optical illusion but thats more then 3 meters away from his Mains.

And I said that they do use some system like the trinnov to eq their mains. I also saw some using a steero pair of passive hardware graphic EQ's to lower peaks.

A lot of them dont.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
Of course Martel is a name of french origin. from where are you, by the way ?

But it sounds a bit presomptuous to hear from you that Radio france french sound engineers, most of them being tvery exeprienced, and seasoned ones (much more than in most private studios) "don't know to deal with ATCs". Why should they know to use PSi, Genelec and not ATCs ? Sound is not magic, they know what they do and what they hear.

I agree with you on two points :

-3 ways ATCs present marvelously good timbers in medium range, that's true and this a major factor of their success,
-they have a tight and well articulated bass, another great quality too.

But this doesn't mean they have the most precise soundstage for live classical music recording. The engineers of Radio France say : "ATCs add a layer that doesn't exist in real live sound" (before their eyes and ears), in other terms, their soundstage is too deep to be completely accurate. It is a common mistake in the audiophile world to confuse deep soundstage and right soundstage. Some speakers increase too much the impression of deepness, and other speakers reduce it too much, a contrario. A right speaker in this respect nor increase nor reduce it.

And the difference you make between a "mastering grade" speaker and a recording or mixing speaker is quite subjective. which precise definition and differences you point out between the two types ?

And finally I never heard the so called ringing in the Genelec treble I've listened to, the people I'm talking about have't hear it, too. The harshness of Genelec treble is kind of a sound legend in my humble opinion. Same for the ATCs or the PSIs, Genelec treble sounds harsh when the real sound is harsh, and only in those circumstances.

While it does sound presumptuous to you, I could say the same form a bunch of french engineers talking trash about the brand the most broadly used in mastering and mixing engineers studios around the world, but we wouldn't go there, wouldn't we? That would be like trying to give intentions to someone without knowing where they are coming from. I know I wouldn't have to arrogance to say that.

You said :
''But this doesn't mean they have the most precise soundstage for live classical music recording. The engineers of Radio France say : "ATCs add a layer that doesn't exist in real live sound" (before their eyes and ears), in other terms, their soundstage is too deep to be completely accurate. It is a common mistake in the audiophile world to confuse deep soundstage and right soundstage. Some speakers increase too much the impression of deepness, and other speakers reduce it too much, a contrario. A right speaker in this respect nor increase nor reduce it.''

and I would completely agree with all of that. BUT I do prefer to have more depth then not enough so I can make faster decision and move on to the next task.

I would not put precise differences between both. AFAIK, a lot of those High end mastering studios will send your track in a software and send it back to you without ever listening to it if you're unknown are doesn't bring a good chunk of cash for a complete project. Happened to me twice. The point is, this constant ATC bashing in here is ridiculous and I think I very well underlined it. Now I do understand that most felt like it got rough in the corner and I played the elbow a bit but that's just to show that a bunch of graphs or a bunch of people seen as Masters and icons talking about the ATC's doesnt bring the product higher nor down.

Now as much as people would like to have Genelecs as the greatest studio monitors ever created because some graph said so, the reality is sadly different then the objective analysis and that again, is comming from the ones who master the music you listen to in your living room gennies.

Oh, and and I beg to differ on the ''legend of the high mids gennies harshness''. If you never heard the 1031, make some research if you cannot listen to a set yourself. It is all up in your face. They were known for that like the toilet paper on top of NS-10 tweeters.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
...
You said :
''But this doesn't mean they have the most precise soundstage for live classical music recording. The engineers of Radio France say : "ATCs add a layer that doesn't exist in real live sound" (before their eyes and ears), in other terms, their soundstage is too deep to be completely accurate. It is a common mistake in the audiophile world to confuse deep soundstage and right soundstage. Some speakers increase too much the impression of deepness, and other speakers reduce it too much, a contrario. A right speaker in this respect nor increase nor reduce it.''

and I would completely agree with all of that. BUT I do prefer to have more depth then not enough...

Oh I agree - give me more of something I appreciate. I like depth... but in my own experience I didn't think the ATC active speakers I owned for a bit gave me "more" of it, so I find the Radio France note interesting, albeit not quite matching my own experience. Had I read it *before* listening to the speakers may have changed my perception... :-D

I know all about the measured merits of the Genelecs, but I find them hard to look at... :-D
 

Tovarich007

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
174
Likes
234
This is still far away. It might be an optical illusion but thats more then 3 meters away from his Mains.

And I said that they do use some system like the trinnov to eq their mains. I also saw some using a steero pair of passive hardware graphic EQ's to lower peaks.

A lot of them dont.

In my experience, mastering is not done only in the nearfield, but most genrally at a certain distance (2-3 meters) using mostly large scale speakers, including sometimes good hifi speakers.

The fact that a lot of mastering studios use ATCs is not a proof on the pudding. Of course, they're good speakers per se , but they're largely equalized and the rooms acoustically treated. So, their sound isn't the same as the "average" ATC right out of the box.

And prestige studios you presented want to show prestigious speakers, not because they're the best, but because it attracts rich clients and artists who are not technicians but I've heard about ATC's fame.

This is the reason some mastering studios ordered a few years ago custom speakers to Magico or other very high end esoteric hifi brands. But I'm not sure at all these humongous and massively expensive speakers were better, nor even as good, as Atcs, genelc or others pro experienced brands.
And I don't know what is a "mastering" speakers compared to a mixing or recording speakers. As for me, a good speaker is a good speaker and can be used in different configurations (I'm speaking about pro use, because for private pleasure lisitening, we have the right to prefer less accurate and linear speakers, though not too much coloured or inaccurate).
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
Oh I agree - give me more of something I appreciate. I like depth... but in my own experience I didn't think the ATC active speakers I owned for a bit gave me "more" of it,

It's usually just about placement.

A bit off your equilateral triangle and the depth and width can change radically.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
In my experience, mastering is not done only in the nearfield, but most genrally at a certain distance (2-3 meters) using mostly large scale speakers, including sometimes good hifi speakers.

The fact that a lot of mastering studios use ATCs is not a proof on the pudding. Of course, they're good speakers per se , but they're largely equalized and the rooms acoustically treated. So, their sound isn't the same as the "average" ATC right out of the box.

And prestige studios you presented want to show prestigious speakers, not because they're the best, but because it attracts rich clients and artists who are not technicians but I've heard about ATC's fame.

This is the reason some mastering studios ordered a few years ago custom speakers to Magico or other very high end esoteric hifi brands. But I'm not sure at all these humongous and massively expensive speakers were better, nor even as good, as Atcs, genelc or others pro experienced brands.
And I don't know what is a "mastering" speakers compared to a mixing or recording speakers. As for me, a good speaker is a good speaker and can be used in different configurations (I'm speaking about pro use, because for private pleasure lisitening, we have the right to prefer less accurate and linear speakers, though not too much coloured or inaccurate).

You have the right to like ANY monitors.

I love my ****** Sonodyne SM100AK.

I use them to listen to my old Soul records.

they remember me of my Father's technics on his Harman Kardan sound system in the early 90's.

The rest that was said was a lot of bullocks imo. Not largely equalised and yes, mastering are done on Mains or Midfield in most professional case.

But were talking about 2 different use case and people think that because they only have the acoustic of a garage and that their small cocentric monitors integrate well in there, that most people have to believe that its a reference for all use application.

I already saw an italian construction contractor spending 100,000$ in a Home theater. All his room was built for that application.
Would I put 8030'c as in-walll fitted for his atmos setup? NOP.
Yet hes a home user.

It's cool to share opinions. It sound weird when people start to talk in absolute. We can all do that but were not going anywhere.
 

Tovarich007

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
174
Likes
234
Oh I agree - give me more of something I appreciate. I like depth... but in my own experience I didn't think the ATC active speakers I owned for a bit gave me "more" of it, so I find the Radio France note interesting, albeit not quite matching my own experience. Had I read it *before* listening to the speakers may have changed my perception... :-D

I know all about the measured merits of the Genelecs, but I find them hard to look at... :-D
I appreciate depth too, when it's there in the concert hall, but when it's less there, the speaker has to translate it. We are talking about accuracy in the recording process, not personal preferences in listening.

For the mastering studios, of course the rooms are treated (it's visible of the pics you published) and the speakers equalized (maybe not heavily, I grant you). I know no good studio with no room treatment and some EQ, only hardcore audiophiles never equalize nor use tonality knobs-the myth of straight wire with gain, you know that kind of BS.

There is absolutely no ATC bashing in my comments, nor in the reactions of Radio France engineers, they never said and will never say ATCs are bad or crap, Radio France woudn't have selected several models of this brand after testing and hearing if they were "bad" ; they only consider they're not the ideal tool for recording live classical music. This is not bashing at all, but an apprecition made after extensive experience.

And once again, I myself like much the sound of Atcs i've heard : a small one -which refernce I don't remember, it was a long time ago (I was quite surprised by the negative ASR test of the 19, because the small ATC i heard -maybe it wasn't the 19 but it had about the same size- was one the best mini monitor I ever listened too, Oh they don't put out massive SPL and the low end is on the lean side, that's right, but they're not intended to be listened too at long distance nor to play hard rock at "realistic" levels, but for a string quartet, a harpsichord or a lyric recital, they shine out marvelously, no matter the measurement, but Amir lives in America, he likes listen out loud and low. I'm french, I like chamber music and I don't like bass that much nor listening loud, different cultures, different perceptions- I also listened to the ATC SCM 50 and the 100 -or 150, i don't remember- i liked them a lot too, a little bit less the scm 40 passive but they weren't bad, they just impressed me less than the other models).

As for the Genelecs, I never heard the 1031, but the 1030 yes, a good friend of mine who sadly passed away last year had them in his home studio, and also the 1032 in Radio France and The Ones 8351 and 8361 in another studio, i liked a lot all these Genelec and never found they sound harsh when the recording wasn't harsh. Maybe they're not the best in abslute terms but who is and which "absolute terms" means ?

It's not me who is talking "absolute", but experience, as a music lover who knows some good pros. This is my own experienceon Atcs and Genelecs, for what it's worth, as is yours.
 
Last edited:

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
...We are talking about accuracy in the recording process, not personal preferences in listening ...
We actually always go for a compromise between the two. We can't help to do otherwise: First of all, there are no universal standard references in recording, so unless you like to reposition speakers to optimally re-create what the recording process happened to do, you'll just experience an approximation. Secondly, we all have personal preferences, and I doubt they always fall on the side of complete linearity.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
I appreciate depth too, when it's there in the concert hall, but when it's less there, the speaker has to translate it. We are talking about accuracy in the recording process, not personal preferences in listening.

And for answering Martel's last answer, there is absolutely no ATC bashing in my comments, nor in the reactions of Radio France engineers, they never said and will never say ATCs are bad or crap, Radio France woudn't have selected several models of this brand after testing and hearing if they were "bad" ; they only consider they're not the ideal tool for recording live classical music. This is not bashing at all, but an apprecition made after extensive experience.
Amene tes Cannes is not exactly an apreciation in my book but lets agree to differ on what's arrogance as we both know that the cultural differences are specifically wide in that range.

Also, this whole thread was not about you nor about me but about ATC and the bashing comment was also made in that regards. Nothing personal. There's other people interacting in this thread. Me bringing harsh facts like most of the greatest mastering engineers using ATC's and them using frequency curve graphs are equally source from non sense as anyone well versed in that matter know that both sides main argument reject most of the most important aspect and it is the room and configuration. A frequency curve mean as much as a Ferrari 0-60 mph acceleration when asked about the fastest car to use in Greenland.

The most accurate recording will be achieved by someone that know his craft first, know his room and know his source material (ie Studio Monitors).

Same goes for Home use.

Not to point out the obvious but, there was no gennies nor ATC's when they recorded Abbey road nor Bob Marley - Legend nor Buena Vista Social Club - self titled album.

If I give a set of ATC SCM150 to my father, he will probably place them on each side of his 60 inch smart tv at 2 inch from the back wall. If I give him the latest Billie Eilish recording to mix on, he will probably not be able to export a mix at all.

If I give a set of KRK's to Ted Jensen, he will probably place them on stands close to him in a equilateral triangle and will most probably provide an incredible mix and master.

There's no absolute in the audio world. There's people, material and situation.

Amene tes cannes...yeah, no, sorry. Sounds like a bunch of kids laughing at a teenage girl because she work extra hours at mcdonalds to pay for her studies.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
I appreciate depth too, when it's there in the concert hall, but when it's less there, the speaker has to translate it. We are talking about accuracy in the recording process, not personal preferences in listening.

How exactly can a speaker add depth to a recording that is not there in the recording to begin with. I really like to hear a good explanation of how that is done. :)

The opposite is much more understandable, a speaker that hide the recorded depth with distortion or other faults.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
How exactly can a speaker add depth to a recording that is not there in the recording to begin with. I really like to hear a good explanation of how that is done. :)

The opposite is much more understandable, a speaker that hide the recorded depth with distortion or other faults.

I wouldn't know how to describe it but I did experience it. I think its a spatial acoustic effect. Mostly done by room delay and reflection that gives that impression.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
I wouldn't know how to describe it but I did experience it. I think its a spatial acoustic effect. Mostly done by room delay and reflection that gives that impression.
There is a whole dedicated topic on "stage depth". As far as I am concerned, I only try to hear when I have a reference for it, as in classical music. We know how the orchestra is arranged most of the time, so we have been trained to listen to stuff in a certain way. With other music, it's nice to hear separation, but I find it impossible to reliably establish if it's real or mixed in, and what the reference should be to begin with.

As someone mentioned before, I have never heard magic speakers that magically deliver on depth - you set speakers up in a static position for the benefit of some of your reference recordings, and the rest of recordings have to simply deal with that pre-existing condition... :-D
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
I've seen mastering rooms fitted with "Hi-Fi" speakers. B&W, KEF Blade 2, KEF reference, Revel Salon 2, Dynaudio Evidence, Egglestonworks and etc.
Same here. Seen a few B&W and quite often the egglestonworks.Never seen any KEF nor Dynaudio though but I believe you word for word.
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
There is a whole dedicated topic on "stage depth". As far as I am concerned, I only try to hear when I have a reference for it, as in classical music. We know how the orchestra is arranged most of the time, so we have been trained to listen to stuff in a certain way. With other music, it's nice to hear separation, but I find it impossible to reliably establish if it's real or mixed in, and what the reference should be to begin with.

As someone mentioned before, I have never heard magic speakers that magically deliver on depth - you set speakers up in a static position for the benefit of some of your reference recordings, and the rest of recordings have to simply deal with that pre-existing condition... :-D
That's the basics of referencing.

I think what he mentioned is young engineers forgeting some crucial part of a mix or mastering project and trying to shortcome the issues by using the fast lane and blaming their ATC's for it.

There's a lot of precious princess in the classical world and that's me being polite.

I'm assuming those are young engineers as I wouldn't even think of a serious engineers calling a set of ATC's as ''bring your cans''. and then having the guts to call me presomptuous. That would be nothing short of a Karen throwing a tantrum and getting her butt handed to her outside of a Mall.
 

Avp1

Active Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2022
Messages
208
Likes
178
Oh I agree - give me more of something I appreciate. I like depth... but in my own experience I didn't think the ATC active speakers I owned for a bit gave me "more" of it, so I find the Radio France note interesting, albeit not quite matching my own experience. Had I read it *before* listening to the speakers may have changed my perception... :-D

I know all about the measured merits of the Genelecs, but I find them hard to look at... :-D

I think ATC are honest in producing depth. If it is in the sound, they will show it. But they do not add depth where it does not exist. This was a difference for me when I replaced B&W 802 with ATC 100.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
I wouldn't know how to describe it but I did experience it. I think its a spatial acoustic effect. Mostly done by room delay and reflection that gives that impression.

I still think it's more likely an accurate reproduction of what’s actually there in the recording.

I mean, how can the listening room acoustics make the more distant sound objects in the music mix appear further away than they really are, but at the same time not have the exact same effect on the closer sound objects in the mix?

The thing is that the listening environment can only reflect what is coming from the two speakers, and what’s actually coming from the two speakers are just two sounds no matter how complex the music mix was to begin with. What the listening room “see” when it comes to reflections is just two separated sound sources, one spreading a single sound which is coming from one speaker and a second sound that is coming from the other speaker, nothing more and nothing less. So how can a speaker create more depth than what was there in the recording to begin with?

In short, the listening room can’t “hear” the depth of the recording.

I hope someone here can explain that if you can't. :)
 
D

Deleted member 57422

Guest
I still think it's more likely an accurate reproduction of what’s actually there in the recording.

I mean, how can the listening room acoustics make the more distant sound objects in the music mix appear further away than they really are, but at the same time not have the exact same effect on the closer sound objects in the mix?

The thing is that the listening environment can only reflect what is coming from the two speakers, and what’s actually coming from the two speakers are just two sounds no matter how complex the music mix was to begin with. What the listening room “see” when it comes to reflections is just two separated sound sources, one spreading a single sound which is coming from one speaker and a second sound that is coming from the other speaker, nothing more and nothing less. So how can a speaker create more depth than what was there in the recording to begin with?

In short, the listening room can’t “hear” the depth of the recording.

I hope someone here can explain that if you can't. :)
Most likely they did some clown stuff like we all did at one point or another.

They just never figured it out and blamed the monitors.

I know I already experienced the same.

Reflection , monitor placement and uneven absorption can deliver that sort of effect. Also some phase issues can happen .

Then you'd get a feel of depth and wonder why.
 
Top Bottom