ATC speakers / Monitors

[lowkeyoperations]

Interesting when someone decides that their directivity is not a problem but the 8c distortion is, even more lacking detailed measurements of the first.

Room treatment can alleviate directivity issues.
I don’t believe room treatment will improve distortion issues.

 

[thewas]

Room treatment can alleviate directivity issues.
I don’t believe room treatment will improve distortion issues.

As shown in Toole's book stereo reproduction gains from sidewall reflections, killing them to deal with poor directivtity is not really a expedient solution (old school studio designs had to do that due to the poor directivtity of contemporary monitors, modern studio designs don't).
Also distortion is usually a problem of higher listening levels while directivtity problems are independent of the listening level.

 

[YSC]

Room treatment can alleviate directivity issues.
I don’t believe room treatment will improve distortion issues.

you could argue for say, 8C level of distortion being a big sacrifice and potentially audible, but then there isn't only ATC and 8C, there are tons of other speakers with good directivity and very low distortion, it's not like you can't have them both at the same time, and audible level of distortion varies among ppl while directivity issues will always be there

 

[goat76]

That’s when proof of actual data is needed rather than bold claims. I always hoped the comparison in data.

You want proof of comparable data, but how will you determine how that data will affect how a listener will perceive the overall sound?

I want proof of how large the deviation in directivity must be before it truly affects the sound quality for a listener in the sweet spot position when the early reflections are down to -20 dB or lower.

All directivity measuring plots I've seen are focused on how the directivity changes for a listener moving off-axis from the speaker, but I'm not very interested in that, I'm way more interested in whether some directivity errors will be heard or not for a single listener at the sweet spot position at the level down at around -20 dB or lower.

 

[YSC]

You want proof of comparable data, but how will you determine how that data will affect how a listener will perceive the overall sound?

I want proof of how large the deviation in directivity must be before it truly affects the sound quality for a listener in the sweet spot position when the early reflections are down to -20 dB or lower.

Well, that needs some scientific study, but at least, one could compare how attenuated the early reflections and distortions vs fundamentals, or I can simply get an easy but likely wrong assumption that say if one can hear distortions of -20db, early reflections of -20db should be able to be detected also, both are deviations. and be reminded that you are trying to say -20db from fundamental non-linearity isn't noticeable for reflections, but then (ignores the 8C at the moment, say use my horrid room with 8030C), -40db from fundamental distortion vs ATC of say, -45 or even -80db (wild guess, which isn't likely as that means it's literally 0db distortion at 80db SPL) distortion being the decisive factor?

All we could do is compare the level of non-linearity, direct or reflected of the speakers no?

 

[lowkeyoperations]

You want proof of comparable data, but how will you determine how that data will affect how a listener will perceive the overall sound?

I want proof of how large the deviation in directivity must be before it truly affects the sound quality for a listener in the sweet spot position when the early reflections are down to -20 dB or lower.

All directivity measuring plots I've seen are focused on how the directivity changes for a listener moving off-axis from the speaker, but I'm not very interested in that, I'm way more interested in whether some directivity errors will be heard or not for a single listener at the sweet spot position at the level down at -20 dB or lower.

Exactly. And treating reflection points and/or monitoring nearfield should reduce audible directivity errors, if there are any, further.

 

[Purité Audio]

Sitting nearfield in a room with completely effective broadband absorption will certainly minimise a ragged off-axis, though the acoustic might be on the dry side.
It is important to differentiate between the specific use case and preference of domestic and professional users.
I have heard ATCs sound fantastic soffit mounted in a properly treated room ( as almost any speaker would) but in domestic rooms.
Keith

 

[Berlin]

Sitting nearfield in a room with completely effective broadband absorption will certainly minimise a ragged off-axis, though the acoustic might be on the dry side.
It is important to differentiate between the specific use case and preference of domestic and professional users.
I have heard ATCs sound fantastic soffit mounted in a properly treated room ( as almost any speaker would) but in domestic rooms.

In my "untreated" living room, the Genelec 8330s sounded subjectively much better than the ATC SCM40s (passive) in a direct comparison. To my taste, voices sounded too bright with the ATCs and the bass was more defined with the Genelecs.
In my "untreated" bedroom, the ATC SCM11s didn't stand a chance in a direct comparison with the Neumann KH150s (OK - the Neumanns are in a different price league), although I found the SCM11s to sound subjectively better than the 40s when I had them in the same room.

A few weeks ago I visited the Genelecs Experience Center here in Berlin. The room was completely treated with absorbers and diffusers. If I remember correctly, the reverberation time was between 0.2 and 0.3 seconds. For professionals this may be an excellent room to do their work, but for my taste it sounded too dry and I didn't like the Genelecs sound here. I agree that a pair of ATCs with an acceptable on-axis response could sound pretty similar to a pair of Genelecs in such an environment (maybe even better because of the treble emphasis...). However, in a domestic environment a good off-axis performance makes the difference and this is what Toole figured out a long time ago already...

 

[YSDR]

A few weeks ago I visited the Genelecs Experience Center here in Berlin. The room was completely treated with absorbers and diffusers. If I remember correctly, the reverberation time was between 0.2 and 0.3 seconds. For professionals this may be an excellent room to do their work, but for my taste it sounded too dry and I didn't like the Genelecs sound here. I agree that a pair of ATCs with an acceptable on-axis response could sound pretty similar to a pair of Genelecs in such an environment (maybe even better because of the treble emphasis...). However, in a domestic environment a good off-axis performance makes the difference and this is what Toole figured out a long time ago already...

In my home environment, I have a reverberation time of 0.2-0.3 seconds, similar to several of my friends rooms. IMO this is not too hard to achieve with proper acoustic treatment. Maybe a completely untreated, modern, full of concrete and stone, minimalistic design living room is a different story, but in such a room, even a simple conversation often can be cumbersome acoustically. Who wants to hear a hifi system in a room like this? Although I don't have data, but I think this is where the room acoustic is much more destructive than a directivity error of a loudspeaker. So if in an acoustically treated room and in a totally untreated room it doesn't really matter some directivity error, then where it matters?
An acoustically untreated room can be almost anything, it can have unbalanced reverberation over the important spectrum, so even a loudspeaker with good directivity and frequency response can sound unbalanced in such a room, IMO.

 

[goat76]

Sitting nearfield in a room with completely effective broadband absorption will certainly minimise a ragged off-axis, though the acoustic might be on the dry side.
It is important to differentiate between the specific use case and preference of domestic and professional users.
I have heard ATCs sound fantastic soffit mounted in a properly treated room ( as almost any speaker would) but in domestic rooms.
Keith

If people here are truly interested in high-fidelity reproduction of sound, they should surely also be interested in doing something to reduce the interference from their listening environments which will otherwise severely diminish the whole idea of high-fidelity reproduction of sound.

The recorded music should either sound acoustically lively or "dry as hell" depending on the actual information the recording contains, therefore the assumption you have that some recordings would sound too much "on the dry side" in an acoustically well-treated room is plain wrong from a high-fidelity standpoint of view, especially when the production was most likely done in such acoustically well-treated room where the mixing engineer heard it without a lot of acoustic interference from their listening environment.

The mixing engineers surely never thought they would make the mix dryer than what they subjectively intended it to sound like, with some crazy idea that it would hopefully sound as intended when played at some random dude's home.

 

[Berlin]

In my home environment, I have a reverberation time of 0.2-0.3 seconds, similar to several of my friends rooms. IMO this is not too hard to achieve with proper acoustic treatment. Maybe a completely untreated, modern, full of concrete and stone, minimalistic design living room is a different story, but in such a room, even a simple conversation often can be cumbersome acoustically.

Then you'd better not attend a service in an old European church...

I don't have data, but I think ...

Well...

 

[YSC]

If people here are truly interested in high-fidelity reproduction of sound, they should surely also be interested in doing something to reduce the interference from their listening environments which will otherwise severely diminish the whole idea of high-fidelity reproduction of sound.

The recorded music should either sound acoustically lively or "dry as hell" depending on the actual information the recording contains, therefore the assumption you have that some recordings would sound too much "on the dry side" in an acoustically well-treated room is plain wrong from a high-fidelity standpoint of view, especially when the production was most likely done in such acoustically well-treated room where the mixing engineer heard it without a lot of acoustic interference from their listening environment.

The mixing engineers surely never thought they would make the mix dryer than what they subjectively intended it to sound like, with some crazy idea that it would hopefully sound as intended when played at some random dude's home.

well, as mixing engineers do consider what their work will be sold to (I bet it's not those with fully treated room and uber high end stuff guys) so I bet they won't make it perfect tonality in the fully treated studio, plus quite some will be using home studio to do the mixing or portable stuffs to go around to do on the fly, you sure a studio grade full treatment will be what they intended to have the music reproduced at?

Personally I wouldn't guess what are each individual "pros" trying to do so, but Hi Fidelity reproduction should have everything including directivity and reflections/absorbtion to be as good as possible to not messing things up, still that opinion: if -30db or below distortion is a huge problem, why on earth -20db attenuated early reflection isn't a problem?

 

[signalpath]

Years ago, we did an A/B review in our studio between ATC300 and Dunlavy SC5 speakers, for MIX Magazine. It was like trying to unify east and west. Two profoundly different speakers, both offering unique benefits. As a classical music producer, the SC5's were my obvious choice. But another reviewer, a pop producer, fell in love with the ATC300's and in fact later bought the review pair.

Over the years, I've rarely heard a monitor as neutral as the Dunlavy SC5. John (a PhD physicist) died and Dunlavy closed down, but I've still not seen any speaker company who prints an exhaustive suite of objective anechoic test charts, as John did. Maybe I've just not looked hard enough. John printed those tests because his designs were truly exemplary, and he was proud to show it off.

My listening preference is an RT60 of 0.4 to 0.5s. Not too dry, well-managed consistent-over-freq room reflections, with strategic diffusion, absorption where it's needed, and speakers placed far from any reflecting surfaces. A relatively large listening triangle. And ideally - primary room mode absorption using some kind of Helmholtz technique. Monitoring full-range, full-dynamic music in too small a room just doesn't work, regardless of treatment. All of this is basic Toole and Olive.

 

[goat76]

well, as mixing engineers do consider what their work will be sold to (I bet it's not those with fully treated room and uber high end stuff guys) so I bet they won't make it perfect tonality in the fully treated studio, plus quite some will be using home studio to do the mixing or portable stuffs to go around to do on the fly, you sure a studio grade full treatment will be what they intended to have the music reproduced at?

No, please stop this nonsense.
Most mixing engineers are sitting in an acoustically well-treated listening environment where they can hear what they are doing, and try their best to make the mix sound as best as possible in the environment they are in. They will certainly not be sitting there guessing what the mix may sound like in a lousy listening environment with bad acoustics hoping that that somehow will solve the overall sound in the end, an idea like that is so freaking far away from anything real.

Personally I wouldn't guess what are each individual "pros" trying to do so, but Hi Fidelity reproduction should have everything including directivity and reflections/absorbtion to be as good as possible to not messing things up, still that opinion: if -30db or below distortion is a huge problem, why on earth -20db attenuated early reflection isn't a problem?

Once again, distortion and directivity behaviors are two completely different things and you can't just compare them apples-to-apples. The distortion comes with the direct sound from the speakers while the early reflections come way behind, maybe 5-10 milliseconds after the direct sound on average, and masked by the continuous music signal which in an acoustically well-behaved environment is probably attenuated by -20 to -25 dB.

 

[YSC]

No, please stop this nonsense.
Most mixing engineers are sitting in an acoustically well-treated listening environment where they can hear what they are doing, and try their best to make the mix sound as best as possible in the environment they are in. They will certainly not be sitting there guessing what the mix may sound like in a lousy listening environment with bad acoustics hoping that that somehow will solve the overall sound in the end, an idea like that is so freaking far away from anything real.



Once again, distortion and directivity behaviors are two completely different things and you can't just compare them apples-to-apples. The distortion comes with the direct sound from the speakers while the early reflections come way behind, maybe 5-10 milliseconds after the direct sound on average, and masked by the continuous music signal which in an acoustically well-behaved environment is probably attenuated by -20 to -25 dB.

I don't think that's non-sense, mixing engineers of course don't make it sound way too dry in the well damped room, but they won't make it sound like crap in reflective rooms either, it's just taking the balance between both worlds to make a mix sound right and translates on most systems.

put this aside, assuming what you said so far are 100% correct, so what we have here:

1) directivity isn't important in a well damped room, coz the reflected sound is -20db or more from direct sound
2) distortion is very important, so 8C is horrible, and presumably "distortionless" ATCs have (mid) drivers (at -50db SPL? at 90db or higher?) is superior to say, even the KH120II with distortion <0.5% above 150hz at 96db SPL and <0.5% above 90hz at 86db SPL with excellent directivity.
3) Mixing engineers have well treated rooms so directivity isn't important but they detect distortion
4) Some mixing engineers, at least a few produced great mixes bought the 8C from Purite
5) ATC engineer have said directivity is considered and important in their design

Maybe I have read or added something, but please point out which one you don't agree on? I actually do wanted to see some larger studio ATCs to be measured, since they have been 3 ways with crossovers selected properly it could do reasonably well even in Klippel data and their drivers could have been superior to say, Genelec Soffit mounted ones also, all needs data supporting. But saying well treated room making directivity errors non-issue while way below fundamental distortion difference is important is kind of funny, -20db distortion vs -50db can be audible in an A/B test depends on frequency, or person, but -45db vs -50db? you got to have something to show it's actually audible,
Study like this: https://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/distortion shows at the midrange distortion threshold is at best ~-30db SPL, add extra 10db you got -40db, so how on earth that will be more audible or important than the directivity error is just...

 

[Avp1]

Interesting when someone decides that their directivity is not a problem but the 8c distortion is, even more lacking detailed measurements of the first.

You hear distortions regardless if it is direct or reflected sound. It is very easy to hear it when you crank volume up and stop heating separate instruments in something like large orchestra - they become indistinguishable. You should hear that difference with low distortion speakers, where you can crank them up and up to the point when your ears begin distorting. Unless you hear this yourself, you should not talk about it.

 

[Avp1]

you could argue for say, 8C level of distortion being a big sacrifice and potentially audible, but then there isn't only ATC and 8C, there are tons of other speakers with good directivity and very low distortion, it's not like you can't have them both at the same time, and audible level of distortion varies among ppl while directivity issues will always be there

I do not understand why people continue to talk about poor directivity of ATC speakers. Above in this thread there were linked technical reports for SCM50, 100, 150 models: all of them show good horizontal directivity up to at least 10kHz. If smooth response within +/- 60 degrees is not enough, I do not know what is enough. It was already explained that deep midrange null above listening axis is a feature, not a bug. You cannot mix small and big ATCs in the same category, as small ATC speakers designed for near field listening, where reflected sound is NOT an issue at all. If you do not like the price, this is a personal preference. I myself would better pay for full analogue circuitry in speakers. DSP should be either external for the speaker or left for low cost units, wich you should afford to replace every few years.

 

[dfuller]

As shown in Toole's book stereo reproduction gains from sidewall reflections, killing them to deal with poor directivtity is not really a expedient solution (old school studio designs had to do that due to the poor directivtity of contemporary monitors, modern studio designs don't).

The best stereo reproduction I've ever heard was in a Northward room, which has truly hilarious amounts of side rear and ceiling absorption, with flush mounted speakers, so very little in the way of side wall reflections. I won't say the ATCs were my favorite speakers ever (the port tuning choices makes them sound a little "puffy" or "sleepy" compared to something with an arguably better design e.g. KH420) but they certainly weren't holding anybody back from doing good work. I'd have been happy to buy SCM50s.

2) distortion is very important, so 8C is horrible, and presumably "distortionless" ATCs have (mid) drivers (at -50db SPL? at 90db or higher?) is superior to say, even the KH120II with distortion <0.5% above 150hz at 96db SPL and <0.5% above 90hz at 86db SPL with excellent directivity.

It's not horrible, but that distortion is a weak point because it's not just benign H2, it's mostly H3 and worse H5 which are far less masked. And the ATC mid driver isn't at -50dB at 90dB, it's at more like -70. Effectively distortion-free from a transducer standpoint. This is why my signature says what it does about dome mids. Good ones (ATC, Neumann, Bliesma, to some extent PMC) are pretty much the best midrange drivers money can buy.

3) Mixing engineers have well treated rooms so directivity isn't important but they detect distortion

Yes. Well, more mastering. Mixers I've heard do good work from basically anything you can think of (NS10s, anyone?) but mastering guys need super low distortion. The mastering guys I know using 8Cs are much more nearfield than most.

4) Some mixing engineers, at least a few produced great mixes bought the 8C from Purite

The 8C is a very high grade speaker, of that there is no doubt. I would have zero problems working on them, but I am far enough away (and am sensitive enough to distortion) that I'd start to notice it working.

 

[Avp1]

Sitting nearfield in a room with completely effective broadband absorption will certainly minimise a ragged off-axis, though the acoustic might be on the dry side.
It is important to differentiate between the specific use case and preference of domestic and professional users.
I have heard ATCs sound fantastic soffit mounted in a properly treated room ( as almost any speaker would) but in domestic rooms.
Keith

What is the DOMESTIC ROOM for you? Would a dedicated listening room (which majority of those who spend more than $20K on speakers have) in the owner's house qualify?

 

[Avp1]

Then you'd better not attend a service in an old European church...

The sound of a church should be baked into record, not added from room acoustic during playback