ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

Perceived. A real issue with hifi unfortunately. Just look at l**n.

 

What's wrong with Linn, all of a sudden? All experiences in life are "perceived"

 

The manufacturing of demand

I dont recall mentioning that name :JPS:

90% of hifi is marketing.

Subjective experiences are perceived. Objective experiences are measured. Like the measurements on the atc mid.

 

good guess but keep trying.

 

Apparently i am very trying.


Can we not lay this thread to rest now, before james has another mental hernia.

 

They didnt have belly buttons?

 

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, measurements can be interpreted to suit the purposes of the poster - which in this case seems to be a rather crude "hatchet-job" on ATC active speakers.

 

Thats absolutely right Bub. They are a well respected studio brand.

As someone pointed out in another thread, a mastering engineer will pick the monitors that he/she feels most comfortable with. This is going to be based on factors like what they are used to, what they feel they can do the best job with. They might select genelec, mackie, jbl, ATC, PMC, B&W, Dynaudio, Tannoy etc !!!

I can't see a mastering engineer picking a choice of monitor on measured performance - useability and familiarity seem more popular - taking the use of the LS3/5a as a near field monitor in so many BBC applications for example. Engineers were using a tried and tested design. They were familiar with the flaws in the design, and worked with them. Model-to-model consistancy was key.

Some ATC models may not technically measure as well as some other studio monitors, but that doesnt mean they wouldnt be the first choice of many respected proffessionals.

The drivers in my own speakers (a version of Altec VOTTs) were used for decades for studio/stage applications. Interestingly, they measure very poorly in some key areas. The treble for example cuts off below that of a modern dome tweeter (about 16khz), and they have a mid-band peak. None of this however stopped the original VOTTs from being the only speaker ever to be reccomended by the motion picture academy (I think thats its name), and the most popular choice for cinema applications for decades. Simply put, sound engineers were aware of the compromises inherant in the design, and knew how to work around them - its familiarity of design and useability again.

My conclusion based on all that I've read then, is that measured performance is not a key indication of success in monitoring application.

All this as a lay-man, I have no studio experience myself.


Chris

 

So you just fancy Robbie Williams do you?

 

yes. you have the best system.

 

Nobody is hachetting atc. That level of 3rd hamonic midrange isnt a question of perception - its measured. Its also well understood that this is very audible. This probably doesnt matter for studio work given the ATCs undoubted merits elsewhere.

 

oomphalos

huzzah!

Bub / Merlin - the matter is now settled. take note sloppie.

 

I'm beginning to think your arse is something of a transmission line.

 

I don't think it is audible at all. I suppose you will rebut that, but frankly, my dear...

 

Are you going to be at the hifi show in sept merlin?

 

1% 2nd harmonic is audible (some lucky few can hear 0.1%) and 3rd harmonic is audible at much lower levels.

 

As we have seen elsewhere in this thread, measurements can be interpreted to suit the purposes of the poster - which in this case seems to be a rather crude "hatchet-job" on ATC active speakers.

 

If you are going to Heathrow old chap, I will be flying out of it.

 

... but do I look bovvered? Is my face bovvered? No, because I ain't bovvered, innit?

 

the measured level of midband harmonic is what it is. you can debate if the measurement is correct or not but it seems unlikly atc would let it pass in the review without comment if they thought the measurement was incorrect.

see you there then merlin - will you be there for business?