ATC studio monitors

Are you absolutely certain that you don't like ATCs?

I ask because you seem a little uncertain.

P.S. I've been interested in Hi-fi for over 20 years. I'm terribly sorry, but I've never heard of either you or your favourite speakers. This makes you seem quite exotic and new.

Do you have any more advice for us? Please try to keep it short.

Best regards,

 

Hi,

I do not like most conventional speakers. There are some that are exceptional, but they as a rule use unconventional means to get these results.

Yet you make statements about Pro Audio equipment. How curious.

As said, i prefer a low profile, so you may have heard about me without making the connection, if not, that's fine too.

if you have not heard about some of the most accurate speakers on the planet, maybe this is related of not looking over the edge of the "HiFi" valley and being stuck down there much passes one by....

L8er T

 

Hi,

They are not very accurate. They get in the way too much. Again, I guess in many ways it is exactly what Dynaudio wants to achieve, however to me a crooked straightedge is worse then non. That is if you require a MONITOR to control what you are recording.

All else being equal my preference in monitors would still be large format coaxials like MEG, Tannoy, Urei/Altec. There are things they do that more modern designs for all their claimed virtues fail to manage. Many more modern designs make great claims but do not deliver.

Ciao T

 

I am beginning to admire your style.

Now, come on. Just between you and me. Sure about the ATCs? A lot of other professionals seem to love them. Are you better at hearing stuff than they are? Or are they just that bit more susceptible to the marketing than you?

There has to be some kind of explanation for your eccentric point of view.

 

Hi,

Yes. I would not use them on my own choice as Monitor, due to a number of the sonical problems, compared to state of the art Monitors (the same goes also obviously for many others apart from ATC).

Actually, that is plainly untrue, SOME proffessionals love them, enough of them do not. You are sufficiently unaware of what is going on the Pro Monitor arena that you simply cannot make such statements.

It is less what one hears but what one desires. I require a monitor that allows me to hear the impact a 1" shift in microphone position has. As I do not believe in "fix it in the mix" getting it right first time is crucial, that means you need monitors that allow you to hear exactly and accuratly what is going on. Few manage sufficiently well.

My view is not excentric, the majority of Studio Professionals use by choice monitors other than ATC, in many cases cost may be a determining factor but in many others it is quality.

So, please remain in the realm of reality with you comments.

Ciao T

 

So ... is it just a matter of opinion, would you say?

P.S. If ATCs are so inadequate, then why did James Guthrie choose them to remaster Dark Side of The Moon recently? As you know, DSOTM is a pretty high-profile record with millions selling worldwide.

 

Possibly representative of the flawed loudspeakers the remaster is likely to be played back through in people's houses? Just a thought.

 

Not wanting to take sides but if you are suggesting that studios and domestic loudspeakers are as different in tonality as you people make out then the whole concept of hifi is f***ed is it not.

 

Hi,

Actually, in the early days of HiFi the gap was not very large. In fact, Tannoy Monitor Red, Gold and HPD where found in both domestic and studio applications where high fidelity was desired.

But people started to decide that big speakers in the home where a problem, so the typhical "High Fidelity" Speaker has a 6.5" or 5.25" Woofer/Midraneg and a 1" or 3/4" Dome Tweeter (I cannot think of a worse way to make a speaker). Any "floorstandaners" are exactly the same, except with a seperate woofer added. In order to get any bass out of small cabinets efficiency dropped through the floor and distortion and compression went way up.

Studio monotors developed into their own directions too and nowadays a studio monitor and hifi speaker have little in common and neither tend to be terribly accurate or suited to a reproduction offer "High Fidelity" to the original (notable exceptions exist both among domestic speakers and studio monitors of course).

I would say BTW that the concept of "High Fidelity" went well down the pipes once massive multitrack recording became available. Fidelity to what? To the roiginal? What original wif each instrument is recorded seperatly and in many takes and each instrument track is made up from cut out snipplets of many recording sessions. Ever wondered why many moredn recordings literally sound inhuman? A computer will play music perfectly (just like the cutting & pasting nowadays practiced will do) but woithout any emotion or soul.

Ciao T

 

Yes, in my house (and Dave Gilmour's) but not in many others.

C'mon 3D. Out of all the available monitors with which to remaster DSOTM, ATC were chosen. Why, if they are so "inadequate"?

 

i hate pink floyd.

dsotm sucks.
it sounds unreal and over produced like a cheesy listening stereo spectacular 60's piece of rubbish. the music is boring and souless.
why do people hold this up as a great recording. i does'nt capture anything as it contains so much over dubbing and multi miking and editing. even worse is the wall.
wham's - club tropicana probably sounds more accurate.

in my humble opinion.

regards

 

Hi,

I don't know why they where chosed, but the recent DTSOM remaster is surely by far the worst sounding DTSOM EVER (and this pretty much universally agreed). Hell, 20'd genertaion Vinyl pressings sound way better. The early 80's CD Remasters sound better.

I would not per se blame the monitors chosen for that abysimal sound, but perhaps they are at fault after all?

Ciao T

 

Wasn't Echo's remastered at Abbey road?, Guthire loved the B&W's

 

They were chosed because JG thinks they are "great" (see quote below). Do you think that JG has heard any other type of monitor, or just ATCs?

I disagree, the CD in particular sounds dreadful. I haven't seen any criticism of the recent remaster sound quality up till now.

Please admit that you are on a wind-up.

 

Hi,

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/851/

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=3466

I note that this seesm to the CD layer only, I will have to listed to the SACD Layer when i get a SACD Player back for mods. My personal impression when playing the DSOTM SACD via the CD layer was that it was UTTER sh!te. It seems I am not alone with that view.

L8er T

 

Mmmm like you say, utter shite. Singling out the CD layer of an SACD (when many suspect the CD layer is often sabotaged at the behest of Sony) seems a tad convenient - after all, surely the DSD layers were the main focus of the remastering?

 

I guess one possible reason for a difference is that the audio professionals in the studios are in the production business, and want to analyse, unpick, re-mix, etc; and we, well me, are/am on the consumption side of things, we (well me) seek enjoyment, to be beguiled, given a certain suspension of belief that the studio professionals ought not to indulge in
- 'cos they're being paid to make me (and perhaps you) happy!

 

Those are reviews of the recent remaster using ATC monitors.

 

would it be possible to lilke the ATC monitors without liking this recording/remix, and v-v?

 

Possibly a rhetorical question?

Of course lots of people will like ATC speakers and also dislike them..

Some people will think that particular remaster of DSOTM is pants, some will love it. Some will even think DSOTM itself is pants!

Some engineers will love their ATCs for mastering, others would dismiss them utterly.

15 pages or so into this thread and we're back where we started!