ATC studio monitors

Those with properly designed and implemented crossovers don't. However, I'd agree that low level "presence" is easier to find with active speakers.

 

I have heard of Bob Ludwig, but not heard of "3DSonics". Bob Ludwig liked the ATCs enough to use them at home.

3DSonics likes trolling.

 

Certainly true (not agreeing with the Trolling comment), but whilst clearly Bob considers the 50's worthy, he clearly feels the Eggleston's are better than the 100's + subs, otherwise why change them. Simply reiterates the general point - the ATC's are very good, but not the last word. Hardly contraversial.

 

Touche

 

Hi,

I'll restate what I posted before again here.

1) I know several studio monitors which based on measured performance are more accurate than ATC at any given Sound Pressure Level, therefore ATC does NOT make the most accurate Studio Monitor in the world.

2) I also contend that compared to "State of the Art" Studio Monitor designs (such as those by MEG, K+H and Meyer Sound) those made by ATC are quite traditional and unexceptional, if competent. One may agree or disagree if the technical solutions employed by these state of the art design actually as result make them better in any sense other than in terms of objective measurements in a specific area.

3) I personally do not feel that ATC Studio monitors give a sufficiently "open window" in the recording to be used as final arbiter of recording quality.

4) I personally do not like ATC's for use as my own speakers at home. I personally also do not like most other "audiophile" speakers.

5) I do not feel that an ATC Monitor would automatically and inherently be superior to a 1970's Hartley Concert Master Speaker (which was the starting point of this discussion) as contended by another poster who also seemed to extoll ATC as the only competent speaker very much like you, on the contrary.

Now please tell me which part of the above is "trolling".

It seems to disagree with you is "trolling" in your view?

Where where you when Senator McCarthy needed you?

Well, you can always join the NeoCon's or NeoLabour's with that attitude.

L8er T

 

1) Since ATC don't provide any measurements, there is no basis for that statement.
2) You actually said ATCs were "bottom of the pile".
3) Bob Ludwig, James Guthrie and many others disagree with you.
4) So what?
5) So what?

 

Hi,

Independent measurements of ATC Speakers do exist and have been published, in a number of print publications (sorry for the net, can't be helped).

Yes, the "pile" is the one of true high end / state of the art studio monitors (meaning the > £ 5...10K pair range). Your pile is probably that of "No-Fi" consumer gear, mine starts where that one ends (ATC is a good point for the transtition).

Bob Ludwig agrees insofar as he seemed to have found since 1997 considerably better speakers, which he now likes a lot more than ATC. As for JG, He seems to like whatever is well promoted, B&W is the best one day, ATC the next. Who knows, if MEG started putting $$ into lobbying & marketing instead of R&D he might like these too.

Exactly.

The Devil?
ATC?

So What!!??

Freddy Freeloader.

And an Organ Grinders Swing to you.

L8er T

 

I think you may have what we could call "issues".

There's a big list of big names who happily use ATCs. People who are well-known. You, on the other hand, are rather unfamous.

 

So let me get this clear. James is now saying that anyone who has heard ATCs but prefers other loudspeakers has "issues".

All I can say is there must be an awful lot of us!

 

That's not what I'm saying at all, and you have failed to "get it clear".

 

What Bub is saying is that anyone who is unfamous and doesn't like ATCs has issues. Whether Torsten really is unfamous or not is open to discussion; I'll bet there are many more people who have heard about him than about your typical studio operator, but I guess being famous or not is really decided by being on the ATC list or not.

Bub himself, of course, is infamous.

 

this is funny

 

Hi,

No, I don't, sorry. I'm not selling the "Big Issue". Try someone else.

I do think that being famous or not has anything to do with anything, outside the Tabloids, but that's just me.

But let me get this right. It is okay for Bob Ludwig to say that Egglestone Works Speakers are better than ATC because he is famous, but it is not okay for me to say that MEG, K+H and Meyer Sound's top of the range Monitors are better than ATC.

I am sure there is some logic in that somewhere, but it escapes me right now.

But as Lt. Commander Data of Starship Enterprise would say:

Please keep up the petty bickering, I find it most fascinating.

I must admit that the lessons in the twist of the human psychology which you have so generously provided FOC have prooven to me at least most elludicating and amusing.

Sayonara

 

James has always been most amusing, not just for his steadfast belief in equipment most unmusical.Also for his truley unique personality, sprinkled with liberal dashings of self deludedment & a need of constant resassurance complex.
You do have to admire the fact he's been flogging a dead a horse for such a long time now and he does stick to his guns, good for you James the Fora salute you sir

 

ATC100 active V PMC IB2 passive

Just spent the day listening to these wonderful speakers at Cornflake. It was my first visit there and I'm rather glad I made the trip. It's a tiny yellow shop in a quiet backstreet, just off totenham court road. The interior is rather lived in and has a very welcoming atmosphere. Scuffed walls, messy work benches, jeans and relaxed humour are the order of the day. Michael hosted the demo and proved to be very helpful throughout, even acting as my personal volume controller due to lack of remote! He's probably having an afternoon nap after lugging these massive speakers back and forth many times.

The system used was rather neutral to highlight the character difference of the speakers. We always used an Ayre D1X reference cd player (£6k), Bryston BP25 preamp (£2.5k), Bryston 4BSST power amp (£2.5k) for the passive PMC's, chord company odyssey cables. The listening room was roughly 18' square. One slight oddity with the room is that the bass output is reduced when seated close to the middle of the room. When you stand up the low end output rises markedly, and reduces as you sit back down. We tried various seating locations and ended up with our backs to the wall, placing us as far away from the front speakers as possible. This pretty much eliminated any problems, as the low end bass returned to normality. The music used refected my wide personal taste. We ran through particular tracks on nirvana - nevermind, phil collins - but seriously, prince - sign o the times, rolling stones - forty licks, madonna - ray of light, and the miles davis - so what.

First up were the PMC IB2's. These look great with light oak cabinets sporting slightly curved edges, with contrasting plain black drivers. Finish is rather good, but not exquiste, looking very purposeful. The cabinets are large and particuarly deep. They were positioned about a metre from the rear wall and slightly toed inwards. Upper drivers were positioned to the outside edge. The high and mid frequencies were very clear, smooth and totally natural. I couldn't really find anything to criticise here to be honest. I was happy to sit there soaking up the sound. The bass however was quite astonishing. I've never heard anything like it at all. The sheer low frequency volume, absolute extension and at the very same time exhibiting unreal control and range of tuneful notes, was simply breathtaking. Particuarly on track 6 and 10 on madonna's ray of light. I couldn't help turning the air blue, such was the shock. It made my RELQ400 sub sound like a slow, blurred, one note weakling. This is the only time I have ever heard high fidelity bass at proper high volume. The simultanious combination of such deep volume with sharp notes was a revelation. I laughed about it with Michael and sat there shaking my head in bewilderment. Truly a king of bass output AND control. Very shocking.

Next the ATC 100 active. This is an equally large brute. Styling is far boxier and very plain. Not such a nice object to have in your lounge really. They were positioned about a metre from the rear wall and slightly toed inwards. Upper drivers were positioned to the outside edge. As soon as the same songs came on it was clear the ATC's have superior upper frequencies. They are just slightly more open, detailed, airy and effortless around the voices. The music seemed to hang in the air with a very wide sound stage. The PMC's seemed slightly more closed in and only focused upon the centre spot. Although my description makes it sound like a large difference in the two, in reality it was only 15% or so. The much larger difference was to be found at the lowest bass frequencies. The ATC's by comparison lacked the same extension, low end volume, and to a smaller degree absolute control and tightness. The ATC's bass was very good indeed, but the PMC's were frankly, stupidly, bloody awesome. Annoyed at this bass difference I had the ATC's moved closer to the rear wall, at around 40cm, to try and beef them up. Immediately the lower bass volume picked up, closing the gap a fraction. However, now the bass was slower and a bit messy, by comparison. In fact it now sounded like my REL at home, struggling to keep pace.

At this point we stopped for a chat. I asked Michael if he would mind cutting both pairs in half to make me a 'cut and shut' model, using the best of both. I really wanted the open presence of ATC's highs, with that unreal PMC bass. Alas nothing else could be done to improve the ATC's bottom end. So the only remaining solution was to try and improve the PMC's upper frequencies, to try and match that of the ATC's. I asked for the best equipment to be dragged into service, money no object. Something must surely improve the PMC's upper range presence a touch. We had a ton of kit at our disposal - Mark levinson, AVI, Naim, Bryston, Rega, etc. So I'm expecting some seriously pricey gear to be selected. But Michael suggests a tiny little gizmo called a Whest, looking like a dac, but it's not. It's just £1k worth of filter that works on an unbalanced in & output, slotted between the cd player and preamp. Now I think he's having a laugh, and I expect we're about to waste our time. Anyway, in it goes and we sit back for a listen.

The PMC IB2, using a Whest gizmo is in a different league altogether. All of a sudden the music pops out of the speakers and floats in the air. The sound stage is now just as wide as the ATC's, quite remarkably. I couldn't believe I was hearing such a difference. It was akin to using a valve preamp instead of a dull & flat solid state pre. How or why this Whest achieve's it, I don't know or care. Quite simply I need one and that's that. So is this new PMC setup a match for the awesome ATC high's? No. It still isn't quite as good, but we are now talking only a 2%ish gap, instead of the previous 15%. Now the differences are that small I can live with them to be honest.

In summary we have two awesome speakers, that excel in different areas. These are the finest two models I've ever had the pleasure to demo. I could happily live with either, and will recommend both to anyone who asks. However, to be fussy....

The ATC's are still unmatched for upper most clarity. These are the high fidelity supremo's in my experience, even if it's only by a tiny margin. However the PMC IB2's are truly amazing all round in the right setup. I can live with their tiny 2%ish dip in upper clarity for that tremendous bass experience. These PMC's are so much fun on rock, pop, and even on more sensible double bass, miles davis type tunes. For me personally I had more enoyment listening to the PMC's. However if you mostly listen to classical music then I would reccommend the ATC's as having the slight edge. As my music collection is mostly newer, louder, beat driven and not as sensible as many of you guys, I will be ordering some IB2's shortly. Now I just need to listen to some valve preamps with the IB2's to try and gain even more from the upper reigons. If I had the money and space for two rooms it would be nice to have both pairs, for different moods.

Very suprised, Paul.

 

Nice write up Paul.

Who'd have thought it, the ATC100s are deficient in bass compared with the PMCs!

I quite liked what the IB2s did when I heard them at Bristol. If you want to really hear bass, you ought to listen to a Velodyne DD series sub with the response EQ'd to the room. Its in a different league in terms of bass extension, timing and low distortion IMO. Not necessarily the speakers fault, just the room always introduces so much muddle and distortion.

 

P.S

Just to make clear, I don't think any speaker was better than another. Mostly it's just I had more fun, in that particular room, and in my mood at the time, with my music. I'd really like the space for both of them!

Paul

 

The great thing about the internet is that you can't see my smiling face.

I'm more than happy with ATC 100A, fed by my Mana-supported system, and safe in the knowledge that you guys really have no idea!

I doubt whether 3-bollox has ever heard what ATCs can do.

Cheers.

 

James,

have you heard what TAD, MEG, K&H and Meyer Sound monitors can do?

No? Didn't think so.

 

Hi,

Hmmm, given that few if any studio's install Mana Tables under Mixing desks, maybe not. Or maybe I have heard EXACTLY what they can do but my standards of comparison differ from yours (they probably do).

Ciao T