ATC studio monitors

BTW, Thorsten, I don't mean to suggest you're not honest, or even correct! But I would be curious to know in greater detail where and why you believe ATC are going wrong. And I'm genuinely curious to hear these speakers you insist are so much better as they must be blindingly good.

Dunc

 

Dunc he said they were more accurate, better is a subjective thing, you may still prefer your 20's

 

And exercising caution wrt manufacturers' claims is always A Good Thing.

 

Sorry, posted that before reading latest reply... Fairy snuff.

Still, just for their purported dynamics/lack of compression I'd like to hear them, as IMO ATCs have superb dynamics.

Dunc

 

PS, I've also read at least one review that claimed that the Dunlavy SC-V is perhaps the best loudspeaker in the world (I'll try and dig it up), and extolling many of the design principles upheld by John Dunlavy. The review was from the previous decade so I'm sure things have moved on a little, but just thought I'd mention that it's not a speaker to be casually dismissed...

Dunc

 

No disrespect intended, but such statements mean precisely nothing. Has the person making the claim heard every speaker in the world, or even every high-end speaker? And what does 'best' mean in this context anyway?

 

As things stand, it still means absolutely nothing to me. Hi-fi is a pretty broad church, with all sorts of fringe characters in plentiful supply.

He's pushing his own products, I had a little look at his website: bashing the opposition does no harm to his sales, I guess.

I'm interested in some of his assertions, but, once again, he's produced no evidence to back any of them up, e.g.: "ATC Speakers are not Impulse/Time coherent nor do they manage to approximate a pointsource overly well" looks like two opinions to me, rather than two facts.

 

Hi,

It is not so much where ATC go "wrong". Their "fault" as it stands is that of going along with the majority. But ATC are in the business of selling speakers and doing the same as everyone else and doing it a little better works well if what you want are sales.

Good and Bad are relative, subjective terms, at least untill such a time that we attain objective measurenments that correlate well with subjective perception.

I have been on and off living with two types of speakers almost exclusively (there where others, but most where deeply unsatisfying), one are are various types of Studio Monitor designs (and with that I am referring to large format, far-field types, not those mealymouthed toys commonly called "mini-monitor") the other invariably are 8 - 10" fullrange drivers.

I find that I enjoy music more using fullrange driver based speakers, despite their numerous failings, in many ways studio monitors are a little too intellectual for my taste.

So, I do not neccesarily recommend ANY studio monitor for "Music for Pleasure", they are tools designed for a specific job, namely to allow as much as possible insight in what is being recorded, while avoiding listener fatigue. This does not neccesarily correlate with enjoyable listening.

Just like a Formula 1 car would NOT make a good sportscar to take for a spin in the countryside, despite being undeniably superior in performance by a long stretch.

Ciao T

 

Yeah, sorry, bit vague - I believe the article went into some depth explaining why the design principles used in the SC-V are the best possible in practice, and that the execution was as good as could be, so that, in effect, there could be no loudspeaker better than the SC-V - only "as good as".

It's frustrating me as I read the article some time ago and can only remember it vaguely...

Dunc

 

I find that I enjoy music more using active ATC speakers, because I don't notice their numerous failings, haha.

The notion that studio monitors can only be used with any success in a studio, is illogical & wrong.

 

Sounds like a silly argument to me, as it ignores the possibility of new materials and/or techniques producing 'better' (however defined) speakers. That said I'd certainly be interested in seeing the article.

 

Hi,

Yup. And you are most welcome to like ATC speakers.

I am? I normally do not even mention I make them. At any extent, my own stuff is sufficiently extreme and unusual that they appeal only to a very small minority. I actually generally created them for myself, but got convinced to offer them for sale as there seem to some who share my rather unusal tastes.

What opposition? Anyone buying the kind of speakers represented by ATC so aptly is unlikely to even look at the kind of stuff that interrests me.

These are comments based on published measurements, actually. Such published measurements are sadly very rare.

ATC have choosen not provide measurements of their own speakers and also do not seem to be too keen to give their products to Mags that carry out comprehensive measurements the dearth of readily available facts is not my fault.

As you can note, ATC's competitors seem more willing to provide such information.

Ciao T

 

1. Please provide links to these "published measurements" of yours. ATC go to great lengths with their active crossover to ensure phase coherence at crossover points.

2. If you have little or nothing to go on, where do your strongly-held opinions come from?

 

Hi,

They are not "my" measurements, they where in one of the Studio mags (Studio Sound IIRC) a few years back.

Yet they include neither mechanical nor electrical means for "time-aligning" the non-coincident drivers.

Listening to ATC Speakers, among others.

Plus, where ATC's technical details are concerened there are largely no opinions, there is only fact and marketing claims. ATC seems stong on the latter.

Ciao T

 

Straw-clutching.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as well.

Ciao!

 

Fact still remains ATc's are wanting in the lower registars. Still accuracy first eh? :devil:

 

That is not a fact, that is your opinion which is based on your own "reference" (for want of a better word) which has a huge bass hump.

 

Well James, Think you'll find that went a long time ago sir
Mind you I do get to listen to one or 2 systems in the coarse of my occupation as well, and yes I find them lacking. However that doesn't mean to say that you do

 

Hi,

Nope, I finally found a piece on ATC's site where they describe the X-Over topology for their active speakers. No Driveroffset correction. Whcih was also visible on the plots.

The reason that I remember this is because fully timecoherent active monitors where made by MEG since the days behind the Iron Curtain and it is a non too excessively difficult technology (insultingly easy using Digital Circuitry like K+H in the O500C) and one of the reasons one might argue that an active speaker whould be superior to a passive one.

I was very disappointed that ATC with all their big marketing talk failed to implement it.

Ciao T

 

1. Ok, so you don't like atc's bass. What was the exact system you used to come to this conclusion?

2. Im not interested in numbers or review quotes. What exact system have you actually listened to that will outperform the atc's on bass?