ATC studio monitors

Hi,

As far as such a fundamental design disaster may be called "fine". ATC's Domes are better than most but not up to match quite inexpensive cone midrange for pattern control, distortion, compression and resolution, never mind comparing to serious, large exit compression drivers with suitable horns. But of course, they cost a fraction to make which might explain their use....

Ciao T

 

Paul,

I just use my ears, the best reviewing tool in the world, if maybe a little flawed
Paul D, I'm quite happy if you wish for a listen and make your own mind up, if nothing else it will give you a different prespective. Wm

 

What a load of absolute bollocks. Whoever you are, you have, perhaps, a little bit to learn about what is required of studio monitors. They are designed, by many different companies, to be used as extremely accurate transducers, so that the recording engineer can hear precisely what is actually on the tape. He's listening for problems. An "inoffensive" (read:inaccurate) midrange would be an absolute disaster.

The fact that ATC monitors are world-famous in a competitive environment like this professional marketplace - where the people buying are not "badge sensitive" like the hi-fi weenies are - suggests that the professional users can't hear the problems which you are pretending to perceive with them. How likely is that?

 

I sense an Id insynuation brewing there James, prehaps having to check your ego in at the door may help you over come your instability problems relating to hifi.
If caught early enough it can be helped and over time the theropy could even get you back on the straight and norrow, its not too late act now!!!

 

Mr 3DSonics is talking such rubbish that I have even been inspired to register on the forum. Since he seems to like the reports in hifi mags, he might take a look at Dave Berriman's review and lab report on the ATC SCM20A2 (which are a poor relation of the 3-way active ATCs) from Hi-Fi News's September 2003 issue. This is available online for a small fee.

I'll leave out the boring bits about how fantastic it sounds . A few quotes from the lab report instead:

"Frequency response curves of the ATCs are smooth and within close limits...The family of off-axis curves in figure 2 shows very tight control of directivity, the off- and on- axis graphs staying within a 4dB maximum spread across the measured range. This verifies ATCs claims and indicates consistent tonal balance in the room... the blending of outputs is excellent by any measure. ... Note the surprising degree of bass extension in-room (plenty of output down to 20Hz!) due to room gain... All in all these are a fine set of measurements, indicating smooth and even frequency responses, even off-axis, broad dispersion, well-controlled minimum phase performance and low distortion - all broadly as claimed by the manufacturer."

Just one quote from the listening test:
"Bass notes weren't in any way overblown (and for some might be a little on the light side of neutral) but there's no doubting the accuracy, control and precision."

More importantly they sound real. I get to hear (and mix) live music every week in a variety of venues. The 3-way ATCs - I have some active 50s- are probably not the best speaker on the market but they do "real" dynamics and accuracy better than most of them. The comments 3D is making are frankly silly. By all means say you don't like the presentation or you find them hard to integrate into your room or they make your CD player sound harsh or whatever, but the pseudo-objective absolute criticisms are a bit irritating...

Sorry - bit of a negative first post but there you go.

Andrew

PS The SEAS Excel tweeter that ATC uses in the newer speakers is simply superb, as many speaker designers across the world will probably tell you...

 

Just out of interest how much do those 'serious monitors' cost? I didn't realise Mayer were very well known in the recording side of things.. more for live sound.

Also what makes the compression/horn tweeters so much more accurate? Whenever I have heard them, admittedly mainly in P.A. systems (though some very pricy ones) they sound absolutely horrid and lacking in detail.

To get a perspective on your views, what is your taste in speakers 3D? Personally I like active systems, soft domes and transmission lines, making something like the PMC BB5-A a dream speaker for me!

 

To keep chanting the mantra that you don't like ATC's is pointless, unless you state exactly which components you heard through them, and in what environment. ATC's are regarded as near as damn it transparent. That is precisely why they are used as monitors in the highest level. Much more likely is you could hear the other electronics in the audio chain. Crap in = crap out. The ATC's won't make an oil painting out of a harsh recording, or improve a poor miss match of front end electronics. They only tell you what is going on. Good or bad.

For example, I spent an enjoyable weekend swapping over various pre amps into the three way active ATC 50. The difference just each pre made was staggering. Some were very clinical, flat, tight and accurate. Others were a riot of sensation, with instruments leaping right out from the cabinets confines. At no point was I listening to the ATC's. I was hearing the recording and the front end electronics. You can COMPLETELY change their perceived sound accordingly. Tailor it to your own personal taste. This audio honesty makes auditioning other components much easier.

Either state exactly what components you were listening to (through the ATC's) or maintain a more balanced opinion. It's like looking through a glass window to a horrible view, then blaming the window itself.

 

Agree totally.

 

Now I know you are simply on a wind up. Having heard both the ATC and some of the finest compression drivers currently available, I would say the 150S is one of very few drive units that compares (as would many of the world's respected speaker designers).

Could you now show the measurements that your assertion was based on? I assume you have some you can post.

 

Meyer is highly respected in the world of live sound, as you say. On the monitoring side they make the traditional HD-1 monitor and the unusual and very high-tech X10 (which uses a compression driver/horn and weighs a modest 95kg).

I can't think of any studio, especially not any mastering studio (which is probably the closest experience to domestic hi-fi listening in terms of being interested in absolute fidelity), which uses horn tweeters for monitoring. There must be some since Meyer has presumably sold some X-10s - but I think it would be true to say that this is unusual and the world's best known studios don't use horns for monitoring. Horns ARE useful in live sound because they make it relatively easy to control the directivity of the sound, which is important both on stage - where you are fighting a battle between monitor/foldback volume and feedback from the mics - and in the FOH PA system where it is good to be able to be accurate about sending sound into precise areas of the venue, filling in dead spots etc. Horns have a tendency to "beam" the sound, which is a virtue if you are only trying to create a narrow beam to fill in an area but a vice if you are wanting to avoid the tonal balance changing catastrophically when you move your head 2 feet to the right while sitting in the near/mid field! Of course you can change the directivity by changing the shape of the horn but still it is very unusual to have monitoring speakers that use compression drivers/horns.

Someone mentioned Eggleston Works, which is an interesting company. I've never heard their "Andra" or "Ivy" speakers but I know that the latter was commissioned by Bob Ludwig who is one of the world's greatest mastering engineers. Their speakers all use dome tweeters (mainly Dynaudios), incidentally.


Andrew

 

Andrew,
THe Egglestone works range is pretty fair, not my total cup of tea but both sound (In certain areas and construction) are most acceptable. Very heavy too Lol!!!
And as you are well aware, using even the very best components doesn't not equal the very best sound, its all down to implimentation and design. Wm

 

Andrew, have a look
here

 

What's that supposed to mean, Tony?

It's odd how some people misuse words. I remember analoguekid turning to me and saying "awesome!". Presumably he meant "dull!". It's a funny old world.

 

Funny, awesome is not a superlative I normally use, they musta been especially dull. I'd suggest your memory was at fault. And I wasn't reffering to your speakers, I was reffering to the Ayre AX7 ATC Pre and ATC 50 anniversary.

James for the sake of the others. lets leave it at that, you have plenty other folk to argue with without baiting me. Keep it to PM in future please.

AK

 

Exactly how it reads James

 

How about JBL, the global market leaders in studio monitoring loudspeakers.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/recording/4425.pdf

 

The ultimate JBL's at £20k were in the HIFI Choice special edition (previously mentioned). They were rated rather well, but not to the same degree as the ATC 150.

I wonder how you lot rate PMC's larger monitors with Bryston 14 or 9B SST power? Has anyone heard them on an a-b comparison? - specifically IB2


http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/ib2.html

 

Or how about Westlake, another market leader in the pro world?

 

Paul,

The PMC's have deeper and fuller bass, don't time that well either, and IMHO the top end isn't as good even with a 14 bst.
Besides I thought you wern't counting review pieces

 

Paul, ''hifi choice'' may or may not like the JBL (K2 I presume?) but that isnt really relevant. Some people may prefer it to an ATC 150, some may not - just as some magazine reviewers may or may not.

The K2 is a statement product, and just like the ATC 150 they are both idiosyncratic and will therefore appeal to different people.

Andrew had said he didnt know of any studio monitors that used horns. I was merely pointing out that the largest studio monitor manufacturer in the world today has made many models of studio monitors that use horns.