ATC studio monitors

Your dealer is talking nonsense.

 

I'm with you there Ted. Why do ATC's generate such heated debates. I have never found their marketing angle to be too "over the top". They have always struck me as a no nonsense company which value quality engineering very highly. I think their product range represents good value for money when compared to the competition so if you don't like the sound then there's plenty more to choose from.

What exactly has ATC done to come under fire with such venom?

 

Reviews are completely irrelevant to anything, magazine awards even more so.

As a former owner of ATCs, I'd say there's only a dozen or so other speaker manufacturers who I would take equally seriously. Most speaker manufacturers don't seem to have a clue about how real music sounds IME, and that includes the vast majority of small, quirky manufacturers. ATCs are not perfect, but they're a very well-chosen set of compromises. Their excellent off-axis performance is also, of course, a matter of design, and, for listeners who are not wedded to clamping themselves into a sweet spot, this is entirely a good thing. I like good horn speakers too, but they're generally a different set of compromises, and I've heard a lot of very bad horn speakers. My policy is to choose the best all-rounder for your tastes and tell anyone else who claims you're wrong to sod off.

As for primarily judging speakers on how deep the bass is, that's not hi-fi, that's just daft.

-- Ian

 

Two things. Cost and marketing. Top monitors from the likes of Westlake, TAD and others are a far greater investment for mainstream studios. There is also less likely to be the offer of some freebies.

If you go behind the marketing spin, you will find people like Ludwig using Egglestons, others large Proacs, and as I showed earlier, JBL & TAD. The three brands you mention merely have an agreesive approach to marketing, being equally involved in professional and consumer product.

The latest monitor to hit the main studios is of course the Dynaudio Air series. I have owned these. They are reasonable value for money, but certainly do not represent the pinnacle of transducer performance. And yet they are used in mastering suites across the globe. There seems to be an inferrence that this makes monitors the finest option for domestic use. There are many manufacturers out there who can show this to be a fallacy, although none of their products are as inexpensive or hyped.

 

I read that issue. It was a one-off special called "The Collection", I think. They gathered up all their favourite, money-no-object, top hi-fi gear, and reviewed it. The ATC 150A review within is one of the most complimentary reviews of a hi-fi component I have ever read, and the speakers were highly recommended. I can't remember a single negative comment about them, apart from their size and weight.

 

Hi,

Clearly there are several people here and at HFN who do NOT know the difference between CONTROLLED directivity and UNCONTROLLED directivity. I rest my case already.

As for the rest, did the review actually put NUMBERS onto the clkaims (eg show the Distortion or show the overall grupdelay and/phaseresponse of the speaker? If so was the result similat to those of the various recommended items (eg phase better tha +/-36degrees from 20Jz - 20KHz?

I am sorry, but if you do the ultimate test, that is walk ouut of the control room up to the micropohone, they do NOT sound all that real. That has been my experience in studio's that employed them.

Better than most WHAT? High Performance Studio monitors? I don't think so. Better than a BBC LS 3/5 or the many so-called "HiFi" speakers inspired by it? Obviously.

They have objective performance "features" which I happen to find to be incompatible with accuracy and what I consider realistic sound (note I do not use the term "good sound", if you think the ATC's sound "good" to you, be my guest).

I will also contend that if these features had been addressed by ATC to the same degree as some manufacturers have done who spend more on research and development and less on marketing than ATC then they would be much better speakers, but they would also look a lot different.

Ciao T

 

Have you finished trolling yet?

I think we've established that you are a <ahem> "niche" person occupying a fringe position where hi-fi is concerned. You are welcome to your opinions about ATC monitors, but others will point and laugh.

Ciao!

 

This is representative of someone who has spent real time in studios.

studio a = main monitors tannoy 15" coaxials - near fields ns 10

studio b = main monitors dynaudio air system - near fields ns 10

studio c = main monitors jbl century golds - near field mackie hr

studio d = main monitors adam ribbons - near fields dynaudios


I would ask anyone who gives any credence at all to the comments about JBL not being a serious player in the global recording and broadcast scene to visit www.jblpro.com. Just ten minutes on that site will reveal that to be a hopelessly misguided opinion.

Heres the latest release from their pressroom. In this release it is explained how JBL pro loudspeakers were chosen for the mastering of this years GRAMMY awards. You dont get much more prestigeous than that.

http://www.jblpro.com/pressroom/LSR_Projects/LSR_Projects.htm

A quote from The Recording Academy

In selecting JBL Professional, The Recording Academy noted that “JBL has been preeminent in high-end loudspeaker technology for all facets of professional sound since its formation in 1946''

ATC make speakers that are renowned for their use in top studios. You cant deny that. PMC have a background in proffessional monitoring as the name implies.

Given both of the above facts as read, JBL are the market leaders - to be found in more studios around the world and more broadcast centres, more venues, more stadiums, more live events and more proffessional audio situations at a global level than any other audio company in the world today.

Hopefully people can see past the opinions to the bare naked facts.

 

I think those of us who aren't already bored shitless will simply conclude that if we are contemplating spending £10k plus on speakers we will rely on our own ears, listening to said speakers in our own rooms, rather basing our decision on how many professional studios use a particular brand of speaker, unless of course we intend to open our own recording studios. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges, like buying a Ford Transit as a family car because so many companies use them.

 

Hi,

The ATC SCM 300ASL listed in 2004 for 43,500 US Dollar, the SCM150ASL for 23,650 - 27,300 depending on finish.

A compression driver / horn combo actually suited to monitor applications (most PA Horns and Drivers are not) will offer the foolowing:

1) Tight radiation pattern (directivity) control over the frequency range covered. If designed competently and specifically for the specific monitor the horn will in fact match the radiation pattern of the woofer at the crossover frequency.

2) Very high sensitivity (usually around 20db more than ATC's softdomes), which translates into much lower thermal compression and usually (this is again design dependent to a degree) significantly lower distortion for a given SPL.

I am currently listening to my own (check the website), however these I would not suggest for studio monitoring applications, they are strictly for "listening for pleasure" in normal living rooms.

When it comes to monitors all my favourites use coaxial or semi-coaxial arrangements of Drivers, that is the Schulze TH315 (older East German Studio Monitor) and the preceeding "System Eckmiller" derived studio monitors , the MEG RL-900 (which was also used in east german studios in the late 80's), the various Isofon Orchestra types, any of the larger format Tannoy's, the various UREI Monitors which used modified Altec Coaxials (the later JBL equipped ones are not as good) with their time-aligh crossover and of course Altec 604's with the Mastering Labs Crossover.

I also got on okay with very large TAD Horn System and the better JBL Pro Monitors, but my experience with almost anything that uses too non-conicident drivers has not been positive. Upon hearing the Meyer X-10 I was rather impressed (the low crossover point and 2-Way nature seem to mitigate the problem of non-coincident sound sources).

Active or passive is of little relevance to me per se, I will agree that really well implemented active systems (which take advantage of the ability to electronically time-align drivers and correct for other driver defficiencies (like even order dstortion) do have a significant edge, but just a bunch of Amp's and a textbook active crossover do not seem to work.

I helped a friend to move his big PMC's from the stock active system onto a digital x-over platfrom (a modified BSS unit) and we also modified the system further to improve the dispersion of the drive units and fitted a different tweeter (a Focal) and afterwards spend a lot of time using the features in the digital X-Over to time align drivers and to minimise the vertical lobing. The resultant monitor system was much superior to any other traditional multiway monitor I came across, especially when it came to "keeping the music together".

The cost for the whole setup however was quite astronomic (we used Valve Amplifiers for midrange and treble and Krells for the Woofers in the Bass extender and main speaker) and to me in key performance areas it still did not manage to match my then home speakers (Beauhorn Virtuoso with Visaton Subs and Supertweeters). Still, it convinced me (again) that time coherence is a crucial attribute in a good speaker and absence of it disqualifies entierly from being "accurate".

Ciao T

 

amen....

i think people should not worry about someone not liking there kit.

i don't like much of jbl's current output but some of there speakers are fantastic.

by the way did'nt the proac ebs use an atc midrange dome ? theres some on ebay at the moment.

there are a lot of myths in audio even down to the direct drive belt drive nonsense most people don't realise that the technics sp - 02 is probably the most common motor drive for pressing lathes and thats direct drive.

the myth that a big name studio like abbey road uses for instance b&w is purely for advertising.
abbey road is a huge complex and have shed loads of speakers available for different jobs/engineers taste/whats currently not broken(ns 10's) so to imagine that everthing a big name studio outputs is all from one make of speakers is a fallacy.most jobs are monitored on a lot of different speakers from tracking to mixdown to final mastering.

atc are a small company in the scheme of things.
tad are part of the pioneer organisation i think.
jbl are huge.

horses for courses.

 

Yes, the magazine is a one off special black edition - the ultimate high end components of all time, money regardless. Can anyone host the pictures for me???



I have done the whole sub bass thing and it's no big deal. Hifi should not be judged on it. When I was 18 I had four cerwin vega's biamped (crap low-fi), plus I had JL audio in my car (have grown up since, lol). Presently using REL subs. For those who prefer sub bass extension to suck the air from your lungs, rather than real hifi, go here:

click on HOME AUDIO, then click GOTHAM...

http://www.jlaudio.com/

 

Hi,

Nope, I never read the sonic detail in reviews at all (not even when they review gear that I am involved with), I read only the technical bits and measurements, or in the case of HiFi Plus I look at the pictures....

I have written enough reviews not to want to read any.... ;-)

Please do so and report back. I will be very interested in your opinion.

But do yourself a favour and go and also listen to some Tannoy Prestige Series Speakers of similar cost and also to the surprisingly inexpensive bigger studio Tannoy's. Also, if you are in london you are welcome to drop by at my place afterwards for a bottle of wine and compare what you heard before to what I like....

Ciao T

 

Quite agree with you Joe!

Nothing I said had any relation to you or I picking a speaker for what we want in our living room.

Im listening to an MP3 thats been compressed to shit through some small PC speakers and enjoying it thoroughly right now!

 

You have raised these issues. I would suggest it is up to you to provide published results to back up your statements, not the other way round.

 

Therein lies the confusion, we are talking a different mag.

 

I've just looked at their promo movie. A good rule of thumb in audio: if you can see the cone moving, it's too small for the intended application.

 

Hi,

ATC note for their Midrange at distortion level of < 1% @ 25 Watt, (based on the SCM70ASL promo bumpf) at what would translate into 105db/1m (or 108db/1m). Compression is not specified and I'll not guess.

The JBL DMS-1 Monitor (now discontinued) which uses a large format compression driver and suitable waveguide offers lower distortion and definitly lower compression at a much higher output level. It also uses a digital controller to time align, equalise (and moist likely distortion correct) the drivers. have a look for comparison:

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/obsolete/dms-1.pdf

For me ATC competes against products like the above and on that they do non too well in delivering either absolute performance or value for money.

Ciao T

 

If you can't, you might consider going for another eye test.

 

Paul,

MY point is if you are going to spend that sort of money on some speakers it should produce the whole spectrum spot on, and Ian is also correct bass is not the bottom line (sic) however if you get the whole package why compromise?
Joe's also hit the nail on the head with 'Got to work in your listening room'
As for rels being good?, maybe a trip to listen to some velodenes sir
Bear in mind Odipeus uses 50's, but feels the use of sub is pretty essential.
Maybe you should listen to some Merlins, if you like the atc style of presentation, it really will open your ears. Wm