Auditioning the MEG RL-901K

Hi,

While Dr Ignotum Ignoramus has suceeded to turn another thread that was not about his personal predilction for ATC speakers into a mud slinging match and fulfill his own prophecy that there is a concerted "anti ATC" campaign (which reminds of nothing more than Gleiwitz) here some actually topical remarks.

We did not listen to ATC speakers in direct comparison to ATC's. Hence I must confine my comments to MEG RL-901K vs. PMC IB2 (amplification unknown, but no seperate power amplifiers in evidence) and PMC AML-1's.

Much of my own critical listen was done with classical recordings known to have been made "straight" and with minimal miking, including large scale orchestral (St Saen - Symphony #3, Copland - fanfare for the common man), vocal (Summertime from Porgy & Bess) and choral (Swing low sweet chariot), additional reference was made to pop & rock recordings (among them Moloko and various Jephte Gaulliaume tracks from the "spiritual life music" sample) I am very familiar with. Simon had brought along music largely electronic and guitar oriented (eg. Rage against the Machine).

In that context the MEG consistently sounded truer and more realistic, however, with some music the obviously laid back balance of the IB2 suited the specific mix better. Minimally miked acoustical music on the MEG's took on a "spooky realism" normally noted from the extrem high end circus and rarely noticable in pro-audio fare (regardless of cost).

In comparison the IB2's and to a lesser degree the AML-1's just did not seem to "track" the music well, always being behind and somewhat disjointed, both also sounded very obviously "boxy" and "compressed", for want of a better word, not neccesarily the type of compression from a Urei LA-2, but something akin. There was a very obvious degree of artificiality to the reproduction from the IB2, a loss of small detail and atmosphere and realism, something which would impact not just on my musical enjoyment, but on my ability to monitor and correct recordings.

That said, I noted that neither MEG nor PMC have a balance and general sound I PERSONALLY would choose for listening to music at home. The MEG just needs an adjustment in tonal balance (more precisely the ability to adjust tonality in case the recordings tonal balance significantly deviates from neutral) to turn from a tool to monitor recordings into one which I personally would find excellent to enjoy listening to recordings at home.

I might even get used to "flat", as despite very high listening levels and many recordings sound a little brighter than I like there was no fatigue or impulse to turn down the volume.

DULL? As in "dull sound" or "dull to listen to"? Truely flat response speakers will make most recordings sound to bright, something I'm rather sensitive to.

The discussion was strictly on the subject of what is apropriate to use as Studio Monitor for quality during recording and most of the post production. My exception to certain claims from a certain company was based strictly on a "studio view", as the claims made where in that context.

Listening at home is for fun. Most accurate speakers are too much right brain and cerebral for my taste, I like more emotion, though surprisingly the MEG's where rather good in that area too.

My view is that at home everything that people like is allowed, Horns, single ended triodes, super low sensitivity, high compression omnidirectional speakers with burmester monster amplifiers and Apogee Diva's with Krells reference Amps and even Wilson Watt/Puppies with an Ongakue and even PMC and ATC active speakers are just dandy, AS LONG AS THE OWNER enjoys the music. At home, behind your own doors you may do anything as long as it involves consenting adults, even in audio.

In a studio you have a responsibility towards the Musicians, towards the customers and towards posterity, which means certain standards are required. I personally much prefer the german term "Tonverantwortlicher" over "Sound Engineer", it means "The person RESPONSIBLE for the Tone" and does not travel well. But it does imply that a concentious workman does not use a crooked straightedge.

I hope this makes a little more sense now?

Ciao T

 

Hi,

I consider EQ desirable/semi-essential for reasons OTHER than room EQ and even correcting for obvious tonal deffects in equipment. The reason why it is needed is that over the last 40 Years or so the kind of speakers used as Studio monitors have shown severe and wide ranging deviations from neutrality (and they continue to do so), resulting in unavoidable colorations, which well implemented Equalisation can minimise, if not completely eliminate.

You may wish to consult Richard Burwen and Mark Levinson (the Man) on the subject, my own review of the Behringer DEQ8024 also contains some material. There where some really good articles on various incarnartions of Burwens system in various issues of the late lamented "Audio" Mag from the US. I have seen scan circulating on the net....

Ciao T

 

Yes I agree with that however that could also be corrected as part of an active setup, and given room treatments and what I have heard from triamping my own speakers I would rather go active first. Then treat the room then do the eq. In a domestic environment of course. In a studio the priorities will be different. Which eq systems are state of the art currently? I found your previous comments about the bb5 conversion very interesting. Have you tried the bryston crossovers in comparison?

 

Hi,

Let me say it like this. If the speaker is "perfect" and the recording is "perfect" and the room is "perfect" then an EQ is superflous.

If any of these (and most often in a well designed and implemented system the recordings are the greatest offenders) are not perfect, or at least close enough not to matter, then an EQ becomes a near neccesity, if one values the music over sound, that if one wishes to enjoy less then perfect recordings of excellent music.

Digital room correction is on the surface a great idea, but it attempts to fix something after it is alread broken. A much better solution in my view is to minimise the ability of the speaker to (negatively) interact with the room.

Time alignement in turn (preferably using mechanical means) is quite audible and desirable. It is one of the reason I keep comming back to single-way systems (usually with subs/supers to support the sound where the driver looses ability and the ear looses discrimination), they are naturally time coherent.

Ciao T

 

You've evaluated these speakers in an out-of-studio context in order to determine which would be best in a studio.... Very good.

The 'crooked edge' remark keeps coming up. Are you suggesting that Sony, Telarc, et al. are not conscientious?

 

Bub your comments really crack me up! You are one of the funniest guys ever. Bub not all studios are exactly the same, some do not even have sound proofing or acoustic treatment. If you knew this you would know how silly you are continuing to make yourself look in this thread, you obvioulsy have great experience of your own system at your home but you are continuing to evidence little experience of studio monitors, their usage and what studio engineers look for in a monitor. What have Sony etc got to do with MEGs or are you having trouble working out what Thread you are replying to? This thread is about MEGs not Sony and those other speakers that you keep trying to bring up in a thread that has nothing to do with them.

3DS - Niki (owner of KMR) is a great guy and you probably know that he started his career in film studio sound engineering, then set up his own London based commercial studio when he made the move to studio design and supply. Good to see that there is at least one decent high-end pro dealer in London who really knows his stuff rather than just stocking gear now that R&W have closed down.

I am due to give Niki a visit next week and will check out the MEGs whilst I am there.

 

I should, perhaps, explain to you that 3D/MrT refers to ATC monitors as "a crooked straightedge". I hope that helps you with your understanding.

Yes there are good studios, and not-so-good ones. ISTM that the good ones very often use ATC monitors, which, we are invited to believe, are wholly unsuitable.

 

Bub - you can measure the difference between input test signal and measured room response for a start - plus a whole load of other measurements at the component level. Some studios use atc - many dont. How do you know which the good ones are? From the atc marketing brochure right? You KNOW.

 

No, it most certainly does not make sense. How on earth can a flat-response speaker possibly make a recording sound too bright? It's a contradiction in terms.

 

I've never said that ATCs are the best, ever. I wish people would take that on board. I do have a pretty good handle on how accurate they are, as explained earlier.

Mr T's Canute-like thesis seems to be that ATCs are so badly-flawed that they are unsuitable to be used in any studio. The evidence we have shows that this conclusion is clearly incorrect.

Bees fly; ATCs are used in studios.

 

I beleive you have just exposed yourself bub - Have you considered reverberation amongst other things? The difference between room response and anechoic response...

 

Bees fly for sound scientific reasons. the same as atc have sound scientific flaws.

 

I have listened to live versus recorded, via ATC.

I doubt that anyone else on this ridiculous thread has done the same.

 

Hi,

No, the kind of correction needed is not one that lends itself to adjustrment of level between channels. To quote myself from here:

Behringer Ultracurve Pro 8024 Digital Equaliser Review

"Just for fun I recorded my correction settings for a few randomly selected LP's I played. Seeing the Selected EQ slope is easy by using the preview of the Memory subtraction function, otherwise things are hard to spot as the Graphic EQ shows the Room/Speaker correction overlaid with the Source correction. Anyway, listening to Eryka Badu's 1997 LP "Baduizm" I found that I took a "bell" shape EQ with -2dB centered around 3.15kHz, a low boost shelf at 100Hz with 2.5dB boost and a high frequency cut shelf with -2dB. The difference between the before and after was surprisingly large, considering the modest level of equalization. Gone was the overly incisiveness on the Vocals, gone the overly hot and crisp cymbals, the soundstage gained depth and the Drums just kicked that little bit more convincing.

Turning to Billy Paul "Live in Europe" (1974 on Philadelphia) I corrected a lot more, a 3dB cut in bell shape around 6.3kHz, a low boost shelf at 200Hz with +3.5dB and a further 3db bell EQ boosting at 80Hz to give the kick drum more "kick". Moving on to Emmylou Harris "Bluebird" (1989 on Warner/Reprise) I needed to work real hard. A +3dB Shelf boost at 160Hz, a +2.5dB bell boost at 50Hz and a -3dB shelf cut at 3.15kHz made the overly jangely, very AM sounding country rock mix much more listenable. Now the vocals lost a little definition, so I put a little +2db bell boost at 8kHz in. Perfect, still janely, hot C&W, but listenable, kick the volume up 3db, lovely.

For a final EQ setting note, playing Vivaldi's Gloria in D-Minor (on Loiseu Lyre/Decca) with Emma Kirkby on Vocals I found a +2dB shelf boost at 250Hz gave the tome more warmth, while a -2dB bell cut at 5kHz took the edginess out of the Voices. All in all impressive and I would say that I could think of few commercially available equalizers that would allow the "remastering" of tonal balance in such precision and scope so easily."

You need to use either a rather precise graphic, a really good parametric EQ (Avalon) or the one thing that was designed for the Job, Cello Palette or the later Red-Rose programmed Weiss Digital EQ.

Hmm, I prefer to minimise the interactions between room and speakers first, as I tend strongly towards crossoverless speakers, my system is most of the time "active".... ;-)

They MUST be different. In a studio we are responsible directly to our paymasters, but indirectly to many others for what we do (well, in theory anyay, listening to many modern recordings makes one question the survival of any such ethics).

I think the "absolute" state of the art for digital right now is likely Weiss plus possibly Z-Systems with the cheap stuff like Behringer DEQ2496 and pure software based items like Waves "Renaicance EQ" bring up the rear at a surprising short distance if we keep the signal in the digital domain. For analogue parametric it is Avalon, at least it was when I looked last.

As "user friendly" high end device the Cello palette stands alone and due the slow death of the original Cello company it is out of production. Here a review of the little brother of the big palette:

Stereophile Cello Palette Preamplifier Review

In my "in the not too distant future" Audio System the EQ sits as Waves plugin within my Media Center PC, I still need to figure how to get LP in there with good dynamic range and all, well, maybe next year.

I replaced with a modified BSS Digital X-Over (modified mainly with improved powersupplies and analogue stages) the original active X-Over, may very well have been bryston, the owner had already kicked out the Bryston Amplification and dropped a bunch of Krells in (questionable choice IMHO).

On first measurements it was obvious that the system was not time/impulse coherent, also the tweeter was pretty bad so we replaced it with focal. The midrange was originally on my hitlist, but I was told to leave it, so I did (shrug). The point was that original system just did not seem to work all that well, whatever was at fault and why is a matter of discussion perhaps, I would argue the systematic approach was.

Midrange and Treble Amplification ended up with 2nd had Cary SE stuff, Krells stayed on for Bass. Final system did pretty decent squarewaves, nice step/impulse responses and was decently flat in terms of FR too. Distortion was higher than one would like, though using the SE Amp's 2nd HD in antiphase to reduce the drivers works quite well.

I don't think I would do this the same way again, but it was fun.

Ciao T

 

Bub I have owned studios for years, been in studios for years, including ones with ATC. How many studios did you say that you ahd been in? None as I recall!!!! I am sure that you like your ATCs in your house.

Editied to add - of course Bub you only had one experience of this 'live' then monitor recording experience.

 

3d

Yes I know - certainly a bryston crossover couldnt do it. But theoretically one could. Easier to do in dsp of course. But I plan to keep my all analogue signal path sacrosanct ;-). In a non-changing environment in a domestic context it would be worth the R&D for the room eq. Obviously it couldn't correct for each recording however. Thats a posh graphic equaliser! Fine as a studio tool but I could never be bothered at home. Has to be very well done or it will mash the sound.

Walrus have a cello palette.

Yes krell - never liked them much. I plan to ditch the bryston guy and go custom too.

 

I can't believe it!!!!

I am trying to help a friend out who is a non-hifi person in buying some secondhand Naim amps so I did a little research on some of the Naim orientated forums and was shocked to see that Bub posts identical threads everywhere, continually changes the thread to an ATC, or Mana or other type of thread that suits him and has been doing so for a long time. Take a look here if you think that people here have been hard on Bub....

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10563&page=1&pp=15

Dark Lord "Bub has a flawed system, flawed hearing, flawed analysis, flawed reasoning, flawed argument. He has no credibilty on this forum, has been banned from every other forum except www.lonelymen.com/forum/gaychat"

is an example of one of the posts - too extreme really - but you have to wonder why Bub just does not get the message and continues to troll his same opinion. Bub, btw I just recommended some ATC actives in another thread - horses for courses, they can be good sometimes.

 

Absolutely shocking. I hope you recover soon. Alert the authorities, and watch ports & airports.

What's wrong with recommending ATCs? -- after all they are excellent, as you say.

 

I think that you have seriously lost the place. This is not what hi-fi is about. A good system will make every record sound slightly different.

Your attitude towards recording engineers is arrogant & patronising. Even Oasis are really interested in sound quality, and in the vast majority of cases, what you hear on a decent set-up is what was intended by the artist, whether you like it, or not.

 

The aim of the hifi system is of "a straight wire with gain". Obviously speakers and the room compicate that but the philosophy stands. Changing the eq for each record only makes sense if you have a priori knowledge concerning the eq of the recording, which in most cases will not be available - otherwise it is guess work and highly subjective.