3DSonics
away working hard on "it"
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
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.
pauldixonuk said:
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.
pauldixonuk said:
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.
pauldixonuk said:
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
