ATC SCM50 measured performance vs. high quality studio monitors

I didn't see any nastiness in this thread at all. I thought it was all light hearted amusement. Why do some of you take things so seriously? Chill out.

 

You obviously don't read your own messages.

Bullying me is not going to work.

 

Then take your fingers out of your ears bubby. Might help you with the shop dems as well. ;-)

You might as well try to argue with a mule as try to teach bubby anything. The only bully on this thread is you bub. Bullying anyway who disagrees with you - the pfm way.

 

Hi,

We are very happy that you are happy with your choices. We are even happy to have you tatteling about how happy you are like a little girl.

WHAT I (and perhaps others) take exception to is not your choice of ATC's, or that you like how they sound or any of that side.

WHAT I take exception to is that you make unsuppoirted and unsupportable statements about the items you choose and are then unwilling to accept that the actual facts differ from your claims.

The facts that remain are:

1) That some Studio Professionals use ATC and many others use something else.

2) That the measured performance of the ATC SCM50 presented in HFN are in several areas based well below the performance standards set by the best examples of High Quality Studio Monitors and their most expensive Monitors will still simply fail bassic acceptance testing for a quality monitor in German fedral Radio/TV System.

3) That some people like the way ATC Speakers sound and others don't, hence some people choose ATC fr their home system, most do not.

Anything else is down to advertising, marketing, product placement and so on, but has no bassi outside marketing spin. ATC Speakers are not "bad", but they are also not by any stretch of imaginnation outstanding IN THEIR GENERAL CATEGORY (which are "High Quality Studio Monitors").

They may be rather nice next to most of the crud that passes as "high fidelity" speaker in this day and age, but note that I never discussed them in the context of HiFi or Domestic Speakers, strictly in the sense of the use as a Tool to judge the absolute quality of a given recording in the studio.

The basic requirement for a Studio Monitor must be considered to be that it acts as much as possible as "microphone in reverse". The gap between the electroacoustical performance of a good microphone and a good average speaker/monitor in both objective and subjective terms is surprisingly huge, thus the recording sold to the public is invariably substantially coloured by the choice of monitors.

If I where required to balance a mixx and individual tracks using ATC's I would invariably end up compensating for the deviations of the ATC's from an "open window" situation by adjusting the mix. The specific behaviour of the ATC's would then be encoded in effect in reverse on the recording, making sure it would sound great on ATC's but may very well sound rather less agreeable on other speaker brands.

While in a home hifi setup speakers with a strong charater are not only allowed but are often desired and liked for their character, what makes a speaker an enjoyable HiFi Speaker is usually an explicitly disallowed trait in a quality monitor device.

A straight-edge is expected to be straight, if it fails this basic test it should not be used as straightedge and under the trade descriptions act should not be sold as one.

Ciao T

 

I'm the one who is happy with his choices, and I don't think I've tried to persuade you to change your system, have I?

 

I'd rather sound like a little girl, than a raving lunatic.

 

Hi,

I cannot speak for others, I have believed in "free speech" for as long as I remeber and have taken my licks for in a society that did not consider it a right for an individual to speak her or his mind.

As much as I might dislike the approach taken by some people when expressing their views, I'd rather have them over too much political correctess.

Anyone in possession of basic logical faculties can see what is being said and can draw their own conclusions as to the relevance, vercaity, intent and supporting information for all the opinions expressed. I trust most people are logical and rational.

Ciao T

 

Take out a private prosecution against ATC, you obviously feel very strongly about it!

OTOH, you are a Dot-fetishist, so why should your opinion carry any more weight than anyone else's?

Clue: it doesn't.

 

Hi guys, sorry have been busy in the studio. Bub, nearly all of your 'evidence' has been about what people use at home - eg Dave Gilmour and users on hifi forums. I am sorry but your initial assertion about these speakers was that they were revered, the best, most accurate studio monitor etc - apologies if I have slightly misquoted but you get the point. The fact is that you have no evidence with regards to professional use but there some to suggest that they go down well in the living room. Fine. I have no problem with that but I really cannot think of too many times when ATC has come up as a strong recommendation on pro-audio forums - not what shall we listen to at home forums.

Your assertion that nearly all good hifi sounds the same is laughable. On that basis you would not need so much mana would you. You obviously do not believe that to be true.

Sorry that I do not have the complete data yet. I have some and should have the balance by the end of the weekend. Will be off forum for a few days as travelling back to England by car - please do not tell me it is still raining there - but I will post all ATC sourced data, not hifi mag sourced, on Tuesday all things being equal.

And another thing to whomever. Whilst many studios will chose on recommendation many will look at the data and decide. you would not believe the number of studio people who think that it makes no difference what you place your CDP on, what cables you use, what converters you use, sample rates etc. The prevailing view is that digital is digital and there are only minor differences and little that you can do about making the difference bigger. There are of course some engineers who believe otherwise.

Some hark back to the days of tape and love tape because it is analogue, not of course realising that it is technically a digital medium - north/south is just the same as 1/0.

 

But you think that yours does and I quote "I am right and you are wrong" Just as well that you are not in an arrogant profession - oh, you are.

 

I object to bubs name calling most.

Bub - no because you want me to keep it so you can feel superior! You parade your ignorance as a virtue - like nelson raising the telescope to his blind eye and declaring "I see no ships".

 

Hi,

That is both true and sad. Worse is that many also believe that getting the right mike in the right place is no longer important or that recording an ensemble together is. The prevailing feel I get of the guys I know seems "use more compression" and "fix it in the mix".

Given how big a difference a few inch in mike position on the final recording I find this shocking.

Yes, "analogue" tape is digital, as a are transformers and magnetic pickup, ultimatly even speakers, BUT the resolution of the individual magnetic domains seems rather higher than 24 Bit....

BTW, I'd really love to impulse response and waterfalls for the ATC's, I find they tell me a lot more than the usual stuff and (sadly) no-one has ever published these in my field of view.

Ciao T

 

This is what you predicated this entire thread on. But you've completely failed to back it up.

Paul

 

I refer, once again to the "A-list" clientele on ATC's website.

This thread has certainly "jumped the shark" in that you are arguing that ATC monitors are not suitable, but the top studios, or certainly some of them, disagree!

And, as someone at the beginning of the thread pointed out, taking Hi-Fi News' measurements in isolation, and comparing them with other measurements of dubious provenance, achieves nothing.

 

This is absolutely and categorically not so. I continue my interest in hi-fi, although I have now vastly exceeded my initial expectations. I may or may not change components of my system in the future, as & when I hear better ones. But don't hold your breath.

How many times do I need to state that?

 

Do NOT misquote me! I have never mentioned HiFi News data and made a point of the ATC provided data that I will present. Your smoke and mirrors will not work. A list clientelle does not = most accurate monitor, and yet it is your assertion that they are the most accurate and all you have as proof is "A list clientelle"; if in your professional work you used this sort of data as proof of diagnosis you would be struck off!!!!

 

And I never said that they were not suitable, just that they do not often get recommended.....hmmmm...Bub, must read threads better for fear of looking even more foolish, those blinkers must be on so tight....

 

Correctamundo!

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/sounds/correctamundo.wav


SCIDB

 

Touchy, Dominic.

Data in Medicine is far more "grey" than audio, that's why it's a difficult job.

Anyway, the only part of the post which you quoted which was directed at you, was the first sentence.

 

Yes very shocking about the fix it in the mix - its all because of protools etc - everyone is becoming an editor not an engineer. I have banned computers and we have moved back to 8 track and a hardware sequencer and the clients love it - if they can play a bit!!!

And yes again, tape has more bandwidth, but the point was made for those who talk a lot about studio workings, getting close to the master but know very little about the recording process.