darrylfunk
Banned
active atc's have very low distortion figures for their midband actually.
they are about as good as is currently possible.
they are about as good as is currently possible.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Jek,
Most recently, check Stereoplay's measurements of the 50 and 100 towers. Check Resolution Pro's measurements of the 25 (but I believe they misinterpreted their own step response graph!) Anyway, in all cases mids distortion was shown to be a particular strong point.
This doesn't prove you should like the ATC upper mids, it just contradicts the "upper mid distortion" story.
Darren
Most recently, check Stereoplay's measurements of the 50 and 100 towers. Check Resolution Pro's measurements of the 25 (but I believe they misinterpreted their own step response graph!) Anyway, in all cases mids distortion was shown to be a particular strong point.
This doesn't prove you should like the ATC upper mids, it just contradicts the "upper mid distortion" story.
Darren
People don't actually want realistic production of instruments in their living room. They think they do but the reality is they don't. Most real instruments are actually quite brash sounding. I do this all the time, I go see people playing real instruments live and I say to myself "imagine this was the sound my hi-fi produced" 9 times out of 10 the result is that I think to myself that I'd come to the opinion that my system was too forward if it produced a similar sound.
The result is that people actually prefer slightly warm/dark (however you prefer to state it) sounding speakers. Not dull, still with enough "sparkle" to let them think they're listening to an accurate sound but in reality they're not. Nearly every speaker produced that has a flat frequency response from around 3khz all the way up to 20khz is described as bright by people/reviewers when clearly they can not be. Most speakers manufacturers actually design in a broad dip in the frequency curve around 3-5khz to stop them sounding "brash" to most peoples ears, when again if they don't have the dip they clearly can not possibly be brash as they are flat.
The comparison of such speakers with ATC is trite. Apart from the stand mounts ATC's cheapest speaker is £2.5k rising very rapidly from there. £2.5k is about the maximum most people are prepared to spend on speakers and the idea of spending £4-10k on speakers is just not viable. ATC and value for money aren't two things that can't be said seriously in the same sentence. For the kind of money one pays for ATC I'd expect them to be significantly better than the likes of a Focal 1028, Dynaudio Focus 260 etc. Just as I'd expect any speaker costing £5k plus to be significantly better.
Anyway in general I don't believe any speaker is worth that kind of money, especially ones that still use old technology drivers and basic reflex ported MDF cabinets. I'm not saying that great speakers can't be made using such technology, just that it inherently means their isn't any actual expense to the parts you're paying for. Speakers are probably the one remaining component where it's easy to build something that equals or outperforms any speaker under £2-3k for far far less with COTS drivers. Presuming you can build the cabinet and know about cross-over design that is, or know someone with such skills.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
There is quite a bit of difference in taste between different enthusiasts. A trip to Scalford where a bunch of very enthusiastic individuals set up a system to show people what a good sound is like will demonstrate this. The variety there is extreme and I would say I have only heard one system there that I disliked, and that was still being dicked about with to get it sound the way the owner wanted half way through the morning.
Back when I started in this hobby in the 1960s it was considered more "natural" sounding to have a gradually downtilted response in a speaker. My guess would be that it depends on whether you listen to much live music or not, and where you like to sit in the auditorium. Close is brighter and distant is rolled off IME.
I have only had 2 surprising experiences listening to speakers. The first was the much praised Spendor BC1, which sounded lovely on spoken voice and other relatively un-dynamic signals at a similar level, but sounded flat and lackluster on anything with a big dynamic range (to me). I had intended to buy some but did not. The second was the Naim DBL being demonstrated by Naim people at one of their dealers. It was the worst sound I have ever experienced from a hifi, I thought they would notice and fix it, but thety seemed content. It was very harsh and brash, but not in the way of real brass instruments, for example. I actually left since it was very loud too, and with the harshness very uncomfortable.
Between these extremes I have listened to loads of different flavours of speakers. My choice has been a question of preference rather that hating one and loving another.
I had set my mind on ATC 50s at one stage, but on demo the Apogee ribbon alternative sounded much nicer to me, so I did not buy. In the case on the Spendors I bought Nightingale NS point 5.
The few Focal speakers that I have heard have been very clear and low distortion. I can imagine somebody who prefers to sit well back in the auditorium at a live performance may not appreciate them, and if you are one who likes a warmth adding to your recordings by your system Focals (and Triangles which IME are similar) may be inappropriate.
I guess enthusiasts with particular tastes tend to gravitate to particular fora where like minded fans also post. This makes sense in one way but tends to narrow people's view.
Ramble mode off...
Back when I started in this hobby in the 1960s it was considered more "natural" sounding to have a gradually downtilted response in a speaker. My guess would be that it depends on whether you listen to much live music or not, and where you like to sit in the auditorium. Close is brighter and distant is rolled off IME.
I have only had 2 surprising experiences listening to speakers. The first was the much praised Spendor BC1, which sounded lovely on spoken voice and other relatively un-dynamic signals at a similar level, but sounded flat and lackluster on anything with a big dynamic range (to me). I had intended to buy some but did not. The second was the Naim DBL being demonstrated by Naim people at one of their dealers. It was the worst sound I have ever experienced from a hifi, I thought they would notice and fix it, but thety seemed content. It was very harsh and brash, but not in the way of real brass instruments, for example. I actually left since it was very loud too, and with the harshness very uncomfortable.
Between these extremes I have listened to loads of different flavours of speakers. My choice has been a question of preference rather that hating one and loving another.
I had set my mind on ATC 50s at one stage, but on demo the Apogee ribbon alternative sounded much nicer to me, so I did not buy. In the case on the Spendors I bought Nightingale NS point 5.
The few Focal speakers that I have heard have been very clear and low distortion. I can imagine somebody who prefers to sit well back in the auditorium at a live performance may not appreciate them, and if you are one who likes a warmth adding to your recordings by your system Focals (and Triangles which IME are similar) may be inappropriate.
I guess enthusiasts with particular tastes tend to gravitate to particular fora where like minded fans also post. This makes sense in one way but tends to narrow people's view.
Ramble mode off...
My point was more one of cabinet materials. ATC appear to use plain old MDF in a plain old box shape. Not a curved cabinet or exotic material in sight. Meaning they're not going to be the most expensive or laborious things in the world to build. Certainly not compared to the expense of some other speakers on the market with cabinet-in-cabinet designs, use of composites etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see good old "rock wool" and bitumen damping pads inside their cabinets.
Of course active speakers can have pretty much any roll off they choose, (within the limitations of the drive unit), it's just a matter of EQ within the speakers amp. Again how would that justify the price tag?
I'm not ATC bashing per se. I'm cynical of speaker pricing in general. I've built a few DIY speakers in my time and whilst they weren't perfect they showed that if I could knock up speakers in my bedroom (I have no cabinetry skills at all) using COTS drive units and cross-overs that challenge commercial speakers costing at least 5 times what I spent then I have a hard time seeing where manufacturers justify the price of their multi-thousand pound speakers. The only ones with even the slightest argument in their favour are those that actually design and produce their own drive units so there are R&D costs to be recouped. Ironically however, three of the biggest names in drive unit manufacture actually produce some of the best "value for money" speakers on the market, namely Monitor Audio, Focal and Dynaudio.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
GTM,
I agree the cabinets are a traditional looking design using normal materials (apart from the EL150, the 16 Pro and the curved 11 coming in now).
But there are some interesting points you might not be aware of. The larger models have a cabinet-in-cabinet design for bass, mid and tweeter, I understand. Also the cabinets are massive in construction (e.g. passive stand mount 50s weigh over 41kg each) and not cheap to make for the larger models which are made in the UK. Finally, the roll-off is the same for the passives, it is due to the cabinet design not active EQ (which ATC do not use).
Darren
PS: Another one, because all the pics you see of domestic actives have square-edged baffles ... what about basic cabinet edge diffraction? The Pros have curve-edged baffles, the domestic covers have curved baffle edges hidden cleverly within and domestic owners who don't use covers can order curved quadrant frames. It's all better than it might appear.
I agree the cabinets are a traditional looking design using normal materials (apart from the EL150, the 16 Pro and the curved 11 coming in now).
But there are some interesting points you might not be aware of. The larger models have a cabinet-in-cabinet design for bass, mid and tweeter, I understand. Also the cabinets are massive in construction (e.g. passive stand mount 50s weigh over 41kg each) and not cheap to make for the larger models which are made in the UK. Finally, the roll-off is the same for the passives, it is due to the cabinet design not active EQ (which ATC do not use).
Darren
PS: Another one, because all the pics you see of domestic actives have square-edged baffles ... what about basic cabinet edge diffraction? The Pros have curve-edged baffles, the domestic covers have curved baffle edges hidden cleverly within and domestic owners who don't use covers can order curved quadrant frames. It's all better than it might appear.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Have you tried any more modern designs Darren?
Computer designed extruded enclosures ,coax mid and treble drivers,DSP crossovers, built in room correction ?
Keith.
Computer designed extruded enclosures ,coax mid and treble drivers,DSP crossovers, built in room correction ?
Keith.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Keith,
Do you have any of those? Ha ha! Being serious, I'm sure the Genelecs sound great and I will let you know if I'm in the area, as long as a cup of tea is part of the deal.
The nearest to that I've heard are the Event Opals and I was impressed, I have to say.
And, inching back to topic, I would love to hear the Focal Twin 6 Be.
Darren
Do you have any of those? Ha ha! Being serious, I'm sure the Genelecs sound great and I will let you know if I'm in the area, as long as a cup of tea is part of the deal.
The nearest to that I've heard are the Event Opals and I was impressed, I have to say.
And, inching back to topic, I would love to hear the Focal Twin 6 Be.
Darren
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Darren Hi you would always be most welcome,I purchased the Genelecs after I had auditioned quite a few actives, I just wondered whether you had heard any other slightly more contemporary active speakers.
It is always to imagine something better until you hear it for yourself.
Keith.
It is always to imagine something better until you hear it for yourself.
Keith.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
I wonder if live classical music has shifted in balance as the acoustics of the halls has become brighter.
Rock music had a lot less HF content when the electric instruments were going through on stage cabinets. Now everything goes through the PA system with an excessive number of piezo horns and "one note" bass thump
French and many modern UK designs go way beyond accurate, with a real HF lift, but maybe this is the way much live music is now
Rock music had a lot less HF content when the electric instruments were going through on stage cabinets. Now everything goes through the PA system with an excessive number of piezo horns and "one note" bass thump
French and many modern UK designs go way beyond accurate, with a real HF lift, but maybe this is the way much live music is now
I would have to disagree with your analysis. Whilst it's probably true that classical instruments may have become brighter, (I believe modern concert Steinways are considered brighter than their older brethren for example) and that the use of direct injection in to the mixing consoles definitely provides a brighter/cleaner sound than a mic'd up fender/marshal cab. I would still argue that most people just wouldn't want the full on rasp and brashness of a trumpet (especially a muted one) in their living room. I think most people in to hi-fi (and most people in general) are completely unaware of how bright and brash some live instruments are. Violins are another example, they can be almost grating at times and I'm sure that most hi-fi buffs would consider a violin to be a sweet mellifluous sounding instrument and that's what they expect their systems to portray.
I am of course referring to live, raw un-amplified instruments played in close proximity i.e. exactly how most of them are recorded.
If anyone is in any doubt of what I say, I'd suggest getting behind an acoustic drum kit and bashing about on it for 30 minutes and seeing how your ears feel. I have never had this experience from (acoustic) drum based music at any volume from a hi-fi.
Why do you think that you are the only person who has noticed what live instruments actually sound like?
I think the Naim reputation for "harshness" is probably a good thing.
If you'd like to hear a realistic rendition of a drum kit, ATC actives are what you need. They will literally deafen you if you play them loud enough.
