ATC VS WILSON SASHA

[fr.jazbec]

28 sqm is pretty small size room for SCM150, usually this model is recommended for 50-60 sqm rooms but if you have good room treatment that's probably ok.
If i do consider the 150SE or LE in the future i will have to build a dedicated listening room, there's no way this can go in the linving room.

Hi there
I use active ATC 100 in a 28sqm room and it was very difficult to integrate it. In the end, I needed half a year and a lot of absorber material to eliminate all room modes. Probably the 50 would have been better for me, but luckily I have my own listening room that I could edit and now it fits perfectly. I would only use the 150 from 40sqm.
Greetings Rüdiger
P.S. Hello Tobes, we know us from the ATC forum

 

[alfa100]

I have a similar size room , 30 Sq m. Very difficult room size . Lots of nodes. I had to resort to Heimholtz resonators and bass traps for my Sasha . Took out most of the absorbers and added diffusers

 

[Brad Lunde]

Pictures sure are nice to look at to see what people set up. The 150 rig above must be awesome.

Here's one of the most interesting spaces and systems I have heard: Blackbird Studio C, John Mc Bride's reference ATMOS system. This was a difficult room to photograph, you do not see the rear 100s (you catch a corner of one on the right) and the two rear ATC subs. I heard a Prince ATMOS mix done on this rig a few hours before.

b

 

[MTB Vince]

Current generation active ATC models (with the in-house tweeters) simply don't get the love they deserve among the audiophile community at large. I've come to adore ours since their purchase a few years ago. They simply tell the truth. The SCM20 ASL Pro Mk II with some great subs has proven to be the perfect fit in our 26 sq m (20.3' x 14' x 11') dedicated combination stereo, 5.1 music, and immersive cinema room.

 

[Brad Lunde]

MTB Vince: That's quite a system you have there. It must be amazing.

My favorite thing about ATC that most people don't know is how drastic the differences are in the front end gear- all of it- preamps, DAC's, turntables, cables, etc. With active, the low distortion SL drivers and ATC tweeters, the typical masking is gone. I hear small differences much more clearly- especially things like imaging differences. The " misty cloud" left by a passive system with all that stuff between drivers and amps covers up so many details I know for a fact the artist and engineering team (tracking, mixing and mastering) worked very hard to put IN the recording.
Brad

 

[MTB Vince]

MTB Vince: That's quite a system you have there. It must be amazing.

My favorite thing about ATC that most people don't know is how drastic the differences are in the front end gear- all of it- preamps, DAC's, turntables, cables, etc. With active, the low distortion SL drivers and ATC tweeters, the typical masking is gone. I hear small differences much more clearly- especially things like imaging differences. The " misty cloud" left by a passive system with all that stuff between drivers and amps covers up so many details I know for a fact the artist and engineering team (tracking, mixing and mastering) worked very hard to put IN the recording.
Brad

That has been precisely my experience as well since moving from Meridian DSP actives (and an almost entirely digital signal chain) to the analog ATC actives @Brad Lunde. All of my experiments with components, cabling, and mechanical isolation have been laid bare for better or for worse. The same with fine tuning my room acoustic treatment strategy. I've been been a keen audio enthusiast for 4 decades now and never before have system changes, even the ones I expected to be subtle, been so audibly apparent.

I'm a casual member of many AV enthusiast forums but a keen participant in only a few. Every time I come across an anecdotal comment recounting ATC loudspeakers' shortcomings- a tendency towards the analytical, inability to project a satisfying soundstage, or in-your-face imaging- I simply chuckle. Many of these comments prove to be based upon much earlier experiences, a decade or more ago well prior to the advent of the in-house tweeters. Ironic that the Wilson Audio fans in this thread appear to have completely forgotten how unforgiving the tweeter choice made by their favorite loudspeaker brand was several iterations and a decade or two ago... The more recent negative experiences with current ATC models I tend to attribute to set-up shortcomings. In the latter case a pic or two of the room often immediately reveals the root cause of their dissatisfaction.

 

[Brad Lunde]

I want to start a thread that is " Your speaker demo is really a room demo". Many of the comments made on speaker demos (and not just ATC) are really about the room and what it does (to any speaker). I see people put speakers on the floor in a corner where you'd get anywhere from +6 to +9dB boost on the low end from that placement alone and proclaim the speaker to have "flabby bass". Or toe them in so much they have one tiny little sweet spot. Many of these set up errors make a flat speaker sound anything but flat and can completely alter the sound of the speaker at your ears. The room and its effects on your speaker and sum together so seemlessly you'd swear its coming from the speaker that way. A room with tons of glass will be bright almost no matter what you do. A room with too much absorptive material will make speakers sound very dark, making a perfect speaker sound like it has no high end. DSP cannot fix that. A small room will have no bass because the dimensions cannot support the length of a low frequency wave (20 Hz needs 56 feet ). DSP cannot fix that either. A room with very hard side walls (first reflection points) will not image well unless you treat these first reflection points or switch to super narrow dispersion speaker like a horn. Then horns have their own set of problems, like narrowing at high frequency. I've seen a lot of goofy stuff, like a well known manufacturer demoing speakers pushed against the side walls of the room, completely screwing up the image. And its not just audiophiles, studio engineers can make the exact same mistakes. Heck I made the same mistakes 30 years ago!

If I hear someone say ATC's or Focals or Genelecs (or some other well engineered speaker) " didn't sound good in their room" I know they have a bad room or put them in a bad spot-and probably didn't know it. IF they say "I couldnt find a place in my room they sounded right" that I can believe. Many rooms are extremely difficult to get sounding right no matter what the speaker is.

If you find yourself setting up different speakers in the same spot over and over, none of them sounding better than what you already have, perhaps they all share the same "problem", its a big clue its the WRONG SPOT in the room. So the answer is experiment! Moving speakers is so easy and its remarkable how different they can be 2 inches away.

Rant over.

Brad

 

[fr.jazbec]

Regarding the tweeters, my ATC still use the Seas T25CF001 and I made a conscious decision not to upgrade. The main reason for this was that I had to bring the entire loudspeaker to distribution and that is too cumbersome for me. Another reason, however, is that I really like the coordination with the Seas. I really like this slightly more defensive tweeter. In order to be able to service the ferrofluid in good time, I was able to purchase replacement tweeters from sales for a very reasonable price. Incidentally, the ATC loudspeakers in Germany just had their breakthrough with the Seas tweeters.

 

[Brad Lunde]

What's a "breakthough with the SEAS tweeter"?

The SEAS tweeters are by no means a bad tweeter, obviously ATC based their entire product line on them from 2001 to 2016 or so with one exception in pro. It was a huge improvement to the VIFA that came before which was harsh and did add to the "bright" perception I hear from time to time from older owners or demos. ATC crosses to tweeters higher than most, at 3500Hz, as this keeps the tweeter away from the midrange area. ATC has a lovely mid dome for that. I find the SEAS models used by ATC to "bite back" only when pushed hard, the system played quite loud (above 95dB SPL@ 1 meter), so it far more of an issue in studios applications than in homes. It does impact dynamics, for those using very wide dynamic sources such as DSD, but I doubt many of us plays their home system to 95dB SPL averages. Maybe in home theater .....
Brad
Lone Mountain/ATC USA

 

[Hear Here]

Hi there
I use active ATC 100 in a 28sqm room and it was very difficult to integrate it. In the end, I needed half a year and a lot of absorber material to eliminate all room modes. Probably the 50 would have been better for me, but luckily I have my own listening room that I could edit and now it fits perfectly. I would only use the 150 from 40sqm.

I think I know exactly what you mean. I bought 50 Actives 20 years ago to replace KEF Reference 107s for my 300 sq ft room in London. The room was acoustically easy as it was 5 sided with high ceilings and nice 100 year old plaster walls with one wall having a huge bay window. Before the days of DSP this seemed an ideal room that worked well with the KEFs and earlier home-built Wharfedale Airedale speakers - the original 6 sided ones.

I'd been hankering after ATCs for years and eventually bought a pair direct from ATC. I understood these to be refurbished / updated ones but I found them far too in-yer-face in my room than I could accept. I tried to love them but just wanted to push them 20 ft further away - not possible of course. After 6 months or so, I was reading Stereophile's Products of the Year Awards and was intrigued by the winner - Avantgarde Unos. I read the excellent full review and, even without listening to them, I knew that this was the sort of sound I wanted and very different from the ATC sound I was putting up with. After a quick audition is a small dismal London basement demo room, I ordered a pair and enjoyed them for the next 17 years.

Perhaps those ATCs (better still 100 Actives) would sound good in my present 945 sq ft room but I've upgraded from Unos to Duos (2006 vintage) to latest Duo XDs via a disappointing diversion down the Martin Logan route. I'm still more than happy with my Duos.

 

[fr.jazbec]

What's a "breakthough with the SEAS tweeter"?

Sorry, I am German and my English is not as good as it should be.
What I wanted to express is, before 2010, almost no one in the home hi-fi area knew ATC. That only changed when ATR took over sales in Germany and left some 50/100/150 loudspeakers to the magazine "Stereoplay" for testing. There the tested FF models impressed with their outstanding sound quality and ATC was also interesting for enthusiasts outside of the professional sector. At that time, of course, the tested models had all built in the Seas Tweeter and that's what I mean, that the models with this tweeter brought the breakthrough in Germany. With very few exceptions, the models with the new ATC tweeters have not yet been tested here in Germany, at least not in such renowned magazines as "Stereoplay".

 

[fr.jazbec]

I think I know exactly what you mean. I bought 50 Actives 20 years ago to replace KEF Reference 107s for my 300 sq ft room in London. The room was acoustically easy as it was 5 sided with high ceilings and nice 100 year old plaster walls with one wall having a huge bay window. Before the days of DSP this seemed an ideal room that worked well with the KEFs and earlier home-built Wharfedale Airedale speakers - the original 6 sided ones.

I'd been hankering after ATCs for years and eventually bought a pair direct from ATC. I understood these to be refurbished / updated ones but I found them far too in-yer-face in my room than I could accept. I tried to love them but just wanted to push them 20 ft further away - not possible of course. After 6 months or so, I was reading Stereophile's Products of the Year Awards and was intrigued by the winner - Avantgarde Unos. I read the excellent full review and, even without listening to them, I knew that this was the sort of sound I wanted and very different from the ATC sound I was putting up with. After a quick audition is a small dismal London basement demo room, I ordered a pair and enjoyed them for the next 17 years.

Perhaps those ATCs (better still 100 Actives) would sound good in my present 945 sq ft room but I've upgraded from Unos to Duos (2006 vintage) to latest Duo XDs via a disappointing diversion down the Martin Logan route. I'm still more than happy with my Duos.

I don't know if you really understood me.
What I wanted to say is that, as they say in Germany, "my eyes were bigger than my mouth". I should have been happy with a smaller portion, but I was greedy for the big bass and had some problems with booming frequencies. Fortunately, I was able to solve this in my listening room, in a living room it would have been very difficult for optical reasons.

 

[Hear Here]

I don't know if you really understood me.
What I wanted to say is that, as they say in Germany, "my eyes were bigger than my mouth". I should have been happy with a smaller portion, but I was greedy for the big bass and had some problems with booming frequencies. Fortunately, I was able to solve this in my listening room, in a living room it would have been very difficult for optical reasons.

The ATC 50s that I had used the VIFA tweeter so a lot has changed since then. They switched to Seas until 2016 or so but now make their own tweeters as I understand it.

Their mid-range has remained much as it was when I had mine, but I don't know about upgrades to the bass driver. Certainly the amplifier has changed at least once and probably twice. As I said, I'd very much like to try the latest 100s at home now. Trouble is, if I liked them, it would a costly excercise to switch from nearly new Duo XDs to new ATCs!

 

[fr.jazbec]

As Brad has already written, the Vifa tweeter was a bit hard and not optimal. I don't know to what extent the amplifiers have changed. My boxes use the discrete Class A reinforcement, unfortunately it is only available in the SE models today and is therefore very expensive and also not my thing visually. The woofer in the 100 is actually the one used by Live Aid, but I'm sure that the model is constantly updated.
Whether you use a horn, a dipole radiator or a direct radiator is a fundamental decision that depends on your personal listening taste and the space available. With me, a horn would not be able to unfold because my listening distance is too short. But I would like to hear a superb horn system and have an invitation to listen to a Martion Orgon system. Let's see how I think about music playback afterwards.

 

[Brad Lunde]

As Brad has already written, the Vifa tweeter was a bit hard and not optimal. I don't know to what extent the amplifiers have changed. My boxes use the discrete Class A reinforcement, unfortunately it is only available in the SE models today and is therefore very expensive and also not my thing visually. The woofer in the 100 is actually the one used by Live Aid, but I'm sure that the model is constantly updated.
Whether you use a horn, a dipole radiator or a direct radiator is a fundamental decision that depends on your personal listening taste and the space available. With me, a horn would not be able to unfold because my listening distance is too short. But I would like to hear a superb horn system and have an invitation to listen to a Martion Orgon system. Let's see how I think about music playback afterwards.

ATC's goal, via traditional engineering methods, is to reduce the distortion in the drivers. This is where the sound begins and once the distortion is created in the driver, it cannot be removed. No matter the model, ATC tries for the lowest possible distortion driver complement. Mate that to an active 3 way amp system that can optimize phase linearity of the speaker (something a passive can never do) and avoid the changes added by a ton of copper (passive crossover and cables), can deliver a lower level of masking distortion revealing more content. There is no effort to make it "in your face" or not, bass heavy or bass light, etc. If the mix or master is bass heavy it should be bass heavy. If the mix or master is in your face, it should be in your face. All of these types of attributes are usually about the room or the source, not as much about the speaker as you'd guess.

The basic active idea paired with low distortion drivers is enough of an improvement that it is difficult to find speakers that reveal more details than this basic concept. You certainly can find speakers you like better for sure, as this is almost always a function of room and source. Plus most of us have never heard the mix the way it supposed to sound, so we don't really know for sure.



Brad

 

[rblnr]

I reviewed ATCs years ago, and the actives were (and may still be) better then the passives. Part of the improvement I think comes from the fact that the actives are entirely phase coherent where the passives are not. But either way, agreed, underrated speakers

Still enjoy Active 20s in my living room, got a guy who does Steinway pianos to do them in white.

 

[T. A. E. Brown]

HI Here here

Interesting comment but I am definitely not on board. Your statement that "the best speaker designed for the studio is not the same as the best speaker designed for home listening" sounds like you are making a statement of fact when it that is not true. A studio monitor should be flat? This is also a myth that died long ago when nearly everyone agrees that flat is WAY too bright. The real difference is studio monitors cannot have power compression issues (affecting dynamics and max levels), cannot have changing EQ, must have linear phase (making the speaker better in translation to other speakers) and must be bullet proof reliable (studios charge by the hour so anything that stops work costs money). It should have very consistent dispersion across its bandwidth (especially in scoring work where there are multiple people in the control room working) and be packaged to fit one of the 3 room formats: nearfield (close distance to the speakers to reduce room effects), midfield (larger speakers on stands) or far field (big high power speakers built into a wall). There are more differences but most are not sound quality related (issues like how easy to get parts and repair).

Studio speakers are by design different sounding? This was maybe true in the 1980s but science has shown a better way. Better sound is a shared goal with some education and experience. Studio people share more with audiophiles than you'd guess, endlessly fussing over the system trying to make them better with a better DAC, a better mic pre (equal to a phono preamp), better mics, better clocking etc. I know the guy who does most of the recording at Capitol for Diana Krall; he's known to spend an entire day on where the mic(s) should be placed to get the sound he wants for just drums!

Brad
Lone Mountain Audio
TransAudio Group

Brad,

I have a question about something you stated last September. You said, "A studio monitor should be flat? This is also a myth that died long ago when nearly everyone agrees that flat is WAY too bright." Are you saying that ATC speakers are purposely not flat? I am trying to figure out how a flat response can be too bright if the source is properly balanced.

T. A. E. Brown
Franconia, New Hampshire USA

 

[Brad Lunde]

"Flat" is term that is often improperly used. Objectively, "Flat" from the technical side can mean +/- 1dB 100Hz to 10K or +/-3dB 32Hz to 20K or +/- 2dB from 40Hz to 16K. Not very meaningful as all of these specs are different and the speakers they belong to will likely sound different. Flat is also used by lots of us users to describe the sound of something, a paraphrase for a subjective judgement. "Wow that speaker is too flat for me, it has no bass" or "Wow that speaker is about as flat as anything I've heard, I hear no bumps or dips". Both say nothing translatable to all of us about how the speaker sounds. Add to that no speaker is flat in a real listening space, as its speaker+room we actually hear-not speaker alone. SO the idea of having a flat speaker is completely nebulous subjectively, while objectively it is not precise enough to tell us much. So I rarely hear this word used anymore.

So I find in talking to people that work in the business of mixing or mastering that they don't like a truly flat and wide band monitor very much. It is often subjectively brighter than most of us are used to and many call it as just "too bright". There' a practical reason for it, as a too bright monitor causes mixes to end dull, too dark. So for them, the goal is a speaker that makes mixes turn out right, combined with high resolution so they can hear mistakes.

Does that answer your question?
Brad

 

[T. A. E. Brown]

"Flat" is term that is often improperly used. Objectively, "Flat" from the technical side can mean +/- 1dB 100Hz to 10K or +/-3dB 32Hz to 20K or +/- 2dB from 40Hz to 16K. Not very meaningful as all of these specs are different and the speakers they belong to will likely sound different. Flat is also used by lots of us users to describe the sound of something, a paraphrase for a subjective judgement. "Wow that speaker is too flat for me, it has no bass" or "Wow that speaker is about as flat as anything I've heard, I hear no bumps or dips". Both say nothing translatable to all of us about how the speaker sounds. Add to that no speaker is flat in a real listening space, as its speaker+room we actually hear-not speaker alone. SO the idea of having a flat speaker is completely nebulous subjectively, while objectively it is not precise enough to tell us much. So I rarely hear this word used anymore.

So I find in talking to people that work in the business of mixing or mastering that they don't like a truly flat and wide band monitor very much. It is often subjectively brighter than most of us are used to and many call it as just "too bright". There' a practical reason for it, as a too bright monitor causes mixes to end dull, too dark. So for them, the goal is a speaker that makes mixes turn out right, combined with high resolution so they can hear mistakes.

Does that answer your question?
Brad

Thank you for the speedy response, Brad. This does not answer my question directly, but I think I can discern the answer from what you've said in your reply. ATC purposely designs their speakers NOT to be flat.

You try to explain how this is preferable, even from the viewpoint of those doing mixing and mastering, but I still can't figure out how a flat response can be too bright if the source is properly balanced. If the mix is too bright, then it should be fixed in the mix, shouldn't it? --- unless there is some technical thing going on that plays with the higher frequencies despite a mixer's best efforts to properly equalize, and there is therefore always a need for some behind-the-scenes correction.

I am asking about ATC speaker design in particular because I am researching the best speakers to use as the main monitors in my small project studio. (I already have a pair of Yamaha NS-10M Studios and Auratone 5C cubes. I am looking for some speakers to serve as primaries, an upgrade from my Event 20/20 bas monitors.) Because the content I am producing is not generally music, but rather audio drama, audiobooks, interviews, sound effects, and environmental ambience, I have been seriously considering Harbeth loudspeakers. Harbeth's design philosophy gives special attention to the faithful reproduction of the human voice, and also to naturally produced sounds like those of acoustic instruments. This philosophy seems a good match for my projects, yet I don't find Harbeths being used in other recording studios. ATC speakers, on the other hand, are very often found in recording studios, and enjoy a good reputation. But are they better than Harbeths for my application? These are the two brands of speaker I am currently considering. So, I have some additional questions for you. Are the drivers and crossover technology used in ATC's consumer hifi speakers the same as those of the professional speakers? And, are the consumer hifi speakers voiced differently from those in the professional line? Do the two lines of speakers essentially differ only in size and cosmetics?

T. A. E. Brown
Franconia, New Hampshire USA

 

[Brad Lunde]

Thank you for the speedy response, Brad. This does not answer my question directly, but I think I can discern the answer from what you've said in your reply. ATC purposely designs their speakers NOT to be flat.

You try to explain how this is preferable, even from the viewpoint of those doing mixing and mastering, but I still can't figure out how a flat response can be too bright if the source is properly balanced. If the mix is too bright, then it should be fixed in the mix, shouldn't it? --- unless there is some technical thing going on that plays with the higher frequencies despite a mixer's best efforts to properly equalize, and there is therefore always a need for some behind-the-scenes correction.

I am asking about ATC speaker design in particular because I am researching the best speakers to use as the main monitors in my small project studio. (I already have a pair of Yamaha NS-10M Studios and Auratone 5C cubes. I am looking for some speakers to serve as primaries, an upgrade from my Event 20/20 bas monitors.) Because the content I am producing is not generally music, but rather audio drama, audiobooks, interviews, sound effects, and environmental ambience, I have been seriously considering Harbeth loudspeakers. Harbeth's design philosophy gives special attention to the faithful reproduction of the human voice, and also to naturally produced sounds like those of acoustic instruments. This philosophy seems a good match for my projects, yet I don't find Harbeths being used in other recording studios. ATC speakers, on the other hand, are very often found in recording studios, and enjoy a good reputation. But are they better than Harbeths for my application? These are the two brands of speaker I am currently considering. So, I have some additional questions for you. Are the drivers and crossover technology used in ATC's consumer hifi speakers the same as those of the professional speakers? And, are the consumer hifi speakers voiced differently from those in the professional line? Do the two lines of speakers essentially differ only in size and cosmetics?

T. A. E. Brown
Franconia, New Hampshire USA

I guess I should clarify. You have asked a complicated question, with many threads to it. Saying ATC does not try to design a flat monitor is also not a correct statement and I would be wrong to lead you to that conclusion. My difficulty in answering is that a flat monitor is not a goal of recording monitors; translation is; flaw identification is the secondary goal. I'm not sure "flat monitor " is the right question as what is flat or not is largely dependent on room and what helps a mixer achieve the correct mix may not be a flat monitor.

ATC is strong in studios because it translates. Translation is not limited to a genre , one kind of music or application. Translation applies to all kinds of sources, all kinds of applications. The single most critical thing in pro application is the midrange, voices and guitars. Midrange is where 75% of the content is energy wise. Midrange is the only thing that translates across all mediums, all playback methods, from high end to low end, home systems to cars, $50 ear buds to $5,000 headphones, built in laptop speakers or ATMOS rigs for movies. Voices and guitars are the #1 thing to worry about in audio recording.

ATC is used by many because its so good at voices and guitars and midrange over all. Library of Congress AV uses ATC for all their monitoring and a good amount of what they are re-recording or editing is voice. Like your Auratone 5C's, the ATC's are strong for mixing any kind of audio, for it has a funny way of pointing out errors. Part of that is a phase accuracy part of that is low distortion. ATC builds phase linear speakers in a multiway which parallels the same target as the single driver Auratone 5C, a phase linear speaker system (the 5C has no crossover to introduce phase errors). What you might do with a mix on a pair of Auratone 5C's would certainly show up in a pair of ATC's the same way. The ATC's would offer much great bandwidth and dynamic range, still yielding translation, which is a tough thing to deliver.

In the end, the real challenge of choosing monitors is your room. With your set of ears in your room (which none of us have experience with), there could be unique results compared to other people's ears and rooms. Most people at the top of the business would say the ATC is the monitor of choice right now, and knowing who these people are and where they work you'd be in good company. But honestly for voice, some pros would say you already have what you need, Auratone 5Cs. Just put a good sounding large power amp on them and mix to those and you are done.

Brad