Exactly what makes a nearfield monitor worth $18k?

[loopy]

Let's all try and get along, please

As for these monitors, they sure are sweet sounding IMHO.
Whether or not the typical studio needs $18k monitors is another thing.
Fine records have been made on far cheaper monitors and totally suck records have been made on far more expensive monitors.

The choice is left up to the user.

Bottom line is are they overpriced?

In the scheme of things .........No way.................

Go listen for yourself.
Fortunately I had the opportunity.

That's really the only way to decide.

I can't afford them... Wish I could.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by Babaluma

hey it's the high end forum, not the professional forum. you want that you go to WOMB, PRW or REP etc.

.

Ummmmm.....what do you think "High End" means?

This is my whole point.

Most people here who use expensive monitoring KNOW that they're doing so for SPECIFIC purposes.

These more expensive monitors cost more FOR A REASON.

Years of serious R&D, design, parts, labor, testing, customer service, etc.

You can't just dump $20 tweeters into a plastic case with crappy crossovers and amps and call it "good enough".

So again - if you have to ask...you don't belong here. Sorry.

ESPECIALLY, after being informed by users who CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THE DIFFERENCE.

Same with ANYTHING "High End". Food, cars, hotels, equipment, conversation, customer service, travel, etc.

Believe me, I understand there are people who can't tell the difference (!)

Which is fine. Just don't pretend you speak for everyone here.

Because this is High End.

If you're not a serious audiophile, or professional - the chances are - you really might not be able to hear the difference.

You can keep making fun of people who pay more, and claiming to get the same results using cheap gear,
it simply won't change the facts on the ground for audiophiles and professionals.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pretend like it's relevant to everyone else here.

Because it's not.

OK? Thanks.


Sorry, slutz - back on topic.


.

[Babaluma]

sorry dude, not sure why the animosity, i've not said most of the words you seem to be trying to put in my mouth. i'm on the same side as you. i use ATC. they blow cheaper speakers out of the water. i was just commenting on the fact that yes, this forum does seem to be peopled by those who are not professional/high end users (however you want to define that), and there are probably better places to go if you seek a reasoned, experienced and professional opinion.

[Helius]

Last year I bought the ATC SCM25 and it was the best investment I ever did since I started my own recording studio. Before I owned JBL LSR, PMC TB2, Genelec 8250 and K&H O300. Now I have the ATC with 2 K&H O810 subwoofers and I couldn't be happier. The ATC's let you hear so much INTO the music. I've never experienced that with any other speakers. And believe me you can't describe the sound of the ATC's in technical specifications. The data maybe look not so impressive on paper compared to other loudspeaker manufacturer, but the sound is well worth the money. I also listened to the bigger ATC's and every speaker they build is well worth the money.

[Mgr]

Originally Posted by Rev. Eslam

Jesus is King!

Maybe you should read the FAQ, point 6. regarding politics and religion...

[Audio X]

Were ATC SMC150's designed as a near field monitor? ...seem more like mid fields.
My speakers were $14k (20Hz-20K).

[Helius]

In my opinion the 150's are too big for nearfields. If you want nearfields then I would check the 25's or the 50's.

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by Audio X

Were ATC SMC150's designed as a near field monitor? ...seem more like mid fields.
My speakers were $14k (20Hz-20K).

ATC 25s are designed as nearfields- 50s can be used as nearfields, but are large for that purpose so may be midfields in many rooms. 100s and 150s are midfields only!

Brad

[rakkaus]

Originally Posted by coolFX

They are amazing speakers. My friend works for them.

You maybe able to do an awesome mix down or master with them but when 99% of your target market have vastly infeior speakers what they hear will be a different story. Really you want a cheaper pair to reference the sound against them keep checking it. This kinda makes having them a little pointless in my eyes. You might as well just use the cheaper ones all of the time!

my point of view is that for the people that don't mind about their "sound system", anything is ok. obvious that there is all this "dumb radio music" for dumb people enterprise, but the people involved in good music should not mind about "selling and their sonic character". there are great musics (with lesser audio quality) made that way? yes, many, but should we stay in this degrading path? ..we are in the future! within mature music, one should be able to explore all sonic dimensions without limitations. good music deserves infinite proportions.

[Andrew Kinsey]

18k for the ATC's is actually quite reasonable if you compare them to what else is out there that can deliver similar level of performance.

PMC, Geithain, Grimm Audio, B&W not to mention some of the more exoteric hifi speakers out that are over twice the asking price for the ATC's.

Accurate full range loudspeakers are not cheap to make and design in the first place, the market for them is also relatively small, which makes it more expensive to manufacture as they have to be made in small batches, sometimes only to order.

In mastering applications accurate full range monitors like these play a very important role, the more revealing the speakers are means the ME can work faster, more efficiently, and with greater accuracy.

Serious recording studios, and mixing rooms also have them for the same reason. Although things are changing as budgets are getting smaller and more people are working from home/project studio setups.

[Bassmankr]

A studio monitering chain is measured as sucessful if a mixer can hear source - mix defects and the mix created with it translates well to MOST of their target customers. How many customers of the mix will have $18k+ monitering chains at home (not enough to pay for your $18k expense is the obvious answer)? With any expense a studio owner has to ask the question "What can I spend that ("X" amount) of money on that will do the most good and be the best return on investment". I just can't see that the differences between a pair of $4k speakers and these $18k speakers are so great that the $14k cost difference is the correct answer to the above questions.

The whole unlimited funds argument or wanting the best is kind of pointless when dealing with nearfields because then you would just have a larger control room with better acoustics and use midfields. The room is just as much part of the monitering chain. Even those with little experience in acoustics know that room cubic volume makes a big difference and small rooms are never correct.

There will always be some product priced at the very extreme claiming it's the best at something. We see this constantly with cable threads that pop up here on a regular basis. Just like with cable we find that a practical approach debunks and properly prioritizes (you really don't have to spend anywhere near much to get the best solution for the job).

[Helius]

I have the SCM25 and active Avantone Mixcubes. in my opinion the SCM25 are here to hear everything in the mix. Maybe just 1% of customers has good speakers at home but you have to make shure that there is nothing wrong in your mix. The Mixcubes are just right for listening to your mix how most of the people will hear it. In my opinion the ATC's are well worth the money. You can have a BMW much cheaper than a Ferarri and they both drive on the same road. But one of them makes you feel good. Which one is just a matter of taste.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

A studio monitering chain is measured as sucessful if a mixer can hear source - mix defects and the mix created with it translates well to MOST of their target customers. How many customers of the mix will have $18k+ monitering chains at home (not enough to pay for your $18k expense is the obvious answer)?

Sorry, missing the point completely.

The reason you mix on the best possible monitors is so that it sounds best on the widest variety of sub optimal systems.

If you don't do professional mixing / mastering at this level, then yes, $18K monitors do sound like they're overpriced.

There will always be some product priced at the very extreme claiming it's the best at something. We see this constantly with cable threads that pop up here on a regular basis. Just like with cable we find that a practical approach debunks and properly prioritizes (you really don't have to spend anywhere near much to get the best solution for the job).

While I agree about the "silly cables" thing, we're a LONG LONG way from that when we're talkin' $18K monitors, maybe $180K is getting up into "cable hype" territory, but definitely not $18K.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by loopy

Bottom line is are they overpriced?

In the scheme of things .........No way.................

Yeah, I haven't read every response in this thread, so I'm sure someone else has already pointed out that one could easily spend two or three times what those $18k ATCs cost on a studio monitor.

I never hear people complaining that Genelec 1036s or PMC BB5-As or Quested Q412s are "overpriced" ...just that they can't afford them.

[FullCount]

Where X is price and Utility is sound quality, also known as: The Law of Diminishing Returns

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

There will always be some product priced at the very extreme claiming it's the best at something. We see this constantly with cable threads that pop up here on a regular basis. Just like with cable we find that a practical approach debunks and properly prioritizes (you really don't have to spend anywhere near much to get the best solution for the job).

I think that is a bad example

with a cable, you can get to a point where you prove that nobody can actually hear a difference - in some cases you can't even measure a difference with scientific instruments

with a speaker, everybody hears the difference, even if some people don't think the difference is "worth it".

Even if some people actually prefer the cheaper speaker, there IS a difference that human beings can perceive with their ears alone. The difference will probably not be proportional to the price, but highly advanced technology never is.


"Worth it" is a factor of two things, your perception and your budget.

if you can hear it, and your budget is high enough, no one who has less money than you can tell you it isn't 'worth it'

in the case of those ridiculous cables, nobody can actually hear it, so the budget becomes irrelevant

[Bassmankr]

Geoff, maybe you are missing my point. Nearfields don't bring anything new to the table that you don't already have in midfields. If anything they represent more compromise with their smaller sweet spot from proximity and less low end because of the physics of a smaller woofer / box though many nearfields are teamed up with subs to compensate. Room cubic volume is a huge factor as is it's geometry/materials/acoustics. If you have the money that is where to put it first and if you already have that then likely midfields are the better choice to put in that room.

If you are stuck with a small room then even with corrective acoustic treatment and expensive nearfields you are only putting a bandaid on the reality of the small room's acoustic problems (which they all do have) which is a major factor in the monitering chain/system. You can compensate but frankly in my opinion you would have been better off with a larger room and midfields. Thus even if these speakers were $200k super-duper best on the planet nearfields, their fatal flaw is that they are nearfields. Given you are compromising using nearfields regardless then chances are the difference in quality you would hear between $4k nearfield speakers and $18k nearfield speakers could garner far more improvements with that price difference being spent elsewhere.

It's not a "professional mixing / mastering at this level" type thing as many at the very top level that I'm aware of are not compromising with small rooms and nearfields. I've seen the same type of arguments made for using the most expensive headphones but it's not common practice to mix and master with those either. I thought Bob Ohlsson here made the same type of argument for midfields not that long ago. I'm not knocking this product, I'm knocking this type of product at this price point because of smarter strategies to apply with the same amount of money.

I understand many people use nearfields but that unto itself doesn't mean much as I see plenty of pictures here of setups with a desk with those nearfields two feet apart and pushed up next to the wall. Those same guys can't seem to find $30 for long cables to move their computers away to avoid that additional noise. I also understand how some want to bring a portable speaker they are familar with into a studio to work with but that still represents a compromise unless some time is spent setting them up right (plopping them on a meter bridge doesn't count) and adjusting to reference material played through them. My basic point was that a good room and midfields should be the first option explored.

[Geoff Waddington]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Geoff, maybe you are missing my point. Nearfields don't bring anything new to the table that you don't already have in midfields. If anything they represent more compromise with their smaller sweet spot from proximity and less low end because of the physics of a smaller woofer / box though many nearfields are teamed up with subs to compensate. Room cubic volume is a huge factor as is it's geometry/materials/acoustics. If you have the money that is where to put it first and if you already have that then likely midfields are the better choice to put in that room.

If you are stuck with a small room then even with corrective acoustic treatment and expensive nearfields you are only putting a bandaid on the reality of the small room's acoustic problems (which they all do have) which is a major factor in the monitering chain/system. You can compensate but frankly in my opinion you would have been better off with a larger room and midfields. Thus even if these speakers were $200k super-duper best on the planet nearfields, their fatal flaw is that they are nearfields. Given you are compromising using nearfields regardless then chances are the difference in quality you would hear between $4k nearfield speakers and $18k nearfield speakers could garner far more improvements with that price difference being spent elsewhere.

It's not a "professional mixing / mastering at this level" type thing as many at the very top level that I'm aware of are not compromising with small rooms and nearfields. I've seen the same type of arguments made for using the most expensive headphones but it's not common practice to mix and master with those either. I thought Bob Ohlsson here made the same type of argument for midfields not that long ago. I'm not knocking this product, I'm knocking this type of product at this price point because of smarter strategies to apply with the same amount of money.

Time for me to be humble...

My apologies, we are in near 100% agreement.

I think the subtle difference is this:

If I am a Monitor manufacturer, I need to survive.

Given today's market ( basically "weekend warriors"), maximizing the extremely small room makes economic sense.

[Duardo]

I completely believe that these companies creating these ultra high-prices products, that 'they care' about putting a $500 tweeter in a speaker for what they believe people should experience, but what good does it do if the 'blue collar' within the industry, which I woudl guestimate would be well over half the industry, will never hear these tweeters, get to work with them and create a product for their clients with it. What good are you doing for the music industry if more than half the people needing to use a product like yours doesn't even have access to it??

Depending on how you define "the industry", I'd imagine that far less than half of the people in "the industry" will ever hear these speakers.

But as others have pointed out...if there are people in the industry who are doing work with them, how is that not good for the industry?

I heard ATC speakers for the first time at AES this past fall and was almost rendered speechless. There have been speakers that have blown me away before, but this was really the first time where the impression that I got was that I was hearing no speaker. I'm not in a position where it would make sense for me to buy these speakers right now and I may never be, but it certainly gives me something to aspire to...and if I can definitely understand why the people who can buy them, do.

[Rev. Eslam]

I concur with Bassman. But you also use nearfield monitors, correct?
The new Neumann speakers it seems from your profile picture?


The first time I auditioned a pair of ATC Mains I almost bought them, despite the hefty price tag but I ended up getting something of equal quality for far less.

[BOP]

I was reading with great interest all the posts about the ATC, then, I visited that website and everything after that, just fluttered away, along with my head.

I need a strong coffee, a blanket and probably Forrest Gump on dvd, or something unrealistically reassuring.

[Bassmankr]

Rev. Eslam, that's a different "Bassman" member here as there are a few us with close user names, I'm "Bassmankr". I use JBL LSR32's but do have a pair of AMR PRM-205's nearfields that are just used as a check set. I'm not pushing or knocking ANY specific speaker in this thread but instead commenting on some basic concepts and practices.

[Blitenz]

Part of it its definitely to give a brand a more leetish sugarcoat. Once you see that 18k worth monitor vs 7k youre placebo will play tricks on you and you will almost be helpless. Exploit human weakness ---> profit.

[Rev. Eslam]

Bassmankr sorry for the confusion.

[Joe Haze]

I actually requested a pair of NS10's be installed in an SSL room I was frequently working in. Between those and the NHT's I was able to mix.

Have faith it's possible..lol

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by Babaluma

sorry dude, not sure why the animosity, i've not said most of the words you seem to be trying to put in my mouth. i'm on the same side as you. i use ATC. they blow cheaper speakers out of the water. i was just commenting on the fact that yes, this forum does seem to be peopled by those who are not professional/high end users (however you want to define that), and there are probably better places to go if you seek a reasoned, experienced and professional opinion.

.

Agreed. Apologies for my misunderstanding, man. Cheers.

My reaction was because I personally know quite a number of PROFESSIONALS on this forum.

And they tend to be more present in the High End area(s) here.

.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Geoff, maybe you are missing my point. Nearfields don't bring anything new to the table that you don't already have in midfields. If anything they represent more compromise with their smaller sweet spot from proximity and less low end because of the physics of a smaller woofer / box though many nearfields are teamed up with subs to compensate. Room cubic volume is a huge factor as is it's geometry/materials/acoustics. If you have the money that is where to put it first and if you already have that then likely midfields are the better choice to put in that room.

If you are stuck with a small room then even with corrective acoustic treatment and expensive nearfields you are only putting a bandaid on the reality of the small room's acoustic problems (which they all do have) which is a major factor in the monitering chain/system. You can compensate but frankly in my opinion you would have been better off with a larger room and midfields. Thus even if these speakers were $200k super-duper best on the planet nearfields, their fatal flaw is that they are nearfields. Given you are compromising using nearfields regardless then chances are the difference in quality you would hear between $4k nearfield speakers and $18k nearfield speakers could garner far more improvements with that price difference being spent elsewhere.

It's not a "professional mixing / mastering at this level" type thing as many at the very top level that I'm aware of are not compromising with small rooms and nearfields. I've seen the same type of arguments made for using the most expensive headphones but it's not common practice to mix and master with those either. I thought Bob Ohlsson here made the same type of argument for midfields not that long ago. I'm not knocking this product, I'm knocking this type of product at this price point because of smarter strategies to apply with the same amount of money.

I understand many people use nearfields but that unto itself doesn't mean much as I see plenty of pictures here of setups with a desk with those nearfields two feet apart and pushed up next to the wall. Those same guys can't seem to find $30 for long cables to move their computers away to avoid that additional noise. I also understand how some want to bring a portable speaker they are familar with into a studio to work with but that still represents a compromise unless some time is spent setting them up right (plopping them on a meter bridge doesn't count) and adjusting to reference material played through them. My basic point was that a good room and midfields should be the first option explored.

.

Indeed. I generally use my 5.1 near/midfields as near/midfields - in a roughly 3-4 foot triangle.

And my full-range 3-way discreetly-powered dipole mains with subs for end of the line QC -
referencing mixes and mastering.

I often sit back further from the near/midfields, and listen at lower volumes. Same with the mains.

I have two different sets of custom subs for the nears and dipole mains -
but usually don't engage subs for the nears.

.

[Bassmankr]

Although, $18k nearfields seems like a bargain when you consider these $4.5M nearfields (YES, FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS):

Hart Audio introduces world’s most expensive speakers at £3 Million

By the way someone in the know claims they use these $35 (YES, THIRTY FIVE DOLLAR) tweeters:

Vifa XT25BG60-04 1" Shielded Dual Ring Radiator Tweeter 264-1012



Or how about these $41k headphones:

The Most Expensive Headphones : Orpheus by Sennheiser - Business Insider



Or how about $14k for a pair of eight foot cables:

Audio Direct - K2 Double Star-Quad Geometry Speaker Cable (8.0 Ft.) (Pair)

I guess having a really nice webpage helps with the marketing

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Although, $18k nearfields seems like a bargain when you consider these $4.5M nearfields (YES, FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS):

Hart Audio introduces world’s most expensive speakers at £3 Million

.. and they go all the way down to 47Hz ..?.?.?... I'll stay with my Dunlavy V's

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

.. and they go all the way down to 47Hz ..?.?.?...

Well, sure, look at that driver: It's a freakin' Tannoy System 800 ...in an 18carat gold sculpture!