ATC monitors for Mixing & Mastering

[Seti808]

I'm thinking about getting a pair of ATC100 for mixing.

My question = does anyone use them for mastering too?


Please share your experience with ATC monitors.

Sofit or free standing?



Ps anyone try to build the ATC monitor kit for way less $$

[Bob Olhsson]

The ones I've heard were great for tracking and mixing but a bit more flattering than I like for mastering. The speakers I like for mastering wouldn't be flattering enough to get most clients through the process of tracking and mixing.

[TornadoTed]

I had planned to build the ATC monitor kit but it is no longer available in the UK, well I couldn't find one anyway! I'm instead building some monitors loosly based on the SCM150's using ATC mids, Volt 15" bass drivers and Seas Excel tweeters. Wilmslow Audio designed the cabinets and built the crossovers, they are tweaked versions of their Prestige2 crossovers with the Hovland MusiCap upgrade. I am building the cabinets from 18mm MDF bonded to 18mm oak using a vacuum press. They will be driven with 3x Hill Audio C800 amps and use 330 strand OFC copper cable.

http://www.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/

[Seti808]

Have you heard the wimslow versions before?

Do they hold there own with the real ATC's?

[TornadoTed]

I didn't get chance to hear their ATC kit when it was available. I've built a couple of their hi-fi kits for myself and friends though and they are excellent. I don't claim that they will match the ATC's but if I can get close for a 5th of the money I'll be extremely happy!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The ones I've heard were great for tracking and mixing but a bit more flattering than I like for mastering. The speakers I like for mastering wouldn't be flattering enough to get most clients through the process of tracking and mixing.

I agree ATCs are a bit "flattering". It's probably because the amps "top out" and perhaps because of a bit too rich lower midrange. But they are great mixing speakers and I'm sure would make excellent mastering speakers for acoustic music.

BK

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Seti808

My question = does anyone use them for mastering too?

Doug Sax and Joe Gastwirt I think use them for mastering. I'm sure there are others. I'd happily get some for mastering if I had a big sack full of cash.

[robot gigante]

Which ones have you guys listened to?

The 110's I heard weren't very flattering! The 20's, maybe so.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The ones I've heard were great for tracking and mixing but a bit more flattering than I like for mastering.

Hi, Bob. Just for sake of comparison, what are you using that you consider less flattering?

Thanks!


Max

[Bob Olhsson]

Duntech Sovereigns and Nova Evolutions.

Again, these are not what I'd use for tracking and mixing, In a mastering session I can pull things into shape in seconds so it doesn't freak the client out. In a tracking or mixing session that much sonic information easily becomes a distraction.

[max cooper]

Thanks, Bob. Back in the '70's my dad had a pair of Duntechs. We drove down to John Dunlavy's place in Corpus Christie to get 'em. I'll bet these are pretty different, huh?

[Bob Olhsson]

Possibly not all that different.

John's brute force "carefully measure and select each part" approach to accuracy works very well. Most of what has come since has been about achieving the same results in a cheaper fashion.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Possibly not all that different.

I'd sure like to hear 'em now. I was too young to really remember much about how they sounded.

We had Quad ESL's too.

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Duntech Sovereigns and Nova Evolutions.

Again, these are not what I'd use for tracking and mixing, In a mastering session I can pull things into shape in seconds so it doesn't freak the client out. In a tracking or mixing session that much sonic information easily becomes a distraction.

Interesting, but I don't get it. I've never been able to subscribe to the approach of intentionally mixing with dumbed down monitoring, and although I've been around plenty of them, I've never appreciated the NS10 as a primary mixing tool .. Hearing a "mastering grade" level of sonic information is part of what I rely on in my monitors when mixing. I don't find it a distraction at all. It's informative!

Not to suggest that anyone should put some Sovereigns on the meter bridge, but the idea that less sonic information is more useful during tracking and mixing just doesn't make sense to me, especially if you know that there's more at play than what your monitors are showing you.

As for it freaking out the artist, I've never encountered that, either. If better monitoring is revealing some deficiency that someone might get self-conscious about, why should they wait to find that out until the mastering session, or their first listen at "Uncle Audiophile's House"?

Obviously, everyone has their way of doing things, habits and methods... And I'm obviously partial to higher resolution monitoring at every stage. Sorry Bob, I don't usually find anything to disagree with in what you post, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, or perhaps it's just something that warrants elaboration, if you care to.

-dave

[Bob Olhsson]

First off, just any old "dumbed down" monitor doesn't work just as many audiophile speakers don't translate all that well. Certain specific ones have been found with experience to be very useful tools. A monitor is generally judged by results, by what things sound like everywhere else and by the quality of the performances of the people who used them.

Studio performing is an interactive process. All performance demands immense amounts of concentration and focus. One of the keys to great production is minimizing distractions and a performer's feelings of vulnerability so that their focus is on their performance where it belongs. Another is the ability to move fast enough to keep up with the ebb and flow of their creativity. A great sounding recording of a performer who has been waiting around for the subtleties of the sound to get tweaked is rarely as good as a competent recording of somebody who just walked in and did their thing.

Mixing is about finding a balance between the various musical elements that will work musically anywhere. While a ground glass viewfinder is never as breathtaking as the final picture, it makes finding ultra-sharp focus critical and that in turn makes a huge difference in the final picture. A mixer isn't (hopefully!!) trying to make NS-10s sound good. They are trying to lock the relationships between the various musical elements into a proper balance that will hold up when played anywhere. Too much resolution leads to accepting less robust balances and this leads to mixes that are only acceptable on high resolution speakers. When the musical balance has really been nailed, it only gets better as speaker resolution increases.

When you introduce the client into the mix equation, a mixer needs to keep the focus of the session on what's most important. It's a matter of making sure what's wrong doesn't distract from what's right and even more important, that the session doesn't get bogged down so far in fixing everything wrong that people lose sight of what was right and ruin it in the process. Overproduction is a serious trap as is over mixing and overmastering.

The right level of monitor resolution for the job is very important to many of us.

[Brad Blackwood]

Bob, I disagree. To essentially endorse the use of lesser monitoring based on some theory that may or may not play out well for the client at hand is kinda strange to me. A few of the finest sounding mixes I've ever had were from crappy control rooms with worse monitors, but I can say the same for great sounding control rooms with mastering grade monitors.

I don't think you can have monitors that are 'too good' at any stage of the production. You may find that some show too much to some poeple, or not enough to others, but to make a sweeping statement like that seems, well, strange...

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

I don't think you can have monitors that are 'too good' at any stage of the production...

I totally agree with having them available but they don't replace the roles played by more flattering monitors or reference speakers such as NS-10s and Auratones in recording and mixing. I'll also say that control room acoustics make an immense difference even with NS-10s.

I disagree that there is absolute "good" in monitoring or that an NS-10 is "lesser" when used properly as a mix balance reference. I also disagree with the common idea that monitoring is just "subjective" or "a matter of taste." There are monitors that work well for some applications and other monitors that work well for other applications. I've tried to describe some of the tradeoffs and issues involved based on my experience and that of others I know.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

First off, just any old "dumbed down" monitor doesn't work just as many audiophile speakers don't translate all that well. Certain specific ones have been found with experience to be very useful tools. A monitor is generally judged by results, by what things sound like everywhere else and by the quality of the performances of the people who used them.

The right level of monitor resolution for the job is very important to many of us.

You make some very interesting points here Bob. I agree with most of them. I do however believe that our perception of a playback systems character is far more important than the quality of the monitors you are using. "High resolution" speakers will impart similar results as not so high resolution speakers assuming a similar level of familiarity with each. The brain will compensate the same way it does for any monitoring environment regardless of monitor performance. How else can you explain the many great sounding records that have been mixed in compromised environments and likewise in impeccable environments? Indeed mastering engineers, working in typically far better monitoring environments would run the risk of destroying that fine balance [translation if you will] set by the mixer as a result of the increase in resolution. That doesn't happen because the same rules apply to the mastering engineer. Familiarity through experience creates the perspective from which we make our specific decisions, which we hope will translate universally.

That and $2.50 will get you a ride on the subway.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I totally agree with having them available but they don't replace the roles played by more flattering monitors or reference speakers such as NS-10s and Auratones in recording and mixing. I'll also say that room acoustics make an immense difference even with NS-10s.

I dunno, I guess we just see it differently, as I disagree that any 'lo-res' monitors are necessary, unless the mixer simply prefers them...

[Bob Olhsson]

Things that sound "right or wrong" on NS-10s often sound more like apples or oranges" on high res. speakers. The issue for a mixer is how the mix sounds at home or in the car. Many find fewer surprises when balances sounded right on the NS-10s.

I'm certainly not advocating using ONLY NS-10s but they remain a very useful tool in addition to higher quality monitors. The ADAMs are becoming very popular because of few surprises as are ATCs.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Masterer

...Familiarity through experience creates the perspective from which we make our specific decisions, which we hope will translate universally.

Absolutely and I didn't intend to minimize the importance of familiarity through experience!

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Things that sound "right or wrong" on NS-10s often sound more like apples or oranges" on high res. speakers. The issue for a mixer is how the mix sounds at home or in the car. Many find fewer surprises when balances sounded right on the NS-10s.

That's a really interesting point.

But OTOH, maybe it would be nice to know that a mic placement is "orange" rather than "wrong".

But I get the point of too many choices. There already are too many choices and fewer and fewer who can make a decision.

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Things that sound "right or wrong" on NS-10s often sound more like apples or oranges" on high res. speakers.

Evidently this is exactly how it works for you.. However, for me, it's just as intuitive to know when the orange is 'right' and the apple is 'wrong', and be glad my monitors helped show me that they were both fruit.

I understand the point you're making much better now, but at first, it came across much more dogmatically.

-dave

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by max cooper

That's a really interesting point.

But OTOH, maybe it would be nice to know that a mic placement is "orange" rather than "wrong".

But I get the point of too many choices. There already are too many choices and fewer and fewer who can make a decision.

I'm not really talking about too many choices. I'm talking about setting balances while mixing a multitrack tape. How much vocal, how does the vocal sit in the track, how does it feel to sing along with it, does it sound more exciting or does it let you down at the chorus, etc. How much guitar relative to the vocals and the bass, etc. Does it die after the solo?

In my and a lot of other people's experience, these kinds of issues are much easier to spot on NS-10s, Auratones or Minimus 7s. Myself, if the musical balance sounds right on BOTH the little speakers I'm familiar with and full range studio monitors such as ATCs in a room that I've learned to trust acoustically, I generally have few surprises. Then fixing things that are distracting or troublesome on the big speakers without hurting the balance on the little ones pulls everything right into shape.

Full range monitors certainly help a lot with mike choices and placement. I'm not meaning to imply that you don't need them

On the other hand you can go crazy with perfecting sound to the point that it gets in the way of the musical performance. I used to have a cassette that made this point perfectly. Dreadful sound, the battery cassette machine's built in limiter pumped like mad, distorted vocal, funky sounding electric piano but a great song, some great keyboard playing and a great vocal performance by one of our Motown songwriters that put most people's jaws right on the floor.

Another example. I catch a fair number of voice pops that some mixers miss with the Duntechs. If I were doing a vocal overdub session with them, I'd have no choice but to use a pop screen and screw up the silky high-end of The U-67 I love on a lot of people's voices. This is because the singer would start concentrating on avoiding pops rather than delivering a great performance. With monitors that aren't as sensitive to pops, we can move ahead and I can effortlessly spot the pops with a high-pass after the fact and end up with a much better vocal sound than with the pop screen.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I'm not really talking about too many choices. I'm talking about setting balances while mixing a multitrack tape. How much vocal, how does the vocal sit in the track, how does it feel to sing along with it, does it sound more exciting or does it let you down at the chorus, etc. How much guitar relative to the vocals and the bass, etc.

In my and a lot of other people's experience, these kinds of things are much easier to hear on NS-10s, Auratones or Minimus 7s. Myself, if the musical balance sounds right on BOTH the little speakers I'm familiar with and full range studio monitors such as ATCs in a room that I've learned to trust acoustically, I generally have few surprises. Then fixing things that are distracting or troublesome on the big speakers without hurting the balance on the little ones puts it right in shape.

Full range monitors certainly help a lot with mike choices and placement. I'm not meaning to imply that you don't need them

On the other hand you can go crazy with perfecting sound to the point that it gets in the way of the musical performance. I used to have a cassette that made this point perfectly. Dreadful sound, the battery cassette machine's built in limiter pumped like mad, distorted vocal, funky sounding electric piano but a great song, some great keyboard playing and a great vocal performance by one of our Motown songwriters that put most people's jaw right on the floor.

Bob this was certainly true in the world of analog.

And analog has a way of melding things together.

But now since everything has gone digital, the ability to hear built up distortion because of poor conversion, the seperation of the tracks and over processing one must do to compensate or being able to monitor over EQing in the midrange is more crucial than ever.

This is were i feel the NS10's and Auratones fall short.

Personally i still mix on them(as well as Tannoys) but i ultimately finish the mix on a "magnifying glass" type of monitor to hear those details that the others don't show.

[max cooper]

I get what you're saying, Bob.

I'm always flipping between my ATC's and my Fostex 6301B's. I probably do a lot of the 'conceptual' stuff on the Fostex's. So, yeah, I agree in that sense.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Personally i still mix on them(as well as Tannoys) but i ultimately finish the mix on a "magnifying glass" type of monitor to hear those details that the others don't show.

This is exactly what I find myself doing as well but I tracked most of what I'm mixing myself.

And it is also soooo frustrating being out of practice mixing music. My mastering chops are in great shape but it ain't the same thing as mixing at all. We spent all the budget on the musicians so al least that makes the mixing not a "save job.".

[doug_hti]

I find the "low res" monitors that bob is speaking of to be invaluable at getting the "weight" and "body" in the right place as well as the level issues...
If everyone was listening on a full range hi-fi system (by audiophile standards), I'm guessing quite a few would mix quite differently.


if i'm on "hi-fi magnifying glass type monitors" alone, i tend to WANT to:
-mix the vocal too hot
-not put enough efx and/or verb in (level wise and density)
-be too conservative with panning
-mix kicks too hot and/or rely on too much sub information for the kick/body
-mix snares too hot, scooping out too much (perceived) mid range muck
-generally not compress the mix or elements enough(or match track levels properly)
-depend on the bottom octave(s) too much

but I find most of those problems can be solved easily on a high resolution system by simply monitoring at ridiculously low SPLs and trusting it.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by doug_hti

I find the "low res" monitors that bob is speaking of to be invaluable at getting the "weight" and "body" in the right place as well as the level issues...
If everyone was listening on a full range hi-fi system (by audiophile standards), I'm guessing quite a few would mix quite differently.


if i'm on "hi-fi magnifying glass type monitors" alone, i tend to WANT to:
-mix the vocal too hot
-not put enough efx and/or verb in (level wise and density)
-be too conservative with panning
-mix kicks too hot and/or rely on too much sub information for the kick/body
-mix snares too hot, scooping out too much (perceived) mid range muck
-generally not compress the mix or elements enough(or match track levels properly)
-depend on the bottom octave(s) too much

but I find most of those problems can be solved easily on a high resolution system by simply monitoring at ridiculously low SPLs and trusting it.

Again, I think this is a case of familiarity and perception. It's your brain, not the monitors. Most of us have experienced this process many times. Mix on new monitors in a new envoronment and you spend a lot of time guessing. You take it to your car or home or another studio. You determine that there is too much blah, and not enough blah blah and you return to make adjustments. Over time your percetion changes and you no longer need to make those adjustments and mixing on those monitors becomes more "second nature-ish". Obviously during this "getting to know you" phase it's your mind that makes the adjustments, not your ears and certainly not your monitors [that would be cool]. The same exact process takes place with high resolution monitors. The only difference is they sound good [or accurate or whatever]. How that translates to the outside world is up to you, not the monitors.

It's a little like driving. Driving a truck is gonna take some getting used to if you normally drive a Pinto, but after a while you get used to the vehicle itself and your mind is free to concentrate on the trip.

...or something like that.

[tonymite]

thumbsup