"... at home ATC can make half one's collection sound bad."

[jophill]

In an interview in circa 2009 for avmentor.gr Robert Polley of ATC distinguished between using their loudspeakers in the studio versus using them at home and made the above comment. He added "... that's because half the discs are of poor quality."

I wonder if people agree or not.

It may be due to my particular taste in music but I personally don't perceive half of my discs like that. Although with some older recordings I do get to hear things that I would not expect to hear from a modern recording. Even then I don't find it spoils good music for me in any meaningful way. However, in this hobby I long ago learned that it's wise to expect others to have different perceptions.

[Mariner]

I would say it depends on the collection. When switching from LP to CD, many analogue recordings were digitized without much effort. Of course, they sound appropriate and nourished the opinion that analogue sounds better in any case. ATC speakers, in my opinion, reproduce the sound in the recording studio. If no effort is made, the result is bad. There may be loudspeakers that can make this result beautiful, but do we want that? I think anyone who has pushed the hobby of hi-fi so far that they have ended up at ATC wants to enjoy the music the way the studio crew wanted it, and not a softened sound. But in the end it's always a personal decision, because everyone listens to music differently.

[jophill]

Yes, I do think the change of medium may be an exception. I will think about that.

However if a recording has been mixed and mastered for LP and is played back via LP and the same for CD and CD, my thinking was that the common meme about studio-type loudspeakers at home making a lot of recordings sound bad reflects badly on the skill of mixing and mastering engineers.

They are using studio-type loudspeakers and I am sure the vast majority have the skill to understand what "translates" to good sound for the customer. So I don't see why studio-type monitors at home get the blame. They approach more closely to what skilled mixing and mastering created.

Consumer preference for a different sound - yes I get that. But in my mind that is not a reflection on the quality of the recording / mixing / mastering engineers unless you postulate they almost all get it wrong. I don't think I buy that.

A test question I ask myself about preference is if the recording is of fingernails scraping down a chalkboard do I want to say "ah that's nice" or do I want to feel the cringe. The latter for me. If you always sugar-coat what the studio created for the cases where you don't like it, IMHO you detract from every other recording which deserves better reproduction.

[Mariner]

If I go back to the statement “that's because half the discs are of poor quality."


As I already wrote...when the CD began its, actually short, triumphal procession, a great many existing recordings were carelessly pressed onto CD so that they could be sold and brought in money for the industry. Therefore, there is actually a lot of scrap in many collections. So I can understand that statement. However, studio loudspeakers for private use are optimal for the other half of the collection. Because the statement can also be interpreted in this way. So why should I worry about that? And I think many here have noticed that some recordings with ATC sound different than "before", and not always better. Not everyone in front of the mixer in the studio has the same listening habits as me. So tastes are different and so are the results. There is simply no optimal sound, only the one that I like.

[Bulldog]

Another consideration; most of us are familiar with how a particular recording sounds because we listen to it day in and day out. When we replay that familiar disc on more revealing equipment, is it possible it sounds bad because it's not what we're used to hearing?

[jophill]

If I go back to the statement “that's because half the discs are of poor quality."

As I already wrote...when the CD began its, actually short, triumphal procession, a great many existing recordings were carelessly pressed onto CD so that they could be sold and brought in money for the industry. Therefore, there is actually a lot of scrap in many collections. So I can understand that statement. However, studio loudspeakers for private use are optimal for the other half of the collection. Because the statement can also be interpreted in this way. So why should I worry about that? And I think many here have noticed that some recordings with ATC sound different than "before", and not always better. Not everyone in front of the mixer in the studio has the same listening habits as me. So tastes are different and so are the results. There is simply no optimal sound, only the one that I like.

I agree entirely. And in CD's introductory phase it may have depended on genre as you wrote earlier.

I was a fairly early adopter of CD and I have quite a few 1980s and 1990s CDs. However they are almost all of classical music and just a smattering of rock. There are examples marked AAD and ADD as well as DDD. I haven't found one that's "unlistenable" but the quality does vary. Mainly a lack of low-level detail but there are a few other things audible when I suspect they should not be. It may be that Polley's "poor quality" is a very strict professional-level critique that some non-professionals might simply ignore (but some might not).

Modern classical CDs can be magnificently clean of background noise leaving masses of detail to be heard and yes the sort of 'speakers that a studio might use are ideal IMHO to let that through.

As background to the original question I have recently been wondering again about a number of the usually critical memes that audio enthusiasts apply to studio monitors as reasons to not use them. Memes I don't agree with, but think about to see if there is any underlying truth to be found or if it's something like preference as you write and/or habituation to a different sound.

[Mariner]

I'll try to explain it a little differently...
I started playing the classical guitar again a few years ago. As a hobby player, the focus is of course also on the instrument. If it is financially possible, it should not be made from industrial production, but a hand-made guitar. Now every luthier has his own philosophy to get a result. The results are all (many at least) good in their own way. Defining better or worse seems almost impossible, but one might be better suited to this type of music or style, and the other to that. There is probably no guitar that can do everything equally well. Now the sound quality also depends on the skill of the player (in our case LP/CD/Stream etc). But depending on the style of music and the desired result, the player will choose this or that guitar. We rarely have these options in hi-fi. We have our speakers and the rest of the equipment, and we wish it would reproduce it all equally well. I don't necessarily think so, and a classical music fan will have different expectations than someone who listens to heavy metal. It is crucial (and at the age of 66 I take the liberty of saying this) that we sit contentedly in front of our hi-fi in order to be able to really enjoy it. I think if you keep asking questions and always thinking about how things could be better while listening, you're missing out on the real pleasure! I speak a little bit from experience.
It is always interesting to makes thoughts about quality, but don't let it be the "main thing". If you are satisfied, it's perfect ! If someone else is not, it's his problem.

[jophill]

... I think if you keep asking questions and always thinking about how things could be better while listening, you're missing out on the real pleasure! I speak a little bit from experience.
It is always interesting to makes thoughts about quality, but don't let it be the "main thing". If you are satisfied, it's perfect ! If someone else is not, it's his problem.

Just for clarity, my thinking about audiophile memes is entirely a separate activity from listening to music. Thinking about memes is just a rather academic interest I have in how other people come up with and propagate these memes and whether the memes have any basis. I may have retired but I haven't turned off my brain.

Long ago I abandoned any idea of chasing audio system perfection for an undefined very nebulous idea of "perfect". A Steinway in the Wigmore Hall and the same model in the Royal Albert Hall sound different - so to me there's no such thing as perfect. However, some systems (loudspeakers mainly) are sufficiently imperfect to make their reproduction of a Steinway implausible in any reasonable concert hall.

My purchase of SCM50As was a result of listing those imperfections relative to my live listening experience which annoyed me, and finding loudspeakers that eliminated them. The SCM50As do nothing wrong on my scale of what annoys me, so they are, in effect, perfect. So I relax and enjoy the music. However at times I read audiophile social media for entertainment and I wonder about how others come to enjoy the hobby in their own different (but perfectly valid) way.

[Mariner]

Sorry if you got me wrong...i don't want you to turn off your brain!
There are so many things in this world, especially the last years, where I asked myself how people think about this or that. And there are many thoughts that won't fit in my brain, and I asked myself how can intelligent people think this way although they have the possibility to inform themselves in so many ways?
The "Hifi-Media" has the hard job to tell all interested persons that there is always some interesting news while they will sell their papers and products.
You are also in retirement....so I think you have also a long way through hifi experiences behind you. So do I, and ATC was a point where I was able to relax and had the feeling, that's it ! Until than I never thought of other speakers and that is almost 30 years ago.
If you still want to figure out what other people's way through this hobby is, why not....
Sometimes I do the same but mostly with a smile on my face.
I don't take it all that seriously anymore, because I feel that I have reached MY endpoint.
But thats not for everyone, and I understand the "hunger" for more.
Would you think about changing your 50s, because of the experience that at one special moment you hear a perfect sound in other circumstances with othe speakers ?

[jophill]

Sorry if you got me wrong...i don't want you to turn off your brain!
There are so many things in this world, especially the last years, where I asked myself how people think about this or that. And there are many thoughts that won't fit in my brain, and I asked myself how can intelligent people think this way although they have the possibility to inform themselves in so many ways?
The "Hifi-Media" has the hard job to tell all interested persons that there is always some interesting news while they will sell their papers and products.
You are also in retirement....so I think you have also a long way through hifi experiences behind you. So do I, and ATC was a point where I was able to relax and had the feeling, that's it ! Until than I never thought of other speakers and that is almost 30 years ago.
If you still want to figure out what other people's way through this hobby is, why not....
Sometimes I do the same but mostly with a smile on my face.
I don't take it all that seriously anymore, because I feel that I have reached MY endpoint.
But thats not for everyone, and I understand the "hunger" for more.
Would you think about changing your 50s, because of the experience that at one special moment you hear a perfect sound in other circumstances with othe speakers ?

I didn't think you suggested I should turn off my brain!

I should perhaps apologise for explaining my curiosity in a confusing way. I come from an engineering R&D career. Asking questions and getting to understand something close the truth underlying what I wanted to do was what I did. If I ever fooled myself it would result in what I was doing not working. I could never afford that.

What I observe in the audio community fascinates me. I refuse to contradict someone else's experience. It's their experience for sure but so much of what is reported contradicts my own experience. Some of it I cannot take seriously but some people do seem to take it really seriously.

On changing my SCM50As. In quite a few years of ownership I have heard them do nothing that seriously contradicts my experience in some concert hall or other. I have no desire to change them and I can also just relax. In a larger room I would buy SCM100As in a heartbeat for their higher dynamic range.

Hearing something apparently impressive for just a moment (e.g. at an audio show) would not convince me easily. For me it's about a broad range of audio material not sounding wrong. Not just one impressive moment. However, audio equipment buyers satisfied with what they have is not what the hi-fi industry wants. It thrives by making audio equipment buyers dissatisfied and keen to spend money chasing something "better."

[Bulldog]

It's taken me years of battling 'upgraditus' to get where I am now; an acceptance of my condition. A 'coming out' as it were. It was only then that I realised I have been wasting time and money on chasing the impossible dream. Once I entered the ATC family, I began to appreciate that nothing is perfect. But at least my ATC speakers perfectly recreate the sound on the recording medium; good or bad.

[Bulldog]

I don't have a background in professional audio as such. My first job out of school was working for the local radio station. I helped prepare the playlists and when I was done with that, I helped the DJs and voice over specialists produce radio commercials and such like. Occasionally, I helped the studio techs record local bands for promo discs and various radio features. It was a great job. The studio monitors were old Tannoys. We had custom built monitors as well - I don't know what drivers they used. The most consistent feature of all these various monitors was the ability to reproduce the human voice accurately - and make everything sound like real instruments. Some monitors went lower and higher than the others, but they all sounded clear in the mid-range.

I remember watching avidly as the local sound engineers mixed the local bands. I asked lots of questions. The more I asked, the more I realised I didn't know about sound. One thing that did stand out to me, was the final tweak at the end on the mix. Just when I thought everything sounded awesome, the techs would change the final sound so it sounded not quite right. I was told most people at home didn't have quality monitors so they mixed it to sound good for them. - the end result wasn't so good for us though.

So my understanding is, is that most 'hi-fi' speakers are designed with a smiley face in the frequency response. Does that mean most studio mixes feature a reverse smiley face in the frequency response to sound good on home speakers? Or is it the other way round?

It's rare that music lovers like us who value accurate sound reproduction above all else, aren't more routinely offered mixes designed to be reproduced on accurate audio equipment. Just like the director's cuts of big ticket movies that are quite popular at the moment.

[Bulldog]

I don't have a background in professional audio as such. My first job out of school was working for the local radio station. I helped prepare the playlists and when I was done with that, I helped the DJs and voice over specialists produce radio commercials and such like. Occasionally, I helped the studio techs record local bands for promo discs and various radio features. It was a great job. The studio monitors were old Tannoys. We had custom built monitors as well - I don't know what drivers they used. The most consistent feature of all these various monitors was the ability to reproduce the human voice accurately - and make everything sound like real instruments. Some monitors went lower and higher than the others, but they all sounded clear in the mid-range.

I remember watching avidly as the local sound engineers mixed the local bands. I asked lots of questions. The more I asked, the more I realised I didn't know about sound. One thing that did stand out to me, was the final tweak at the end on the mix. Just when I thought everything sounded awesome, the techs would change the final sound so it sounded not quite right. I was told most people at home didn't have quality monitors so they mixed it to sound good for them. - the end result wasn't so good for us though.

So my understanding is, is that most 'hi-fi' speakers are designed with a smiley face in the frequency response. Does that mean most studio mixes feature a reverse smiley face in the frequency response to sound good on home speakers? Or is it the other way round?

It's rare that music lovers like us who value accurate sound reproduction above all else, aren't more routinely offered mixes designed to be reproduced on accurate audio equipment. Just like the director's cuts of big ticket movies that are quite popular at the moment.

[Larry]

Jophill:

No intention to stir a controversy, but I think you've taken Bob Polley's comment beyond it's original measure. "Poor quality" or sound "bad" doesn't mean that they can't or aren't still enjoyable. I saw Elton John and The Rolling Stones at arenas over the last few years ago. They were pleasurable experiences in spite of rotten acoustics. Essentially the same experience can occur when good music, poorly recorded" is played back on our systems. I'd rather hear my favorite bands or music than hear well recorded tripe.

No shame for you from me. I've made similar comments and conclusions. Perfect recordings and venues don't exist. Any system that makes everything "perfect" is just lacquering on "perfection" or beauty, which eventually gets tiresome.

Larry

[Bulldog]

“You're only naive once. Use it well.”
― Joyce Rachelle

It's interesting that many 'professional' musicians don't give a hoot about hi-fi. I know several who have home audio equipment that many of us would deem barely adequate. They just want to listen to the music - not the equipment that plays it. My perspective has changed a lot over the years. Now most of my equipment is pro or semi pro. Pretty much the only thing I have that's hi-fi is my Rega turntable - although I have a broadcast cartridge installed.

Just thinking about the money I spent years ago on the latest and greatest pièce de résistance for my equipment rack nearly makes me regret the whole journey. I should have purchased more music instead. How gullible was I...

[jophill]

Jophill ... I think you've taken Bob Polley's comment beyond it's original measure. "Poor quality" or sound "bad" doesn't mean that they can't or aren't still enjoyable. I saw Elton John and The Rolling Stones at arenas over the last few years ago. They were pleasurable experiences in spite of rotten acoustics. Essentially the same experience can occur when good music, poorly recorded" is played back on our systems. I'd rather hear my favorite bands or music than hear well recorded tripe. ...

Quite possibly to the first point and I completely agree with the rest, including the distinction, as I perceive it at least, between "audio quality" and "musical enjoyment"; and that the two are not necessarily connected.

How the audio quality and musical enjoyment dimensions work for individuals seems to vary widely. And as Bulldog writes it may be that typical professionals (in music or in audio) see different relationships between them compared to typical audio enthusiasts. I think it's possible that Bob Polley's comment is most aligned with the professional side, which does seem to be the strong ATC focus.

Regards
John

[Larry]

John:

The purpose of my comment was not to undermine your comment, but to leave a footprint on the internet that enjoyment and bad sound aren't mutually exclusive. It seems the internet and "review" articles talk about accuracy or transparency and rarely about simple enjoyment, which is to me the point.

Cheers,

Larry