I was in school for recording engineering back in the 80s when they became popular. It's worth noting how they were used to establish some context. at the time, any serious studio had larger main monitors. I saw big JBL & Urei a lot back then. These were typically soffit mounted into the wall. The NS10s would be mounted on the console. They basically ushered in the era of "nearfield" monitoring. They were not supposed to be reference monitors. They were there to mimic a home hifi situation. And the smaller Aurotones were there to mimic AM radio. These different monitoring options would allow a product to adjust the mix to translate well into different listing situations. It's very different today. Many people only have nearfield monitors. They don't invest in powerful mains or a seriously treated room.
a few important notes....the biggest asset of the NS-10m studio for mixing is the place the key vocal, guitar, snare drum (or equivalent per song arrangement). These were typically placed on the console meter bridge which enhanced the LF extension. The sealed box meant the LF transients were super quick. Engineers got used to blending the snap of a kick drum with the lower overtones of a bass guitar and these methods would translate to radio and common home listening systems. From your data Erin, and as these were console mounted, think how that vertical directivity would come into play as a positive as the engineer worked across the wide studio console. The desk reflections would be a very nice match to the on-axis.
Yes, the vertical directivity is decent. It’s not great. But it could’ve been worse for sure. And if used nearfield it’s less of a concern but does offer a bit of a wider vertical sweet spot.
I’ve been a recording engineer since the 1980’s and I NEVER liked the NS-10’s. I was ecstatic when the studio I worked at got a pair of Genelecs S30 in the mid 1980s or so!! BTW, using pink noise is the best to compare “original” vs “speaker” convolution! Very well done, Erin!!😃👍
People here say no, but I have seen plenty of (unfortunately) "yes" situations. Often with a subwoofer included. Absolutely horrible. Fostex still makes these super thin drivers and they suffer from all kinds of issues as well. Yet have a whole cult following and praising them.
Aurotones "horror tones" or Aventones next 🤭. It's amazing that we got decent mixes from people using these, despite their frequency response. You'll hear people talking about how knowing how speakers "translate" to other systems is all that matters. But truthfully, without them knowing the response of other systems, they really don't know how it will translate. It makes much more sense to have an accurate reference system than an inaccurate one. People also make claims that the odd response of these, and the other speakers I mentioned, let the mixer focus on vocals and the sensitive 2kHz range, but someone can easily bandwidth-limit the sound and boost mids to simulate the response of these speakers. It wouldn't be as easy for someone using these speakers to simulate the response of more accurate monitors.
I'm not buying the mid range and those if the mix sounds good of such horrible speaker it will sound good on anything. My understanding is that the massive roll off in the bass is what really gives the benefit. We all know that rooms color the sound. So removing the bass altogether gives the mixer the ability to hear through the mix. Another thing is that minus the mid hump it's pretty flat 100hz and up(listening window and in room). And the hump is not a narrow band peak but a broad boost. So once one gets used to listening through that sound it's possible to mix on them. I'm not saying it's great but it's possible to learn to mix on these with generally good result.
Not necessarily. Many high-end loudspeakers (B&W) come with a mid-range suck out. One Linn engineers said that people prefer a frequency response that looks like a smiley face. I may not agree with this. My opinion in this is irrelevant. But if we believe B&W, Linn and others, this is the sound people like. I'm not saying you aren't on point. I agree with all your points. But the result would have been far worse if the 10M had a dip rather than hump, because then all recordings would have a mid-range hump. The 10M may even have made poor recordings less poor. I'm not defending the 10M. The speaker should have a flat frequency response. But if one is to err, the 10M errs in the "right direction." I'm old enough to remember equalizers. People who used them, if not flat, the settings were typically in a smiley face. An aside and pure speculation. But I remember CDs from the 1980s (early 90s as well?) were sought after in the 00s because of their superior sound. Take into account that the CD was hated by many audiophiles in the 1980s for sounding harsh. But in the 00s, they were considered less harsh sounding than the ones from the 00s. Whether what I write here is correct or not, it's not unfounded opinions. My deductions and conclusions may still be wrong, but they are based on the data/information that I have.
Auratones are still being used for mixing and mastering I subscribe to a couple few sound engineer TH-cam channels and there is good reason they use these “bad” speakers If anyone wants to be a sound engineer I expect they would want to be good at their job They also use ATC and other brands that would definitely sound nice in a home audio setting in addition to something like an Auratone
The magic of Auratones isn't the frequency response, it lies in the time domain. It's a small paper driver in a closed speaker, pair that with a decent amp and you get incredible transient response and decay times. Listening to great mixes on a stereo pair is actually a joy, they don't sound harsh and you get a massive amount of dynamic detail. They make it easy to tell if the low end has the right punch and weight, and if the transients aren't just right in the midrange it's immediately apparent. The smooth low end dropoff also minimizes room resonances and really helps focus on masking in the midrange. That paired with the fast decay time makes it so much easier to pick out bad resonances in a mix and balance midrange in general. Still, they're a secondary monitor and I do most of my mixing on Neumann KH310's but I think they're the best second reference you can have.
As a musician for over 45 yrs., I know those speakers really well... I have never liked them. I was told on more than one occasion by a recording engineer, "If the track sounds good on these Yamaha monitors, then they'll sound good on pretty much anything, especially radio". Sorry, but to my ears, I hated them. Still do... I don't care about its measurements, Erin. I have heard so many tracks I've recorded through them in so many studios and I just... aaaarggghhh!
fantastic review...and hilarious as well!! man...nuts it's such a popular monitor ...even 'iconic'... to this day.. as a musician/sound engineer who does a lot of mixing, this was very enjoyable to watch. love the linearity of my Neumann KH310... cheers!
A few things to note: - the midrange hump is due to the woofer's VC inductance. A zobel network will flatten that out with no other changes to the crossover. - they were initially designed for flat power response, which was a mistake. - placing these on a console's meter bridge produces a pretty sizeable ~200hz bump. It makes them sound much less horrid than they are. - nobody (that I know) ever used them as the only speakers for mixing. IIRC Bob Clearmountain got them as a slightly better version of an Auratone 5C (appropriately called "horrortones" and "awfultones"), which are there as a worst-csse consumer system check. - the mains back in the 70s-90s were mostly pretty poor, and tend to have the opposite kind of curve that these do. You had funhouse mirrors going in both directions - average them out and you might get somewhere. - they were put on their sides not for sonic reasons, but rather solely for sightlines reasons. Can't see out into the live room if there are speakers in the way. - the distortion is pretty remarkable for their size, all things considered.
From what I read, Clearmountain used these due to their portability. I didn’t find that he used these with others. I can’t imagine he used them solely all the time but the implication from various articles is that he did. Hopefully that’s an oversight in these articles.
@@davidfuller581 mainly re-balancing the frequency response, (removing the peak from the 1-3Khz range for a more balanced tone) and improving parts quality, over the old coils and electrolytic caps.
@@hoth2112 I'm assuming you're Danny - so I'm going to drill down on this. I saw that the impedance doesn't rise around that peak so I'm assuming there's a zobel in there correcting for that, and then the crossover point looks like it was moved down slightly?
My understanding was that the NS-10s were never used as primary monitors but as a secondary set to evaluate how a mix would sound on a cheaper stereo system? At least in better recording studios that used them...
Nah. The mid-field speakers are the main mixing tools in nearly all studios, and the mains are rarely used for critical mixing. When people say they mixed on NS10, they meant it. I mix and master for a living (kii three speakers in a great room), but have mixed on hifi systems and cheap speakers, and once you learn a speaker you can get results from it, especially if it is a sealed design you can always get results if you know what you are doing.
I worked in a studio in the late 80’s early 90’s. It was common to have high quality main monitors and a second set of smaller harsh sounding speakers more representative of what the average person may listen to. While the high quality speakers were used for most of the monitoring and mixing it was to also important to check the recording sounded ok over the smaller speakers to ensure general acceptance of the recording. I understand the NS-10 was used in this secondary role.
This was a interesting video considering the history and the impact these speaker may have had to music production. The blue was a lot easier on my eyes for the sound clips. Thanks.
Although they had to be present in my studio, I never let the client hear them. I used them during mixdown but my clients heard the JBLs. The reason those speakers became iconic is because of the look and Clearmountain had articles in the same magazines I wrote for. They were not great. Not at all. This was a snow job imo. A freak accident because they were easily transportable from studio to studio.
Personally I dislike the speakers for any application. Bloating between 1-2 kHz always sounds bad to me, no matter what ! Just more aural ignorance that speaks volumes lol I can't say how many recordings suck bc of a bias at those frequencies, and/or excessive compression in mastering.
wow i just noticed this channel is almost 100k subs, hell yea, cant wait for you to get it..your contribution to the community is priceless. 1 thing i just dont get is the compression data, if you have already covered it before maybe you could direct me to it ? if not maybe when you need an idea for content you would. thank you for everything
Erin have you heard about the new adam d3v? They are little desktops that are supposed to get down to 48 hz with a 3.5 woofer and passive radiator. They are $300. I would love to see your impressions
I worked in retail stereo sales in the 70's 80's and 90's. In a nutshell, ALL JAPANESE SPEAKERS WERE CRAP except for the Pioneer HPM series......and possible some high end Technics....even the legendary Yamaha NS 1000 was iffy. I sold a TON of Japanese electronics but very few speakers. Great review Erin.....Merry Christmas.
I understand the perspectice thrown here. Also really easy to shoot down the sound of NS10 ( I was never a fan) I guess we need to also explore those who tackled the ns10 really well for mixing. Bob Clearmountain, the Lord Alge brothers (graduates of Power Station). -they dont mix entirely on the ns10. They have other monitors as well. - they understood fletcher munson curve and balance music with low spl on them Mixes that has masking issues on the mids are fairly easy to spot on the ns10. Ns10 is a great tool nonetheless.
Excellent review again. Thank you. I was always curious how these would measure. I never understood the obsession with these in the studios. You can still read on forums today how much some studio people defend them. It's just a case of herd mentally. They were never good. Luckily with some of the recordings mixed on these, some really great mastering engineers have worked some remastering magic.
Lol the comment section is cracking me up. These are not mastering speakers. These were used to mix. The mid range hump is why these were popular. No one blasts music through them. At low volumes for mixing the mids stick out so it was preferred.
I talked to the guys at Muscle Shoals Sound and they pretty much said the same thing. But the problem I’ve seen is some … amateurs … see that these were heavily used “back in the day” so they use them today for all tasks.
@@neo-jy8xl My thinking exactly. But I’m no recording engineer. But for decades it’s blown my mind how many recordings sound so terrible. I mean how hard is it to record something that isn’t compressed, not brittle on the top end, and has smooth bass. Apparently next to impossible.
@@Carl-bd1rf it is easy…and cheap!!! Just record a great performance, with a great microphone, in a well designed room, with a high quality tape recorder, and then you can leave things uncompressed and un-EQd.
Checking mix low level, nearfield, then standing just outside the door at same low level. Classic mix balance checking, and knowing midrange was working with each other rather than against. I do feel this video missed exploring why they had their place in the studio. It definitely wasn’t because they sounded good.
13:45 “Lumpy Dumpy” brought on a smile. 😂 Reminds me of an old engineer testing an early LED and he said “Give it some more poop!” as a request for a higher voltage across the device.
Nice comparison. Great evaluation without bashing. Informative. I sat in on voicing the Avantone replacement. Similar. When we voice loudspeakers we use a lot of music. Pink Floyd Bells, Classical vocal, ensemble, choir. All 2 mic stereo recordings. I have a friend that does great recordings with 2 DPA mics and patience in smaller churches. Jaw droppingly good recordings. For Pop we use Kenny G, Toto, other 80's rock. They don't all sound marvelous. Pipe Organ that is quiet and that is dynamic. Do we use that as the final arbiter? Nope. We measure. Working with the recordings we do, we get to know them well and that they are indicators of what they sound like on a very balanced system. Not judge and jury. If I made the recording, then I know the original sound. If a producer and engineer made the recording, no, I have zero idea what the original sounded like. Many times I encourage clients to take their cell phone and record stuff they know well. Car door closing for midbass, loved one for vocal accuracy. Try it. Many people will be seriously surprised at what happens when they listen to this on the system they think is accurate. An accurate system does something. It shows you what kind of crap is recorded regularly and hopefully makes you hunt for some decent recordings. Mark
@@supercompooper I have my flame suit on. Really, though, many engineers know these are pretty bad. When I was researching these I found many production-oriented channels that talked about how these don’t make for a good reference. One of those is Produce Like a Pro.
So mixing / mastering with these would result in the engineer attenuating the range that the speaker is boosting. So attenuating the midrange is the same as boosting the lows and highs in the mix, creating the familiar smile curve or loudness curve. It's very sad to see that some many people think that this "translates" well to other systems.
I’ve owned these for years, and they are a GEM for mixing midrange instruments and vocals. Not many producers mixing solely on a pair of NS10’s, but they’re a reference for electric guitars and vocals. I personally have used them as a reference, in conjunction with Adam Audio monitors…. which are very detailed and spacious. If the mix translates on both speaker systems, it will typically sound great (after mastering) in most consumer systems. And no, these aren’t commonly used for mastering. Bearfoot, Adam Audio, Neumann, and a bunch of other manufacturers offer better representation.
hi Erin, Doug Sax was known to be able to use JBL 4010s (L-100s) fir mixing not withstanding that they are CERTAINLY not flat in the mids, top, and down through the mid-bass. he IS considered to have been one of THE best engineers extant. i don't think I could tolerate speakers with anomalies like the L-100 or the NS-10.
I've worked in several mixing studios, and all had the NS10M's. But they all had other monitor speakers for general mixing, and all pictures I have seen of studios with NS10M's had other monitor speakers too. The reason - as far as I was told - was because the NS10M's are very revealing due to the material in the drivers, and the design of the crossover. Musically they do not sound great, but they are used to listen for problems in the recording, like too much compression for example. The other speakers are used for everything else, and the range of 'other' speakers in studios is huge.
@3:37 - Once upon a time, a sweet soul gifted me a pair of Bowers and Wilkins DM220. With them followed an honest-to-god, signed by a B&W employee, stamped with serial number Inspection Certificate. That certificate included individualized measurements of the speakers.for the serial number of that pair.
Egineers use a reference track to compare their mix with the “sound” of the reference recording. This is how they can get by with grossly non linear speakers.
Data is revealing, and id never use these today for mixing. But I think most Hi-fi listeners tend to misunderstand that music is a business, and the mid range is where the money is. The NS10s allowed for engineers to focus on the most critical parts of THE SONG, not all the luxurious stuff like bass or crystal clear high end. Getting the catchy parts of a song into peoples ears is what sold records. Live sound engineers always say …”no one ever left a show humming the kick drum”
Experiment with a larger value series inductor on the mid woofer. That would largely fix the response issue. Looks like it uses 1.8mH series inductor with a parallel 10uf capacitor and the overall crossover is basic 2nd order type. Try 2.5mH and go from there.
Like others have said, sound engineers weren't looking for linearity with the NS-10. The midrange of the original NS-10 had the opposite of what is called the BBC dip. That way nasty or painful midrange frequencies were easily laid bare.
I love starting a mix on NS-10s, because they shield me from technical distractions like harsh sibilance or uncontrolled bass. These issues can be incredibly distracting on my "mastering-grade" 3-way speakers with a sub, which offer super-detailed highs and lows. The NS-10s help me focus on the music and make musically relevant decisions early on. They also push me to create a full and stable midrange without unconsciously relying on the bass or sub legato to mask "gaps" and unstable elements in the mids.
Interesting story about that midrange bulge... Back up the video and listen to the Original Pink Noise. Listen near field, from the dead centre between your speakers... then listen again and move your head slightly from side to side. Notice how it sounds brighter when you are off center. This is an effect called "mid-field cancellation". At about 1.5 to 2khz the identical signals from left and right arrive at the opposite ear out of phase... That is the sound from the left speaker arrives at your right ear out of phase and the sound from the right speaker arrives at your left ear out of phase. This produces about 6db of cancellation at the sweet spot. When you move off center the effect is less and the sound brightens. The important thing to understand is that this is a perfectly normal part of stereo listening. It's not a parlour trick or some weird acoustics... it happens all the time while you are listening in the near field. The effect is still there in far field listening but not nearly so strong. Recording engineers, working in the near field, would normally compensate for this with a slight boost in frequency response at about 2khz to even out the performance. This resulted in mixed and mastered recordings that were too forward in the mid range. By putting the rise into the speaker, they eliminated the urge to compensate. Now listen to the Original Pink Noise from a slightly off-center position then iisten to the NS-10s from the center of your sweet spot... they will sound mostly the same. So this is actually pre-compensation for that mid-field cancellation effect. th-cam.com/video/T8bmASpUeh0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cWu0k76PKCCzSGi2
NS-10s aren't used in mastering because they are an accurate speaker, but rather because they are (or were) representative of cheap bookshelf speakers of the day. They are a useful secondary playback system for gauging how your mix translates to a "consumer" listening environment. The same can be of the Auratone, which proxies a mono table radio.
Does anyone know a list of albums that were mixed with these speakers? One contribution of this with this review is that we have more confidence to have doubts on pop music mixing and re-equalise them during actual listening.😅
It's great to have a spinorama of these speakers, but I think that it would be nice to explain to people why their "transient response" looks "good" and how can you EQ any speaker to have "good transient response".
Their transient response isn't any better than the average good speaker. In fact they have a resonance that lingers long as shown with the burst decay graph. So all that "transient" was because these suckers had zero bass
If you’re referring to the video, I think you are it’s because there’s no bass on these. That guy doesn’t understand how to read a waterfall graphic. It’s not necessarily his fault, it seems no one really understands what a waterfall graphic actually shows, and that it’s biased against lower frequencies, especially if the measurement is not anechoic and not gated.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I know the video in question, but it's not really specifically about it. People have praised these speakers for a long time because of this single thing, when it isn't anything special and certainly not more important than frequency response and directivity.
Yeah... been waiting for HS8 review too. I think he's just waiting for someone to send him some. I've been using HS8, and before that HS50m (HS5), for 15 years. Before that (in the '00s), was the muddy & detail-lacking Rokit8s. HS series are the most popular monitors ever. Totally needs some Erin reviews.
So all these golden eared producers couldn't tell the difference between a midrange hump and a treble boost. Very weird phenomenon. Seems like a big case of 'wisdom of the crowd' going wrong, lol. Also why do they need tissue paper when they use mixing desks the size of a conference room table covered in eq dials!?
I had the same thought. The midwoofer was the issue. So why put tissue over the tweeter. It’s weird. Goes to show you that experience doesn’t necessarily equal expertise.
The purpose is pretty simple. If you adjusted something to sound good on a flat speaker it might be offensive on some systems or in some environments. They represent home or car systems that might err on the side of being offensive and what you are working on should satisfy everyone everywhere. Translating well is paramount in some cases, such as television, where built in TV speakers were often the norm. I used them in a TV studio and trucks for remote events. In those environments you can actually hear what was going on while a producer standing next to you is calling out shots to the camera folks.
Looks as good as I expected it to be hahaha. Honestly though, theres probably a good number of decent monopoles out there, so id like to see more stuff that claim to have an exotic directivity pattern, like maybe dipoles. Are there any in the pipeline atm? Do you personally have an interest in exploring less conventional directivity patterns like such? Them being niche doesnt help the availability of measurements, but it'd be awesome to see some measured on an NFS that actually has a fairly decent result
Any reason we didn’t get much of a subjective report on these ones? I was looking forward to what you thought. It was like to listen to music through these things. (I know you mentioned a couple of words like tinny, but not your usual breath of subjective review for some reason)
That’s busted by the burst decay I provide in this video which shows longer decay in the upper midrange. Plus, people rarely know how to interpret a waterfall plot. A speaker with no bass will not have extending delay in the LF because … surprise … there’s no LF there. 😂
I would assume they are attempting to produce sound that would be more akin to 'ear candy,' rather than just a great recording, as that appears to be so much more marketable and appealing in pop culture than a technically accurate presentation.
I’ve been working on NS10 for 20 years. It’s not that you have to compensate for anything, they’re just so revealing in the midrange that it’s immediately noticeable if something isn’t biting. Hifi consumer equipment generally only has customisable EQ settings for lows and highs, so getting the midrange right when mixing is essential to transition on many different systems. It always baffled me that Bob Clearmountain just happened to choose these (without regard for their frequency response), because they’re so good for working on Audio. Fate I guess. I’ll never sell mine and I have backups. If you know you know.
@@ErinsAudioCorner On the "compensating brain note" My brain accept a new curve very fast, like 15 seconds. Its like something I have trained to accept "this is now normal" Many things in high level audio work cant be theoretically explained atleast not without targeted scientific studies. Its also not decidedly the case that you WILL mix inverse to the speaker curve. Lots of bass or mids makes ME add more of it in general, MAYBE because it triggers more inspiration of what is loudest in presentation. Highend on the other hand has an inverse effect, I am a bit sensitive to highend. Lots more to say, but just a flat curve is not necessarily the best for real world results, even if the theory is sound. Read my other post in the comments about mixing on ns-10s:) Also an important note about ns10 are the low self resonance
Didn't the originals have the seam on the midbass cone? Ie: cone was constructed from a flat piece of paper conically folded and glued in place. With the ns10 use in studios, my understanding was that they sounded really bad, really quickly if you got your mix wrong in the midrange. They were used as an acid test rather than something to master on xx
Interesting you chose the ns 10m studio to evaluate. The classic Yamaha as you would know was the NS1000M, in production for over 20 yrs. There has been love and criticism on this model, it would be something special if you could find the time to analyse these speakers. Sure the crossovers are old and would need components replaced ( or upgraded ) but it would point out their short comings and what people that own them, need to do. There are heaps out there : - )
Whoa, that FR looks bad. Almost like someone used an "off the shelf" passive x-over for that speaker. I would not be surprised if the x-over components do suggest that it's a "textbook" x-over, rather than one designed to take the FR of the individual drivers in mind, as well as the size of the baffle and their position on it. As for tweeters and ferrofluid, a tweeter with dried up ferrofluid should show increased odd order distortion, particular at the lower end of its frequency range.
i dont understand why, phone speakers have the most horrible sound for music listening i have ever heard. even old grandma radio sounded better. its a pain to my ears
They are extremely bright. I am in the middle of restoring them right now, but when I get them back together if you still want to review them I will figure out a way to get them down to you. How far are you from I69? These speakers are pretty heavy and I don’t think I can ship them other than common carrier.
This explains (what we already knew) why so many recordings sound so awful. Of course, there are lots and lots of other reasons for why recordings sound the way they do - business and artistic primacies among them. The thing I mostly don't want to hear about the design of a piece of audio gear is that it was designed by, or had input from, a recording engineer. How about a nice pair of ATCs, Genelecs, etc.?
In a vintage speaker with such history I felt it was worth the time to briefly cover it. Plus, I wanted to make sure to draw the distinction between this speaker and the 10M non-studio version. As for ATC and Genelec, I have asked many times if they’d be willing to send me loaner units. They seem to have zero interest based on the fact they stopped replying to my requests. So you’ll have to ask them what’s up.
Great mixes can be made on shitty speakers if the person doing the mixing knows that pair of speakers. These are known for their pronounced mid-range and anybody that's ever tried mixing knows that getting the mid-range right can be challenging so if you can get great separation going on a pair of these, it's probably going to sound like a million bucks on a great set of monitors or Hi-Fi speakers. Chris lord-alge often checks mixes on a boombox he's had for years. Just a shitty old boombox, but he knows how music should sound on that boombox. That matters way more than the linearity of a speaker in the context of mixing.
I would guess that if you listen to the mix result on bad speakers (like ordinary people especially in those days) the mids scoop created by the engineer could sound “better”… also I remember being in a studio in late 80’s and the renowned engineer was so deaf that he had to listen @ 110db on big speakers …. We couldn’t stay in mixing room at all… this guy surely had a different perception of those Yamaha as “shitbox”
Erin, as I said in the post you made before releasing the video, the ns10 is a TOOL. it’s a midrange magnifier, and helps the mixing engineer understand where to put the level of the vocal, snare drum and various instruments in relation to each other for an optimal balance. Ns10 have the uncanny ability to immediately show you if you pushed the vocals too much or if you “liked” the snare too much. Has nothing to to with compensating the midrange bump.. it’s a tool to look into it. There are few selected loudspeakers that helps with this.. none that I know of at a price of a used pair of ns10’s and a decent amp. If you ever start doing mixing work you might understand what I mean. Bob Clearmountain used the from studio to studio to have always the same nearfield “reference” loudspeaker. Sound on Sound wrote a great article on the ns10 in 2008, you can find it online for free.
I understand that these speakers were used exactly because they suck!. For what i've read they were never used for real mastering; they were instead used to make adjustments and to check how the original mix would sound with a less that ideal sounding speaker. If they could adjust the mix and make it sound good in the Yams then it was very likely that the mix would sound good on almost anything.
This review was your chance to properly discuss a speaker that was intended to deliver a flat sound power response, at least up until frequencies where you get to the tweeter. Once upon a time that was the general engineering view of a good design goal for a speaker that is intended to be listened to at a distance (eg on a wall) in a reverberant sound field like a normal house room, which would often have big feature glass areas, feature brick, and often timber or tiled flooring. Compare what this speaker sounds like in THAT room at a distance, to a Genelec in that same room. I think the ideas are dated, but this was your chance to discuss it.
But it doesn’t actually provide flat sound power. There’s a 3dB bump at 1.7kHz. Then tapers off starting at 2kHz and is down 5dB at 10kHz and 10dB at 20kHz. It’s pretty much like every other speaker in this regard. The data is right there in the CEA-2034. Red dashed line. 👍
@ It did provide flat sound power by the measurement protocols of the day. That’s all an engineer can do at the time of design, right? See Fig 18.22 in the first edition of Toole’s book.
The fact these were so widely used by engineers and studios is proof that most engineers out there are deaf. Same can be said for the god awful Sony MDR-7506. No wonder so many recordings sound lackluster and poor.
The speaker that demonstrates that "Audio Engineering" has been dangerously close, or outright intertwined with audiophoolery. Studies after the fact had discovered properties on these, of why they kinda worked, but the truth is their industry-wide use happened because of reputation, completely disconnected from real data. And these days, with Erin’s reviews and ASR, audiophiles can get ample data-driven reviews, while a look around TH-cam shows Audio Engineer monitor reviews are still mostly about "feelings".
Not surprising we have low quality mixing results on majority of records (bad monitors + loudness war = total crap sound)... There a plenty of far superior and relatively affordable monitors, can't imagine keeping and using those... I heard that majority of people are mixing "for low to medium" fidelity playback devices... they should mix for quality and fidelity to the source.. Let people use EQ / DSP or whatever they want on their playback device / sound system.
It's got the awful mid range too much high mid range coming through the woofer you could try 11uF bipolar electrolytic cap and a 2.2 Ohm 3watt resistor in line, that might be about right, not sure before after the inductor haven't seen the diagram either way just see which sounds best. Get yourself a dbx 31 band X2 EQ fairly cheap you'll be able to twiggle the frequency. Just set it for In room response you can dial it in you get familiar with it.
Some Additional Reading on the NS-10M:
dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf
www.bobhodas.com/examining-the-yamaha-ns-10m.php
I was in school for recording engineering back in the 80s when they became popular. It's worth noting how they were used to establish some context. at the time, any serious studio had larger main monitors. I saw big JBL & Urei a lot back then. These were typically soffit mounted into the wall. The NS10s would be mounted on the console. They basically ushered in the era of "nearfield" monitoring. They were not supposed to be reference monitors. They were there to mimic a home hifi situation. And the smaller Aurotones were there to mimic AM radio. These different monitoring options would allow a product to adjust the mix to translate well into different listing situations.
It's very different today. Many people only have nearfield monitors. They don't invest in powerful mains or a seriously treated room.
Michael, exactly my experience.
The pink noise comparison is valuable to understand the frequency response in a tangible way. Good approach. 👍
a few important notes....the biggest asset of the NS-10m studio for mixing is the place the key vocal, guitar, snare drum (or equivalent per song arrangement). These were typically placed on the console meter bridge which enhanced the LF extension. The sealed box meant the LF transients were super quick. Engineers got used to blending the snap of a kick drum with the lower overtones of a bass guitar and these methods would translate to radio and common home listening systems. From your data Erin, and as these were console mounted, think how that vertical directivity would come into play as a positive as the engineer worked across the wide studio console. The desk reflections would be a very nice match to the on-axis.
Yes, the vertical directivity is decent. It’s not great. But it could’ve been worse for sure. And if used nearfield it’s less of a concern but does offer a bit of a wider vertical sweet spot.
Appreciated additional context.
This hobby is a rabbit hole in every direction
Indeed!
I’ve been a recording engineer since the 1980’s and I NEVER liked the NS-10’s. I was ecstatic when the studio I worked at got a pair of Genelecs S30 in the mid 1980s or so!!
BTW, using pink noise is the best to compare “original” vs “speaker” convolution! Very well done, Erin!!😃👍
People MASTER audio with those things?! 😳😳
No.
No.
To elaborate: these were mostly used at mixdown as a sanity check. Mastering has always used more full range flat response systems.
Used mainly to mix vocals and midrangey instruments. Mastering would usually be done on other kind of speakers.
People here say no, but I have seen plenty of (unfortunately) "yes" situations. Often with a subwoofer included.
Absolutely horrible.
Fostex still makes these super thin drivers and they suffer from all kinds of issues as well.
Yet have a whole cult following and praising them.
Aurotones "horror tones" or Aventones next 🤭.
It's amazing that we got decent mixes from people using these, despite their frequency response. You'll hear people talking about how knowing how speakers "translate" to other systems is all that matters. But truthfully, without them knowing the response of other systems, they really don't know how it will translate. It makes much more sense to have an accurate reference system than an inaccurate one.
People also make claims that the odd response of these, and the other speakers I mentioned, let the mixer focus on vocals and the sensitive 2kHz range, but someone can easily bandwidth-limit the sound and boost mids to simulate the response of these speakers. It wouldn't be as easy for someone using these speakers to simulate the response of more accurate monitors.
I'm not buying the mid range and those if the mix sounds good of such horrible speaker it will sound good on anything.
My understanding is that the massive roll off in the bass is what really gives the benefit. We all know that rooms color the sound. So removing the bass altogether gives the mixer the ability to hear through the mix.
Another thing is that minus the mid hump it's pretty flat 100hz and up(listening window and in room). And the hump is not a narrow band peak but a broad boost. So once one gets used to listening through that sound it's possible to mix on them.
I'm not saying it's great but it's possible to learn to mix on these with generally good result.
They were mostly used as "bad speaker sanity check" - but also, the mains in the era where these used extensively were pretty... Not great.
Not necessarily. Many high-end loudspeakers (B&W) come with a mid-range suck out. One Linn engineers said that people prefer a frequency response that looks like a smiley face.
I may not agree with this. My opinion in this is irrelevant. But if we believe B&W, Linn and others, this is the sound people like.
I'm not saying you aren't on point. I agree with all your points. But the result would have been far worse if the 10M had a dip rather than hump, because then all recordings would have a mid-range hump. The 10M may even have made poor recordings less poor.
I'm not defending the 10M. The speaker should have a flat frequency response. But if one is to err, the 10M errs in the "right direction."
I'm old enough to remember equalizers. People who used them, if not flat, the settings were typically in a smiley face.
An aside and pure speculation. But I remember CDs from the 1980s (early 90s as well?) were sought after in the 00s because of their superior sound. Take into account that the CD was hated by many audiophiles in the 1980s for sounding harsh. But in the 00s, they were considered less harsh sounding than the ones from the 00s.
Whether what I write here is correct or not, it's not unfounded opinions. My deductions and conclusions may still be wrong, but they are based on the data/information that I have.
Auratones are still being used for mixing and mastering
I subscribe to a couple few sound engineer TH-cam channels and there is good reason they use these “bad” speakers
If anyone wants to be a sound engineer I expect they would want to be good at their job
They also use ATC and other brands that would definitely sound nice in a home audio setting in addition to something like an Auratone
The magic of Auratones isn't the frequency response, it lies in the time domain. It's a small paper driver in a closed speaker, pair that with a decent amp and you get incredible transient response and decay times. Listening to great mixes on a stereo pair is actually a joy, they don't sound harsh and you get a massive amount of dynamic detail.
They make it easy to tell if the low end has the right punch and weight, and if the transients aren't just right in the midrange it's immediately apparent. The smooth low end dropoff also minimizes room resonances and really helps focus on masking in the midrange. That paired with the fast decay time makes it so much easier to pick out bad resonances in a mix and balance midrange in general.
Still, they're a secondary monitor and I do most of my mixing on Neumann KH310's but I think they're the best second reference you can have.
This is so awesome. There are a few classic standards, and it is so interesting to see how they stack up using modern measuring gear.
As a musician for over 45 yrs., I know those speakers really well... I have never liked them. I was told on more than one occasion by a recording engineer, "If the track sounds good on these Yamaha monitors, then they'll sound good on pretty much anything, especially radio". Sorry, but to my ears, I hated them. Still do... I don't care about its measurements, Erin. I have heard so many tracks I've recorded through them in so many studios and I just... aaaarggghhh!
Well, what I think is cool is how the measurements align with your subjective experience. 😎
@@ErinsAudioCorner Cheers, Erin. Although, when I had to endure recordings played through them... It really *was not a cool experience*. Awful.
This would explain so many crappy recordings.
fantastic review...and hilarious as well!! man...nuts it's such a popular monitor ...even 'iconic'... to this day.. as a musician/sound engineer who does a lot of mixing, this was very enjoyable to watch. love the linearity of my Neumann KH310... cheers!
A few things to note:
- the midrange hump is due to the woofer's VC inductance. A zobel network will flatten that out with no other changes to the crossover.
- they were initially designed for flat power response, which was a mistake.
- placing these on a console's meter bridge produces a pretty sizeable ~200hz bump. It makes them sound much less horrid than they are.
- nobody (that I know) ever used them as the only speakers for mixing. IIRC Bob Clearmountain got them as a slightly better version of an Auratone 5C (appropriately called "horrortones" and "awfultones"), which are there as a worst-csse consumer system check.
- the mains back in the 70s-90s were mostly pretty poor, and tend to have the opposite kind of curve that these do. You had funhouse mirrors going in both directions - average them out and you might get somewhere.
- they were put on their sides not for sonic reasons, but rather solely for sightlines reasons. Can't see out into the live room if there are speakers in the way.
- the distortion is pretty remarkable for their size, all things considered.
From what I read, Clearmountain used these due to their portability. I didn’t find that he used these with others. I can’t imagine he used them solely all the time but the implication from various articles is that he did. Hopefully that’s an oversight in these articles.
I designed an upgrade for those and I have several studios using our upgraded version.
the active avantone ones?
Could you elaborate on what that change is?
@@MuzdokOfficial No, the passive model.
@@davidfuller581 mainly re-balancing the frequency response, (removing the peak from the 1-3Khz range for a more balanced tone) and improving parts quality, over the old coils and electrolytic caps.
@@hoth2112 I'm assuming you're Danny - so I'm going to drill down on this. I saw that the impedance doesn't rise around that peak so I'm assuming there's a zobel in there correcting for that, and then the crossover point looks like it was moved down slightly?
My understanding was that the NS-10s were never used as primary monitors but as a secondary set to evaluate how a mix would sound on a cheaper stereo system? At least in better recording studios that used them...
Nah. The mid-field speakers are the main mixing tools in nearly all studios, and the mains are rarely used for critical mixing. When people say they mixed on NS10, they meant it.
I mix and master for a living (kii three speakers in a great room), but have mixed on hifi systems and cheap speakers, and once you learn a speaker you can get results from it, especially if it is a sealed design you can always get results if you know what you are doing.
If you invert that response, you get a smiley EQ. Maybe that's what ended up happening and you get a non harsh sounding mix
I worked in a studio in the late 80’s early 90’s. It was common to have high quality main monitors and a second set of smaller harsh sounding speakers more representative of what the average person may listen to. While the high quality speakers were used for most of the monitoring and mixing it was to also important to check the recording sounded ok over the smaller speakers to ensure general acceptance of the recording. I understand the NS-10 was used in this secondary role.
This was a interesting video considering the history and the impact these speaker may have had to music production.
The blue was a lot easier on my eyes for the sound clips. Thanks.
Glad you liked the blue background!
I was always curious about these.
Thank you for testing them!
I love when people say they want their system to “sound like the engineer intended” lol.
Back in the 80’s a friend got a pair for her studio, I was shocked how bad they were. They were replaced by a pair of PSB monitors shortly after.😅
Although they had to be present in my studio, I never let the client hear them. I used them during mixdown but my clients heard the JBLs. The reason those speakers became iconic is because of the look and Clearmountain had articles in the same magazines I wrote for. They were not great. Not at all. This was a snow job imo. A freak accident because they were easily transportable from studio to studio.
They are puke. Really.
Personally I dislike the speakers for any application. Bloating between 1-2 kHz always sounds bad to me, no matter what ! Just more aural ignorance that speaks volumes lol
I can't say how many recordings suck bc of a bias at those frequencies, and/or excessive compression in mastering.
Totally agree. I just have a habit of listening to a variety of speakers to catch something I may have missed.
Still looks better than the Børresen X3 .. 🤷♂️
wow i just noticed this channel is almost 100k subs, hell yea, cant wait for you to get it..your contribution to the community is priceless.
1 thing i just dont get is the compression data, if you have already covered it before maybe you could direct me to it ?
if not maybe when you need an idea for content you would. thank you for everything
Erin have you heard about the new adam d3v? They are little desktops that are supposed to get down to 48 hz with a 3.5 woofer and passive radiator. They are $300. I would love to see your impressions
They’re sending me some. 👍
@@ErinsAudioCorner Cant wait!
Would love to see you review another famous, now vintage, studio speaker with a cult following, the JBL4312.
I worked in retail stereo sales in the 70's 80's and 90's. In a nutshell, ALL JAPANESE SPEAKERS WERE CRAP except for the Pioneer HPM series......and possible some high end Technics....even the legendary Yamaha NS 1000 was iffy. I sold a TON of Japanese electronics but very few speakers. Great review Erin.....Merry Christmas.
The ns1000 jumps of a cliff after 15k, but other than that....
I understand the perspectice thrown here. Also really easy to shoot down the sound of NS10 ( I was never a fan)
I guess we need to also explore those who tackled the ns10 really well for mixing.
Bob Clearmountain, the Lord Alge brothers (graduates of Power Station).
-they dont mix entirely on the ns10. They have other monitors as well.
- they understood fletcher munson curve and balance music with low spl on them
Mixes that has masking issues on the mids are fairly easy to spot on the ns10.
Ns10 is a great tool nonetheless.
Excellent review again. Thank you. I was always curious how these would measure. I never understood the obsession with these in the studios. You can still read on forums today how much some studio people defend them. It's just a case of herd mentally. They were never good. Luckily with some of the recordings mixed on these, some really great mastering engineers have worked some remastering magic.
Lol the comment section is cracking me up. These are not mastering speakers. These were used to mix. The mid range hump is why these were popular. No one blasts music through them. At low volumes for mixing the mids stick out so it was preferred.
I talked to the guys at Muscle Shoals Sound and they pretty much said the same thing. But the problem I’ve seen is some … amateurs … see that these were heavily used “back in the day” so they use them today for all tasks.
So how does mixing with bad speakers make for a good master?
Mixing stage is where most work is done. It’s, in fact, worse that they were used for mixing.
@@neo-jy8xl
My thinking exactly. But I’m no recording engineer.
But for decades it’s blown my mind how many recordings sound so terrible.
I mean how hard is it to record something that isn’t compressed, not brittle on the top end, and has smooth bass.
Apparently next to impossible.
@@Carl-bd1rf it is easy…and cheap!!! Just record a great performance, with a great microphone, in a well designed room, with a high quality tape recorder, and then you can leave things uncompressed and un-EQd.
Checking mix low level, nearfield, then standing just outside the door at same low level. Classic mix balance checking, and knowing midrange was working with each other rather than against.
I do feel this video missed exploring why they had their place in the studio. It definitely wasn’t because they sounded good.
studio experience is sure different
13:45 “Lumpy Dumpy”
brought on a smile. 😂
Reminds me of an old engineer testing an early LED and he said “Give it some more poop!” as a request for a higher voltage across the device.
😂😂😂
Nice comparison. Great evaluation without bashing. Informative. I sat in on voicing the Avantone replacement. Similar. When we voice loudspeakers we use a lot of music. Pink Floyd Bells, Classical vocal, ensemble, choir. All 2 mic stereo recordings. I have a friend that does great recordings with 2 DPA mics and patience in smaller churches. Jaw droppingly good recordings. For Pop we use Kenny G, Toto, other 80's rock. They don't all sound marvelous. Pipe Organ that is quiet and that is dynamic. Do we use that as the final arbiter? Nope. We measure. Working with the recordings we do, we get to know them well and that they are indicators of what they sound like on a very balanced system. Not judge and jury. If I made the recording, then I know the original sound. If a producer and engineer made the recording, no, I have zero idea what the original sounded like. Many times I encourage clients to take their cell phone and record stuff they know well. Car door closing for midbass, loved one for vocal accuracy. Try it. Many people will be seriously surprised at what happens when they listen to this on the system they think is accurate. An accurate system does something. It shows you what kind of crap is recorded regularly and hopefully makes you hunt for some decent recordings.
Mark
to hear the original pressing of In Through The Out Door playing back through NS10S on a Technics SP1200mk2, thats my fav! 🤘
Brave to venture into this domain 😊
@@supercompooper I have my flame suit on.
Really, though, many engineers know these are pretty bad. When I was researching these I found many production-oriented channels that talked about how these don’t make for a good reference. One of those is Produce Like a Pro.
@@ErinsAudioCorner And this is why he is a big fan of the kali as I am now! Bargain!
So mixing / mastering with these would result in the engineer attenuating the range that the speaker is boosting. So attenuating the midrange is the same as boosting the lows and highs in the mix, creating the familiar smile curve or loudness curve. It's very sad to see that some many people think that this "translates" well to other systems.
I’ve owned these for years, and they are a GEM for mixing midrange instruments and vocals. Not many producers mixing solely on a pair of NS10’s, but they’re a reference for electric guitars and vocals. I personally have used them as a reference, in conjunction with Adam Audio monitors…. which are very detailed and spacious. If the mix translates on both speaker systems, it will typically sound great (after mastering) in most consumer systems. And no, these aren’t commonly used for mastering. Bearfoot, Adam Audio, Neumann, and a bunch of other manufacturers offer better representation.
A great additional tool for sure
hi Erin, Doug Sax was known to be able to use JBL 4010s (L-100s) fir mixing not withstanding that they are CERTAINLY not flat in the mids, top, and down through the mid-bass. he IS considered to have been one of THE best engineers extant. i don't think I could tolerate speakers with anomalies like the L-100 or the NS-10.
I've worked in several mixing studios, and all had the NS10M's. But they all had other monitor speakers for general mixing, and all pictures I have seen of studios with NS10M's had other monitor speakers too.
The reason - as far as I was told - was because the NS10M's are very revealing due to the material in the drivers, and the design of the crossover. Musically they do not sound great, but they are used to listen for problems in the recording, like too much compression for example.
The other speakers are used for everything else, and the range of 'other' speakers in studios is huge.
@3:37 - Once upon a time, a sweet soul gifted me a pair of Bowers and Wilkins DM220. With them followed an honest-to-god, signed by a B&W employee, stamped with serial number Inspection Certificate. That certificate included individualized measurements of the speakers.for the serial number of that pair.
Egineers use a reference track to compare their mix with the “sound” of the reference recording. This is how they can get by with grossly non linear speakers.
Data is revealing, and id never use these today for mixing. But I think most Hi-fi listeners tend to misunderstand that music is a business, and the mid range is where the money is.
The NS10s allowed for engineers to focus on the most critical parts of THE SONG, not all the luxurious stuff like bass or crystal clear high end. Getting the catchy parts of a song into peoples ears is what sold records.
Live sound engineers always say …”no one ever left a show humming the kick drum”
Experiment with a larger value series inductor on the mid woofer. That would largely fix the response issue. Looks like it uses 1.8mH series inductor with a parallel 10uf capacitor and the overall crossover is basic 2nd order type. Try 2.5mH and go from there.
😎
Guessing Brian’s going out to get some new speakers! 😂
Yamaha NS-10. Cant even be used for road-fill.
Cheers Erin,, ☕😋🍰
Id love too see you do one of the ar18
Like others have said, sound engineers weren't looking for linearity with the NS-10. The midrange of the original NS-10 had the opposite of what is called the BBC dip. That way nasty or painful midrange frequencies were easily laid bare.
Probably a good speaker choice for the back seat of a Chrysler minivan full of kids if u still want to hear the music
😂
Ah yes one of the prinary reasons most songs from the 20th century have scooped midrange in their spectrum plot.
Tinny sounding records
Hey, that midrange peak is similar to that of the Altec 604, also a much-used studio monitor until JBL took its market share.
I love starting a mix on NS-10s, because they shield me from technical distractions like harsh sibilance or uncontrolled bass. These issues can be incredibly distracting on my "mastering-grade" 3-way speakers with a sub, which offer super-detailed highs and lows. The NS-10s help me focus on the music and make musically relevant decisions early on. They also push me to create a full and stable midrange without unconsciously relying on the bass or sub legato to mask "gaps" and unstable elements in the mids.
Why buy dogshit speakers instead of just applying EQ on your perfectly measuring speakers temporarily to boost the mids?
Just found a pair a couple of days for about $180 but I think I'll pass 😁
might explain why so many "remasters" simply have boosted upper mids
Interesting story about that midrange bulge...
Back up the video and listen to the Original Pink Noise. Listen near field, from the dead centre between your speakers... then listen again and move your head slightly from side to side. Notice how it sounds brighter when you are off center.
This is an effect called "mid-field cancellation". At about 1.5 to 2khz the identical signals from left and right arrive at the opposite ear out of phase... That is the sound from the left speaker arrives at your right ear out of phase and the sound from the right speaker arrives at your left ear out of phase. This produces about 6db of cancellation at the sweet spot. When you move off center the effect is less and the sound brightens.
The important thing to understand is that this is a perfectly normal part of stereo listening. It's not a parlour trick or some weird acoustics... it happens all the time while you are listening in the near field. The effect is still there in far field listening but not nearly so strong.
Recording engineers, working in the near field, would normally compensate for this with a slight boost in frequency response at about 2khz to even out the performance. This resulted in mixed and mastered recordings that were too forward in the mid range.
By putting the rise into the speaker, they eliminated the urge to compensate.
Now listen to the Original Pink Noise from a slightly off-center position then iisten to the NS-10s from the center of your sweet spot... they will sound mostly the same. So this is actually pre-compensation for that mid-field cancellation effect.
th-cam.com/video/T8bmASpUeh0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cWu0k76PKCCzSGi2
NS-10s aren't used in mastering because they are an accurate speaker, but rather because they are (or were) representative of cheap bookshelf speakers of the day. They are a useful secondary playback system for gauging how your mix translates to a "consumer" listening environment. The same can be of the Auratone, which proxies a mono table radio.
They are so rubbish, so crap, that if you use them as firewood, they won't warm up the room...
Does anyone know a list of albums that were mixed with these speakers? One contribution of this with this review is that we have more confidence to have doubts on pop music mixing and re-equalise them during actual listening.😅
It's great to have a spinorama of these speakers, but I think that it would be nice to explain to people why their "transient response" looks "good" and how can you EQ any speaker to have "good transient response".
the sealed design improves transient response for the woofer, it has to do with the drivers and cabinet, i think
Their transient response isn't any better than the average good speaker. In fact they have a resonance that lingers long as shown with the burst decay graph.
So all that "transient" was because these suckers had zero bass
If you’re referring to the video, I think you are it’s because there’s no bass on these. That guy doesn’t understand how to read a waterfall graphic. It’s not necessarily his fault, it seems no one really understands what a waterfall graphic actually shows, and that it’s biased against lower frequencies, especially if the measurement is not anechoic and not gated.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I know the video in question, but it's not really specifically about it. People have praised these speakers for a long time because of this single thing, when it isn't anything special and certainly not more important than frequency response and directivity.
Yes, and they don't use exotic cables in the studio or mixing consoles. Like Belden wire. So much for cable snake oil.
First of all thank you Erin for all that you do. 🙏🏻
Next please do Yamaha HS8. Maybe a studio monitor series along side the hifi speakers 🔊
and also the hs5 as they are closer to ns10m FR
Yeah... been waiting for HS8 review too.
I think he's just waiting for someone to send him some.
I've been using HS8, and before that HS50m (HS5), for 15 years. Before that (in the '00s), was the muddy & detail-lacking Rokit8s.
HS series are the most popular monitors ever. Totally needs some Erin reviews.
@@LessTalkMoreDelicious i had rokit 8 g2 then rokit 4 g3 and sub then hs5 with sub and now kali mm-6 and i want their sub next lol
@@MuzdokOfficial …I’m saving for the Kali 6.2 sub too! 🤤
Perfect timing!
Wow, very good job! Did you ever test Lonpoo LP42?
That 1.6 khz peak can be lower adding a modification in the crossover on the woofer side inserting a LCR shunt
Thank you. Can you please measure Barefoot Micromain26 ?
Makes me question the whole "flat response, listen to music how the artist intended." It's just marketing
I love mine for mixing
This is why CLA preferer the original ns10m and they made the passive avantone replica to sound like those.
So all these golden eared producers couldn't tell the difference between a midrange hump and a treble boost. Very weird phenomenon. Seems like a big case of 'wisdom of the crowd' going wrong, lol. Also why do they need tissue paper when they use mixing desks the size of a conference room table covered in eq dials!?
I had the same thought. The midwoofer was the issue. So why put tissue over the tweeter. It’s weird. Goes to show you that experience doesn’t necessarily equal expertise.
The original was much brighter than the studio - they dialed back the high end on the studio a lot.
Re: the "why do that when you have so many EQs in front of you" - those channels are not in the monitor section of the console.
So they mix bass and highs 3dbs up?
@davidfuller581 I'm sure there is a way, such as route through a group channel and apply eq there. 😉
Excellent work.
Now, when will you review the Arendal 1528 speakers?
Ferrofluid: speakers with this fluid have a shelf life. What is the best speaker/ tweeter that does not use a ferrofluid.😢
maybe not the 'best', but I use Vifa NE25VTS, they sound pretty good to my ancient ears
The purpose is pretty simple. If you adjusted something to sound good on a flat speaker it might be offensive on some systems or in some environments. They represent home or car systems that might err on the side of being offensive and what you are working on should satisfy everyone everywhere. Translating well is paramount in some cases, such as television, where built in TV speakers were often the norm.
I used them in a TV studio and trucks for remote events. In those environments you can actually hear what was going on while a producer standing next to you is calling out shots to the camera folks.
Looks as good as I expected it to be hahaha.
Honestly though, theres probably a good number of decent monopoles out there, so id like to see more stuff that claim to have an exotic directivity pattern, like maybe dipoles. Are there any in the pipeline atm? Do you personally have an interest in exploring less conventional directivity patterns like such? Them being niche doesnt help the availability of measurements, but it'd be awesome to see some measured on an NFS that actually has a fairly decent result
Any reason we didn’t get much of a subjective report on these ones? I was looking forward to what you thought. It was like to listen to music through these things.
(I know you mentioned a couple of words like tinny, but not your usual breath of subjective review for some reason)
Great choice of a t-shirt to go with those lol
So many people have made the argument to me that they are good because of their waterfall plot. Thoughts on that?
That’s busted by the burst decay I provide in this video which shows longer decay in the upper midrange.
Plus, people rarely know how to interpret a waterfall plot. A speaker with no bass will not have extending delay in the LF because … surprise … there’s no LF there. 😂
@@ErinsAudioCorner lmao APMastering should watch this and read this also
@ErinsAudioCorner That's what I've been trying to say to the ns-10 defenders!! Thank you for confirming
I would assume they are attempting to produce sound that would be more akin to 'ear candy,' rather than just a great recording, as that appears to be so much more marketable and appealing in pop culture than a technically accurate presentation.
😊😊
I’ve been working on NS10 for 20 years. It’s not that you have to compensate for anything, they’re just so revealing in the midrange that it’s immediately noticeable if something isn’t biting. Hifi consumer equipment generally only has customisable EQ settings for lows and highs, so getting the midrange right when mixing is essential to transition on many different systems. It always baffled me that Bob Clearmountain just happened to choose these (without regard for their frequency response), because they’re so good for working on Audio. Fate I guess. I’ll never sell mine and I have backups. If you know you know.
thanks!
Hearing this video trough ns10m:s hehe:)
I bet my voice never sounded so good! 😂😂
@@ErinsAudioCorner On the "compensating brain note" My brain accept a new curve very fast, like 15 seconds. Its like something I have trained to accept "this is now normal" Many things in high level audio work cant be theoretically explained atleast not without targeted scientific studies. Its also not decidedly the case that you WILL mix inverse to the speaker curve. Lots of bass or mids makes ME add more of it in general, MAYBE because it triggers more inspiration of what is loudest in presentation. Highend on the other hand has an inverse effect, I am a bit sensitive to highend. Lots more to say, but just a flat curve is not necessarily the best for real world results, even if the theory is sound. Read my other post in the comments about mixing on ns-10s:) Also an important note about ns10 are the low self resonance
Didn't the originals have the seam on the midbass cone? Ie: cone was constructed from a flat piece of paper conically folded and glued in place. With the ns10 use in studios, my understanding was that they sounded really bad, really quickly if you got your mix wrong in the midrange. They were used as an acid test rather than something to master on xx
guess what drug was popular back then🤫
Interesting you chose the ns 10m studio to evaluate. The classic Yamaha as you would know was the NS1000M, in production for over 20 yrs. There has been love and criticism on this model, it would be something special if you could find the time to analyse these speakers. Sure the crossovers are old and would need components replaced ( or upgraded ) but it would point out their short comings and what people that own them, need to do. There are heaps out there : - )
I’ve tried. But they’re expensive as hell to buy to review and no one has any they’re willing to loan. 😂
Just send them to Danny R., he’ll fix ‘em right up!
for $600 USD Danny can make them sound like new modern $400 speakers....lol.
Some no rez and a set of barrel connectors fix everything
These speakers can be made to have a flat response, but it’s just using up money. Use them for a while, then sell them.
Whoa, that FR looks bad. Almost like someone used an "off the shelf" passive x-over for that speaker. I would not be surprised if the x-over components do suggest that it's a "textbook" x-over, rather than one designed to take the FR of the individual drivers in mind, as well as the size of the baffle and their position on it.
As for tweeters and ferrofluid, a tweeter with dried up ferrofluid should show increased odd order distortion, particular at the lower end of its frequency range.
Use your phone as a monitor. Everyone just listens on their phone😮😊
i dont understand why, phone speakers have the most horrible sound for music listening i have ever heard. even old grandma radio sounded better. its a pain to my ears
May I ask what amp you used for the measurements?
I have the NS1000M’s if that matters
I’ve been trying to find a good pair to review.
They are of much better quality it's been said
They are extremely bright. I am in the middle of restoring them right now, but when I get them back together if you still want to review them I will figure out a way to get them down to you. How far are you from I69? These speakers are pretty heavy and I don’t think I can ship them other than common carrier.
This explains (what we already knew) why so many recordings sound so awful. Of course, there are lots and lots of other reasons for why recordings sound the way they do - business and artistic primacies among them. The thing I mostly don't want to hear about the design of a piece of audio gear is that it was designed by, or had input from, a recording engineer. How about a nice pair of ATCs, Genelecs, etc.?
In a vintage speaker with such history I felt it was worth the time to briefly cover it. Plus, I wanted to make sure to draw the distinction between this speaker and the 10M non-studio version.
As for ATC and Genelec, I have asked many times if they’d be willing to send me loaner units. They seem to have zero interest based on the fact they stopped replying to my requests. So you’ll have to ask them what’s up.
Great mixes can be made on shitty speakers if the person doing the mixing knows that pair of speakers. These are known for their pronounced mid-range and anybody that's ever tried mixing knows that getting the mid-range right can be challenging so if you can get great separation going on a pair of these, it's probably going to sound like a million bucks on a great set of monitors or Hi-Fi speakers. Chris lord-alge often checks mixes on a boombox he's had for years. Just a shitty old boombox, but he knows how music should sound on that boombox. That matters way more than the linearity of a speaker in the context of mixing.
This is also very true
I would guess that if you listen to the mix result on bad speakers (like ordinary people especially in those days) the mids scoop created by the engineer could sound “better”… also I remember being in a studio in late 80’s and the renowned engineer was so deaf that he had to listen @ 110db on big speakers …. We couldn’t stay in mixing room at all… this guy surely had a different perception of those Yamaha as “shitbox”
Erin, as I said in the post you made before releasing the video, the ns10 is a TOOL.
it’s a midrange magnifier, and helps the mixing engineer understand where to put the level of the vocal, snare drum and various instruments in relation to each other for an optimal balance.
Ns10 have the uncanny ability to immediately show you if you pushed the vocals too much or if you “liked” the snare too much.
Has nothing to to with compensating the midrange bump.. it’s a tool to look into it.
There are few selected loudspeakers that helps with this.. none that I know of at a price of a used pair of ns10’s and a decent amp.
If you ever start doing mixing work you might understand what I mean.
Bob Clearmountain used the from studio to studio to have always the same nearfield “reference” loudspeaker.
Sound on Sound wrote a great article on the ns10 in 2008, you can find it online for free.
Thanks. I read the entire article. And I read it years ago. 👍
I understand that these speakers were used exactly because they suck!. For what i've read they were never used for real mastering; they were instead used to make adjustments and to check how the original mix would sound with a less that ideal sounding speaker. If they could adjust the mix and make it sound good in the Yams then it was very likely that the mix would sound good on almost anything.
Must be why EQ's were so often V shaped
This review was your chance to properly discuss a speaker that was intended to deliver a flat sound power response, at least up until frequencies where you get to the tweeter. Once upon a time that was the general engineering view of a good design goal for a speaker that is intended to be listened to at a distance (eg on a wall) in a reverberant sound field like a normal house room, which would often have big feature glass areas, feature brick, and often timber or tiled flooring. Compare what this speaker sounds like in THAT room at a distance, to a Genelec in that same room. I think the ideas are dated, but this was your chance to discuss it.
But it doesn’t actually provide flat sound power. There’s a 3dB bump at 1.7kHz. Then tapers off starting at 2kHz and is down 5dB at 10kHz and 10dB at 20kHz.
It’s pretty much like every other speaker in this regard. The data is right there in the CEA-2034. Red dashed line. 👍
@ It did provide flat sound power by the measurement protocols of the day. That’s all an engineer can do at the time of design, right? See Fig 18.22 in the first edition of Toole’s book.
You need toilet paper sticked on top tweeter on one point silly idea but worked for me on cheap piezo technics tweater
The fact these were so widely used by engineers and studios is proof that most engineers out there are deaf. Same can be said for the god awful Sony MDR-7506. No wonder so many recordings sound lackluster and poor.
The speaker that demonstrates that "Audio Engineering" has been dangerously close, or outright intertwined with audiophoolery.
Studies after the fact had discovered properties on these, of why they kinda worked, but the truth is their industry-wide use happened because of reputation, completely disconnected from real data.
And these days, with Erin’s reviews and ASR, audiophiles can get ample data-driven reviews, while a look around TH-cam shows Audio Engineer monitor reviews are still mostly about "feelings".
Maybe I'm the minority but I preferred the music sound clips, it was much easier to tell what the difference was than the pink noise to me at least.
You know if something doesn't sound sibilant on the ns10s it definitely won't on
good speakers.
This proves Floyd Toole’s circle of confusion. (look it up). Garbage in =Garbage out.
Not surprising we have low quality mixing results on majority of records (bad monitors + loudness war = total crap sound)... There a plenty of far superior and relatively affordable monitors, can't imagine keeping and using those... I heard that majority of people are mixing "for low to medium" fidelity playback devices... they should mix for quality and fidelity to the source.. Let people use EQ / DSP or whatever they want on their playback device / sound system.
sadly the world is weird
It's got the awful mid range too much high mid range coming through the woofer you could try 11uF bipolar electrolytic cap and a 2.2 Ohm 3watt resistor in line, that might be about right, not sure before after the inductor haven't seen the diagram either way just see which sounds best.
Get yourself a dbx 31 band X2 EQ fairly cheap you'll be able to twiggle the frequency. Just set it for In room response you can dial it in you get familiar with it.