fixing a crack in NS-10M monitor woofer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
markus76 said:
Then the mix or the room was bad. A speaker has to have no distortions i.e. has to be flat.

Best, Markus
Click to expand...

Where flatness is not really that important in the whole scheme of variables encountered in a mixing booth. The most imortant thing is repeatability and a known reference to be able to judge/scale changes.
Besides it really doesn't matter what we think, the pro's have spoken and the GRAMMY goes to ..... Yamaha.
 
#22
infinia, obviously you don't have much experience. "in the whole scheme of variables encountered" having a neutral monitoring is THE most important part. I.e. low distortion (linear and nonlinear), a frequency response that is complete (20/40 Hz to 16/20 kHz) and a uniform polar pattern. That must be your reference. That's typically achieved by having a reflection free control room where the speakers are flush-mounted. But it can also be achieved by very good nearfield monitors. I would look at Klein + Hummel or Genelec.
Then one needs a lot of experience to have a mix work on the average setup of your target audience. The NS-10 is a good tool to achieve exactly that. But that doesn't change the fact that this particular speaker is the average c**p most people have at home.

Best, Markus
 
#23
markus76 said:
infinia, obviously you don't have much experience. "in the whole scheme of variables encountered" having a neutral monitoring is THE most important part. I.e. low distortion (linear and nonlinear), a frequency response that is complete (20/40 Hz to 16/20 kHz) and a uniform polar pattern. That must be your reference. That's typically achieved by having a reflection free control room where the speakers are flush-mounted. But it can also be achieved by very good nearfield monitors. I would look at Klein + Hummel or Genelec.
Then one needs a lot of experience to have a mix work on the average setup of your target audience. The NS-10 is a good tool to achieve exactly that. But that doesn't change the fact that this particular speaker is the average c**p most people have at home.

Best, Markus
Click to expand...

Whatever.. you can use whatever you want in your place ... and when you get all the gold records/awards you can preach the word. Nerds rarely influence the bizz, pal. As I keep repeating ..The problem is really repeatability (not a problem if every studio had the same monitor/room configuration). The best production people know this, that why they spec or carry their own monitor from studio to studio.
 
#28
This book here might be only half as thick as the one recommended by Markus, but it is solely dealing with monitor loudspeakers and it was written by a loudspeaker developer:

http://www.amazon.com/Loudspeakers-recording-reproduction-PHILIP-NEWELL/dp/0240520149

There is much more to accuracy than flat in-room pressure response. And the author's opinion on the NS10 is definitely differing from Markus'.

Whether the original poster likes the sound for domestic listening or not is upon him to decice. But it is definitely worth to repair them.

Regards

Charles
 
#32
Only one way to find out. The original cone might be getting harder and not as flexible as a new unit but that's anyones guess.

I had mine for over 20 years and besides a bit of yellowing seemed as good as new and was still flexible.

Once you put the new driver in and play a CD, it's then a used one.
 
#34
rabbitz said:
I think it was said if you mixed to make the music sound good on a NS10M, then it will sound good on almost anything.

I don't think it's a thing about them being good, flat, coloured or whatever, the people that use them have become so used to using them and their idiosyncacies that it has become a reliable tool. To put the fear of god into a recording engineer etc, change the monitoring speakers.

I have owned some NS10M speakers and were very good for nearfield even without tissues over the tweeters. When I finished with them after over 20 years use, they were snapped up by a recording studio for 3 times what I paid for them.
Click to expand...

Studio practice for popular music needs just a known tool. Unfortunately the operators were not historically perfectly educated, nor the systems in the world out there were good. They just wanted know that it ''will translate well''. The NS10 was the SM-57 mic of speakers. Just that. Well said.

markus76 said:
infinia, obviously you don't have much experience. "in the whole scheme of variables encountered" having a neutral monitoring is THE most important part. I.e. low distortion (linear and nonlinear), a frequency response that is complete (20/40 Hz to 16/20 kHz) and a uniform polar pattern. That must be your reference. That's typically achieved by having a reflection free control room where the speakers are flush-mounted. But it can also be achieved by very good nearfield monitors. I would look at Klein + Hummel or Genelec.
Then one needs a lot of experience to have a mix work on the average setup of your target audience. The NS-10 is a good tool to achieve exactly that. But that doesn't change the fact that this particular speaker is the average c**p most people have at home.

Best, Markus
Click to expand...

Fortunately, in the last decade more and more studio operators are exposed to monitors from Genelec or Dynaudio or other cheaper but technically well sorted actives like Mackie or Alesis etc. Surely much more correct than the colored NS-10. Actually I don't see the NS-10s perched on meter bridges everywhere as in the 90s anymore. There are no big meter bridges so to perch a speaker on, in small production studios with tiny digital consoles running Nuendo or Pro Tools on TFT monitors anymore anyway. They can normally be found in older studios which sport big consoles as an option in their gear arsenal. Even in live reinforcement all operators are aware of Meyer or L-Acoustics. Its not that bad anymore.
 
#35
Surely much more correct than the colored NS-10.
Click to expand...

Philip Newll definitely has a different opinion on that. He sais that either a monitor is closed-box (when it is small) for accurate mixing or if you have to use a box with an "exhaust" then is should definitely go lower (and therefore also be much bigger) than all those small monitors.

Regards

Charles
 
#36
I like closed box too. But this is a little beside the point in mixing with nearfields I guess, because when mixing for judging bass we always do it in high SPL on the main monitors. Normally 12-15 inch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom