Regarding NS-10s, the story is reasonably well told here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10 and here: http://beerlage.nl/userfiles/file/ns10m.pdf To briefly summarize, it started out at least roughly (as far as I can tell) as Bear described, but as some people learned to use the speakers for mixing, they became quite adept at making first class mixes on them. This requires much more finesse and attention to detail than could be reasonably dismissed as a trivial feature of the speakers. However, people did report that choice of amplifier mattered a lot, and a Bryston 4B turned out to be an excellent match to the speaker. For those who did learn how to mix on the NS-10 / Bryston 4B combination, I don't think anybody thought it sounded good, only that you could mix once and know it was right, and not have to run around to several other systems taking notes, then going back to remix, and repeat until the mix sounded good on most systems. In other words, they saved time and money, and could reliably produce hit records. People, including those for whom the NS-10 / Bryston combination worked successfully, did look for other speakers that could save time, money, and produce hits, and many of them didn't find a better combination for their purposes, at least not for a long time.
For those here who are skeptical, if you haven't tried to mix a record on NS-10 / Bryston – 4B then that it could work as well as it did for some such as Clearmountain may seem as easy to dismiss, just as it is easy for others to dismiss that there might audible differences between amplifiers or between different capacitors. If you can't hear or measure a difference then it doesn't exist according to your beliefs, and so you construct a coherent, plausible story to explain whatever belief you end up with. In so doing, you might be right or wrong in your conclusions, but the certainty with which you may hold your conclusion just might be overconfident. This is a common feature of human nature, we all do it at times and to varying extents.
For those here who are skeptical, if you haven't tried to mix a record on NS-10 / Bryston – 4B then that it could work as well as it did for some such as Clearmountain may seem as easy to dismiss, just as it is easy for others to dismiss that there might audible differences between amplifiers or between different capacitors. If you can't hear or measure a difference then it doesn't exist according to your beliefs, and so you construct a coherent, plausible story to explain whatever belief you end up with. In so doing, you might be right or wrong in your conclusions, but the certainty with which you may hold your conclusion just might be overconfident. This is a common feature of human nature, we all do it at times and to varying extents.
Last edited:
Richard,
If you google, you will find many instances which show the variation of phase by depth for skin effect.
However, for audio frequency, they are all incorrect. All of them assume that the wave is normal to the surface of the conductor and driving into it.
That is NOT what occurs in a wire which is skinning as a result of it's internal current.
It IS what is occurring when the surface curvature of the wire is much greater than the penetration depth.
I found an analysis by a Russian plasma physicist which derived this for plasma channels of cylindrical current streams, I'll try to find it.
What you are showing is not consistent with normal gauge wires and audio frequencies.
John
Hi John
All these apply 100% to the diagrams I posted (post #86706).
I am very interested to see some spot data derived from the proper equations.
I want to know the error size.
George
All these apply 100% to the diagrams I posted (post #86706).
I am very interested to see some spot data derived from the proper equations.
I want to know the error size.
George
I don't think that comments which hold you to your word are sniping or useless. They expose your blabber for what it is.
It is not so long ago, in a comparison between different opamps, where you spoke of glaring differences spitting you in the ear. But, when challenged to identify the vilified opamps blind .... deafening silence. And so it always goes with you.
Ah, finally got to that. Yes, indeed you refer to planar wave depthing.
I had a jpeg that described the difference between bessels and exponential, I'll find it..
Edit: here ya go..it's for a 1.5mm diameter wire.
John
Attachments
Last edited:
Skin effect has been a Bogey man of high end audio for decades. It's not going to die any time soon.
se
😎
That is very interesting. lets just be sure to use 4 skin depths for audio.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
What I said is 100% TRUE.
The article speaks about the tissue paper at POWER STATION, in NYC. Clearmountain & the famous tissue paper. The person I spoke to ran that studio. FYI.
As is pretty clear, once "big time" producers used that NS-10, everyone else wanted "in".
The NS-10 were first used by Phil Ramone at A&R likely before Power Station ever existed.
The person I know and spoke to knows precisely what happened, first hand. The story only covers the PR angle for Bob Clearmountain.
_-_-
I'd be pleased to try to parse differences in opamps, blind tested.
No problem.
Assuming the situation is right, it ought to be fairly straightforward.
Imho.
That is not to say that in all cases differences between opamps will be obvious or even discernable. And for those who keep throwing it out, we're assuming no nasties like out of band oscillations, or other parasitics, etc...
Can't speak for anyone else.
_-_-
Belden's comments.
Understanding Skin Effect and Frequency
It appears skin effect begins at about 8Khz (red).
THx-RNMarsh
Understanding Skin Effect and Frequency
It appears skin effect begins at about 8Khz (red).
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
My apologies Ed you got the opposite message I should have spoken more directly. Engineering is continuous learning, when something doesn't work as expected it's "broken" and you figure out how to fix it. You're experience does not necessarily translate to the "sound" of hand wound bee's wax and silver foil caps vs. a good commercial film cap that's also learning. I asked the designer himself (respected on all sides) about my little lab speakers and he told me that replacing the electrolytic cap with a film cap will make no difference.
BTW if I listen for small differences I use my Sennheiser 650's. I think one could spend literally days tabulating results from the web on op-amp rolling, I expect "extreme" differences in either direction on any given part are there.
The mattress(es) ?
I was under the impression that this thread had evolved into a corner where measured and/or otherwise reproducable information was shared and discussed, audio and otherwise.
Okay, but that's still only the beginning of the story. The whole story is complex, with some twists and turns. But, whatever the early history was, I think what is interesting now is why most good hi-fi speakers don't seem to work better than they do for mixing. That is, you can use your favorite hi fi speakers to make a great sounding mix on those speakers. But if you burn a CD, play it in your car, on your friend's different brand hi fi, etc., you usually find you have a list of things to go back a tweak to fix problems you now know about. Whether or not NS-10s work to one's liking for that type of use is a separate and distinct question from how Yamaha managed to get the speakers in so many studios to begin with. However, the fact the they were in most studios did mean if you knew how to mix on them it was very convenient having them there. But to say the only reason they were used was because they were handy would probably be to some extent jumping to conclusions. Once people learned how to mix on them, some people would bring their own if the studio didn't have them.
Interestingly, I had the opposite experience when I got my current speakers running- I heard all kinds of mixing and mastering issues that escaped me before. "Wow, you can really hear him run the fader up and down on that passage."
Nice to hear you are happy with your new speakers.
However, what would it have felt like if you said what you just did and half a dozen people responded to the effect that they can't hear those things are their system, so you must have a very vivid imagination? They also point out that you don't have a good way to measure fader moves or other mixing issues you claim to hear on the recordings you play. Of course, maybe you do imagine some of it and do correctly hear other things. No way to prove what's real, so we will conclude you are fooling yourself on everything. If something like that did happen to you, it probably wouldn't feel very good. And we might not be completely correct in our conclusions either.
I heard them at the Yamaha factory listening room (the one for vendors) and they were not to my taste but it was 1988 vintage CD's playing.
Which, is more or less what I said.
Yamaha did nothing to put them anywhere.
They were taken by surprise.
Once they caught on, they became a "constant" that people could know, from studio to studio. For all the reasons I cited, plus a few others probably.
And yes, things that sounded perfectly fine on one speaker may indeed sound not so great on another. Thus Auratone. Etc.
Car mixes are part of the craft.
What I said is 100% TRUE.
The article speaks about the tissue paper at POWER STATION, in NYC. Clearmountain & the famous tissue paper. The person I spoke to ran that studio. FYI.
As is pretty clear, once "big time" producers used that NS-10, everyone else wanted "in".
The NS-10 were first used by Phil Ramone at A&R likely before Power Station ever existed.
The person I know and spoke to knows precisely what happened, first hand. The story only covers the PR angle for Bob Clearmountain.
_-_-
They may be too revealing for general use, but they stop on a dime and won't take crap.
It is a well engineered speaker. The market isn't stupid, and sound engineers aren't deaf.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.