A lot has to do with near/close field monitoring > being so close is nothing like 'normal' room listening.
No. It became a nearfield monitor but was never developed ad such.
In what midrange focus is unique amongst nearfield monitors? Never heard about Auratones? You should take a look at their bandwidth... or ls3/5a, or...
Or read the link into message associated to understand the purpose of such 'band limited' nearfield in practice.
Too bad the folks at Bell Labs are long gone now……progressive understanding replaced with the cult of directivity. Scares the hell outta me what god the new church of AI and Scientism will bring to bear. Music is an analog representation of who we are……won’t be long now till the ‘are’ becomes ‘were’…….lost along with the subjective……how does that even happen?No. It became a nearfield monitor but was never developed ad such.
In what midrange focus is unique amongst nearfield monitors? Never heard about Auratones? You should take a look at their bandwidth... or ls3/5a, or...
Or read the link into message associated to understand the purpose of such 'band limited' nearfield in practice.
I wonder if Elon had a Vega back in the day? lol
The Auratone 5C cubes were just a reasonable quality 5" driver in a sealed 6" sealed cube. They had a limited band of 'flatness' but
early bass rolloff and extremely limited output above 10 Khz. The main reason the were used near-field was to provide some kind
of average sound that could mimic some of the mass lower quality audio systems used by consumers.
In some circles, they were coined > 'Horrortones'. The arrival of the NS10's raised the bar to a new more HiFi level.
Although Auratone released newer larger 2-way monitors, they never really took off, and the NS10 stuck as a standard for many years.
Nicknamed 'horrortones' mainly because of the high peak circa 11khz, non flatness and rolloff circa 100hz. All very interesting features when mixing, as it force engineer to focus on the important range ( more or less the inteligibility range, 300hz/6khz). And being a fullranger in sealed box no filter to mess things, and relatively good time domain behavior.
I never seen the NS10 as anything 'rising the bar' wrt audio quality. In fact when there was choice between the two i really prefered the 5c, but it's a preference thing and being used to both ( i was with the NS10 as with ATC and never liked both of them despite recognising the strength and weakness... go figure preferences!).
NS10 was no more than a 'standard' amongst many. They got their reputation because some 'star' engineer used them to mix records on them which were succesfull. They were small enough to be moved, and had quality which made them useful tools. Nothing magical about them really but being handy for free lance engineer they became a standard for engineer moving from rooms to rooms on a daily basis. As were the Auratones before them or ls3/5a.
It's a myth those nearfields were used to mimic the consumers systems: it's a fantasy to think a single pair of loudspeakers could do that. And the reason we usually have multiple loudspeakers references in control rooms. As there is ( was) a large range of consumer systems, from 2" portable receiver to full range behemoth... and we don't work for any of this systems in particular but we try to have translation between those different systems. You can call it average if you like but it usually is not, you can manage high quality level mixes that translate well from the better to the worst system. Of course not everybody have this skills...
If we talk about step increase in quality of nearfield rendering then NS10 are in same range than Auratones or Ls3/5a in my view ( ok the ones using tweeters can be better with 'busy' arrangements i concede) but the real 'hifi' step up was with Genelecs 1031( there is nothing hifi in NS10 imho). They offered increase in resolution in mid and high range, a more coherent directivity behavior, higher output level capability. Being active they solved the need for the associated amplifier ( NS10 required to be paired with Amcron/Crown DC150 amplifiers to deliver) and 'better' filtering ( being line level it took components away from amplifier/driver path which is responsible for the increase in definition imho). Larger bandwidth too but i'm not sure the introduction of bass reflex was an improvement overall as time domain behavior suffered wrt a sealed system.
But it was a compromise to be made as Genelec targeted not only pro control rooms but home/project studios too and these structures often lack a real high bandwidth high level capable main system. So they had to increase low freq output capability in a way or another... br it was. Some years later NHT introduced an other way to do it i largely prefered in using sealed+Linkwitz transform. If they had used some waveguide a la Genelec and the same approach for low end as in A20 those would have been some very very serious contender amongst the nearfields at the time...
We could take a look at coax nearfield too as Tannoy did some which are(were) very competent tools during same period... as Cabasse in France ( using coax too). And recently new coax system went into trends again for nearfields, Genelecs of course but Presonus, or even Tannoy ( despite not being Tannoy as in the golden days...) or Kali...
Or we could talk about other brands which made bridge between pro and hifi or even PA to hifi/pro. There is a bunch of them... and not only for nearfields.
People who think there is real borders between all this fields are wrong. Because some nicely engineered loudspeakers are just that.
And badly engineered or compromised choices make for useful tools during production is another whole mater. Often people see pictures or visit places and make shortcuts about what they see or hear without understanding the why and how...
I never seen the NS10 as anything 'rising the bar' wrt audio quality. In fact when there was choice between the two i really prefered the 5c, but it's a preference thing and being used to both ( i was with the NS10 as with ATC and never liked both of them despite recognising the strength and weakness... go figure preferences!).
NS10 was no more than a 'standard' amongst many. They got their reputation because some 'star' engineer used them to mix records on them which were succesfull. They were small enough to be moved, and had quality which made them useful tools. Nothing magical about them really but being handy for free lance engineer they became a standard for engineer moving from rooms to rooms on a daily basis. As were the Auratones before them or ls3/5a.
It's a myth those nearfields were used to mimic the consumers systems: it's a fantasy to think a single pair of loudspeakers could do that. And the reason we usually have multiple loudspeakers references in control rooms. As there is ( was) a large range of consumer systems, from 2" portable receiver to full range behemoth... and we don't work for any of this systems in particular but we try to have translation between those different systems. You can call it average if you like but it usually is not, you can manage high quality level mixes that translate well from the better to the worst system. Of course not everybody have this skills...
If we talk about step increase in quality of nearfield rendering then NS10 are in same range than Auratones or Ls3/5a in my view ( ok the ones using tweeters can be better with 'busy' arrangements i concede) but the real 'hifi' step up was with Genelecs 1031( there is nothing hifi in NS10 imho). They offered increase in resolution in mid and high range, a more coherent directivity behavior, higher output level capability. Being active they solved the need for the associated amplifier ( NS10 required to be paired with Amcron/Crown DC150 amplifiers to deliver) and 'better' filtering ( being line level it took components away from amplifier/driver path which is responsible for the increase in definition imho). Larger bandwidth too but i'm not sure the introduction of bass reflex was an improvement overall as time domain behavior suffered wrt a sealed system.
But it was a compromise to be made as Genelec targeted not only pro control rooms but home/project studios too and these structures often lack a real high bandwidth high level capable main system. So they had to increase low freq output capability in a way or another... br it was. Some years later NHT introduced an other way to do it i largely prefered in using sealed+Linkwitz transform. If they had used some waveguide a la Genelec and the same approach for low end as in A20 those would have been some very very serious contender amongst the nearfields at the time...
We could take a look at coax nearfield too as Tannoy did some which are(were) very competent tools during same period... as Cabasse in France ( using coax too). And recently new coax system went into trends again for nearfields, Genelecs of course but Presonus, or even Tannoy ( despite not being Tannoy as in the golden days...) or Kali...
Or we could talk about other brands which made bridge between pro and hifi or even PA to hifi/pro. There is a bunch of them... and not only for nearfields.
People who think there is real borders between all this fields are wrong. Because some nicely engineered loudspeakers are just that.
And badly engineered or compromised choices make for useful tools during production is another whole mater. Often people see pictures or visit places and make shortcuts about what they see or hear without understanding the why and how...
Last edited:
The NS10 monitor has been around forever and will be for a while to come until all the old timers who loyally swear by it pass on.
The NS10M could likely be one of the worst production speakers I've heard, especially considering their relatively high selling price compared to the performance you get. Any novice speaker builder with the basic knowledge of drivers and crossovers could design something similar even without the use of measurement equipment.
The thing that immediately raised suspicion when I saw an NS10 woofer (before even hearing it) was the seamed flat profile cone. Its made similar to one of those protective funnel collars for dogs. I immediately developed a prejudice against this speaker when I saw this as its probably the cheapest way to put together a speaker cone. Theres nothing special about the woofer whatsoever, not to mention the stamped steel basket. Calling it a woofer is being generous and a stamped basket isn't necessarily a deal breaker for a cheaper pair of speakers costing a few hundred dollars. However, for a high 3 digit price point as a main driver in a smaller bookshelf 2 way, it's unacceptable. The fact is, Yamaha engineers designed the NS10 woofer to have a light weight cone driven by a larger magnet, which is the typical Japanese recipe for a fullrange type driver. It does look alot like many of the Fostex FRs. Yamaha made a big deal of touting the NS10M as a phase coherent design... hmmm...
The tweeter was also an afterthought, as it sounded peaky, harsh and was quite fragile. Alot of people stuffed tissue paper in front of the tweeter to tame it. Yeah, that's a highly scientific way of fixing something of this nature. The crossover is made from a couple of nasty electrolytic caps with one of the two high distortion ferrite core inductors in series with the "woofer". Just about every aspect of these speakers is downright awful. The sealed enclosure is acceptable, being made from a relatively thick particle board with fiberglass stuffing.
So there's nothing special about the NS10s and they sound awful by any standards. The high 3rd order distortion across most of the curve is audible. Its simply awful and there's no other way to describe it, other than fatiguing, nasal, thin, sizzly and harsh are the best attributes I can come up with.
So why is this speaker so damn popular as a monitor? Its because of the marketing, its image and the fact you can count on them as a reference, being consistently nasty sounding. They do look sharp on a mixing desk but that's about it.
The NS10M could likely be one of the worst production speakers I've heard, especially considering their relatively high selling price compared to the performance you get. Any novice speaker builder with the basic knowledge of drivers and crossovers could design something similar even without the use of measurement equipment.
The thing that immediately raised suspicion when I saw an NS10 woofer (before even hearing it) was the seamed flat profile cone. Its made similar to one of those protective funnel collars for dogs. I immediately developed a prejudice against this speaker when I saw this as its probably the cheapest way to put together a speaker cone. Theres nothing special about the woofer whatsoever, not to mention the stamped steel basket. Calling it a woofer is being generous and a stamped basket isn't necessarily a deal breaker for a cheaper pair of speakers costing a few hundred dollars. However, for a high 3 digit price point as a main driver in a smaller bookshelf 2 way, it's unacceptable. The fact is, Yamaha engineers designed the NS10 woofer to have a light weight cone driven by a larger magnet, which is the typical Japanese recipe for a fullrange type driver. It does look alot like many of the Fostex FRs. Yamaha made a big deal of touting the NS10M as a phase coherent design... hmmm...
The tweeter was also an afterthought, as it sounded peaky, harsh and was quite fragile. Alot of people stuffed tissue paper in front of the tweeter to tame it. Yeah, that's a highly scientific way of fixing something of this nature. The crossover is made from a couple of nasty electrolytic caps with one of the two high distortion ferrite core inductors in series with the "woofer". Just about every aspect of these speakers is downright awful. The sealed enclosure is acceptable, being made from a relatively thick particle board with fiberglass stuffing.
So there's nothing special about the NS10s and they sound awful by any standards. The high 3rd order distortion across most of the curve is audible. Its simply awful and there's no other way to describe it, other than fatiguing, nasal, thin, sizzly and harsh are the best attributes I can come up with.
So why is this speaker so damn popular as a monitor? Its because of the marketing, its image and the fact you can count on them as a reference, being consistently nasty sounding. They do look sharp on a mixing desk but that's about it.
I know someone that has a case for their own pair that they take to recording sessions. When I asked why, because they sound so bad and you can get a much better / accurate monitor in a similar form factor, I was told (paraphrasing from memory) "Yeah I know, but I'm so used to them now that I can hear beyond their limitations and get a better idea what stuff will sound like when released". The discussion that followed about room positioning and FR errors in an unknown space vs the studio's soffit mounted calibrated monitors didn't elicit a great response.
The guy is a great muso, and they're all a but strange. Not unlike audiophiles.
The majority of casual music consumers have speakers like this, so it is good to have a reference with the NS10 😊
@Horneydude Sadly this is true, but its mainly due to the attitude of casual music listening, not giving or paying proper deserved attention to artistic creativity and emotion. In short, most people don't respect music enough to be active listeners rather than treat it as cheap acoustic background noise filler.
@Brett You can get used to some anomalies with monitors, but i can't understand how someone can tolerate the high level of irritating distortion and jagged FR as a tool for producing a better than just decent mix. If you can't hear nuances and fine details in your mix, you won't be able to achieve a higher caliber mix that stands up to the scrutiny of a more critical listener or dare I say "audiophile". NS10s are just too bandwidth limited and distorted to hear the finer treble or lower bass in a mix.
The woofer/mid has a crossover at 2Khz... so much of that is the tweeter...
This is an interesting article... it talks about the NS10. Here's the calculated frequency response and the group delay... note the low group delay..
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story?page=2
https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf
This is an interesting article... it talks about the NS10. Here's the calculated frequency response and the group delay... note the low group delay..
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story?page=2
https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf
Last edited:
Cause it is NOT linear. It shows the midrange with a magnifying glass. You don't get distracted from low frequencies and when HF doesn't bleed your ears it's at least not too much.
The same reason I don't use "high end music" with panflute, acoustic guitar and a female child voice singer and 3s reverb for testing speakers or setting up PAs. This sounds good on every speaker, it is no challenge to reproduce and doesn't even show the whole audio range.
I choose dense, broadband mixes which are not 100% perfect. e.g. No one knows from QOTSA - it is a little nasally. When it's too nasal you run into problems with a PA % live music situation, when it doesn't show the nasality your midrange is lying and you lack information/detail. The quitars are like pink noise and show frequency holes/peaks. And it's fun to blast this song during soundcheck in opera halls or jazz clubs 😎
I also prefer linear monitoring and don't use the kitchen radio/car comparisons during mixing. But a NS10 is a tool for a purpose. Also the pronounced HF of older Genelec Monitors - I can't stand it but they throw HF details in your face and you quickly hear mistakes/issues.
The 'mains' are the tools on which during recording, the engineer makes choice relative to low/highs and this happen during takes.
At least this is how it used to be.
In a studio i worked with i had access to tapes of very famous hits from very famous bands from 80's: you load the 2" set the faders at unity and you had it, the same sound. Little bit less polished than after the mix but still, the sound is 'there' without any treatments, lows to high.
The studio was choosen because it was the 'standard' room for such production ( Hidley's room from 70's) and because of the mains which were used during tracking. They did not used the nearfield before the mixing...
In my view mixing is all about relative level, a bit of cosmetic (fx) and pleasing the artist. It can be done on any relatively good loudspeakers if previous production step was done as it should had been in my view. And in no way i work for someone in particular (audiophile or teenager using phone and earbuds): i work for the track to sound as i and the artist think it should. They (the artist) are the one to be pleased, the one which put his guts on the table, the one which knows how it should sound in the end.
Mastering can have different requirement.
Let me tell you about a situation i've seen: owner of a mixing dedicated room changed his loudspeakers for an 'audiophile' kind ( maybe i should rather say a mastering grade). First month he was delighted to hear such details and other subtelities.
I come back a year later and the 'fine' loudspeakers had disapeared. I was really astonished because he was really enthousiastic about them, maybe he did something foolish with them and they had been destroyed? I ask him and this is what he said: 'those are marvelous loudspeakers and they are now at home. But i can't work on them, i keep on chasing issues i'm the only one to hear and it makes all mix taking too long to achieve... i can't afford this as i'm running a business where clients want things fast and i have bill to pay'.
Back to 'off the shelf' monitor.
Last edited:
That is how it should be. In a commercial setting, where music is another consumable for the people, managers are in charge. For instance the "loudness war".
To easy to point finger on someone particular about loudness war imho.
We are all responsible of it: technician do what they are asked for ( at least this is what i've seen, maybe except for a few guys/girls which can do what they want because they are 'stars') but we advice for the outcome. Sometimes artist do not know what they want or don't have a reilable way to communicate ( 'could you make it... greener? ' 😱😧 ), sometimes an ***.ole decided he have the knowledge to be a producer,... but at one point artist are the one which have the final cut.
Often not ( reminds me of the scene in 'Mulholland Drive' where the director ( Justin Theyroux) meets the executive producers about 'the girl').
I see no problem with very high rms level on some style ( i'm a Drum &Bass dj and i like to work on metal) the issue is when it's generalised.
We are all responsible of it: technician do what they are asked for ( at least this is what i've seen, maybe except for a few guys/girls which can do what they want because they are 'stars') but we advice for the outcome. Sometimes artist do not know what they want or don't have a reilable way to communicate ( 'could you make it... greener? ' 😱😧 ), sometimes an ***.ole decided he have the knowledge to be a producer,... but at one point artist are the one which have the final cut.
Often not ( reminds me of the scene in 'Mulholland Drive' where the director ( Justin Theyroux) meets the executive producers about 'the girl').
I see no problem with very high rms level on some style ( i'm a Drum &Bass dj and i like to work on metal) the issue is when it's generalised.
I understand all of the arguments for and against certain processes which are an ingrained part of music production. I was one of the guys who did this and wore my heart on my sleeve. There was alot of shotty gear being used which was called "professional" just because it was rack mounted, had a high price tag and a 3 prong mains cord.
In defense of how I feel about NS10s, I stand behind my assessment. That midrange peak with breakup of the woofer is atrocious. It made your ears bleed even if the EQ was flat. The woofer did all of the heavy lifting anyways playing in the heart of what would be the most important frequency band to our ears. The tweeter is just a bad filler the rest of what's there.
I disagree about playing "audiophile" music for testing mains or large format monitors. It doesn't sound good on bad gear. That's simply not true. The old adage of "garbage in - garbage out" still applies. And yes, spooling up a multitrack master and sticking the faders at unity is EXACTLY how it should be done to sound right. The rest is all fluff. Loudness wars of the 90s on up were mainly to blame on producers wanting to outgun other songs on the radio with and aggressive sounding in your face mix, at the expense of fidelity. The amount of distortion tolerated in most modern production music is unacceptable. You wouldn't notice it as much playing it in a car or other locations as background filler material, but with even somewhat decent speakers its just intolerable. The ones who miss out here are the active listeners who enjoy music with good sound quality and production finesse.
I've built, serviced and calibrated enough large format monitors to know where the priorities are in music production. I used to own a pair of JBL 4430s and mixed on them extensively. They were my main reference back in that time, mainly because they sounded "right", providing accurate spacial cues (imaged well), very good dynamics and exposed any temporal issues or FR deficiencies. They were also very popular amongst most studios back from the early 80s to late 90s. I used to modify the crossovers to get the last bit of performance from them. I also enjoyed casually listening to music on my 4430s, getting an accurate engineers perspective on the mix.
Fact is, more and more engineers and producers are switching to smaller monitors, even for the midfield and sometimes farfield, then just add subs to fill in the bottom. This type of speaker isn't as flat across a wide field of listening, mainly due to lack of baffle area and also limited lower midrange output dynamic range at the added expense of higher distortion across the entire range. NS10s distort everywhere, which is why they don't allow an engineer to get good separation of instruments, other than just using the same exact EQ and/or processing on EVERYTHING they mix. There's little regard for the actual content being mixed and more of just knowing where in time you are in the flow of the music. Alot of engineers fly blind this way and just apply the same treatment to anything they touch. Many engineers have their own identifiable specific "sound". Nothing wrong with that but not being able to hear accurately in the tracking phase (when nearfield monitoring is mostly employed) makes for (the same habit of) poor choices ie. cranking more EQ into things which don't need it. Having some monitoring bandwidth limitations can be a good thing, but only if the quality and resolution are sufficient.
To address the actual title of the thread, large coax monitors are still relevant tools if they're designed properly. The larger Tannoy Golds are still very good, especially with some crossover upgrades. Vinyl mastering guys like Bernie Grundman have used these for most mastering processes and he trusted their accuracy over other speakers with a much higher price tag.
The last coax I built was with the Eminence KL3012CX and Faital Pro HF108 drivers, crossed at 900 Hz. They sounded alot like my older JBL 4430s. Due to the coax format, they worked well in the midfield and farfield, requiring no extra EQ between both listening fields. They also had sufficient low end to not need the help of subs. They don't however sound as accurate in the mids compared to a decent larger 3 way system.
A dedicated mid will almost always sound better than a 2 way with the same size woofer having to play up higher to mate with a CD. IMO the main drawback of large format coax are the physical VC gap and the cone being a compromised shape WG. Those can be substantial issues depending on how clever the engineers were when they designed the driver and filter networks. Having the CD acoustic center further back in plane compared to the woofer almost always necessitates DSP based crossover and delay to avoid time alignment issues and related transient errors.
There are some tricks you can use to make passive filters work properly with a coax. It almost always requires the use of mixed rolloff slopes and/or allpass delay elements. Allpass delays can be tricky and degrade signal integrity, so most people would avoid them, especially considering the cost factor requiring more expensive filter components.
In defense of how I feel about NS10s, I stand behind my assessment. That midrange peak with breakup of the woofer is atrocious. It made your ears bleed even if the EQ was flat. The woofer did all of the heavy lifting anyways playing in the heart of what would be the most important frequency band to our ears. The tweeter is just a bad filler the rest of what's there.
I disagree about playing "audiophile" music for testing mains or large format monitors. It doesn't sound good on bad gear. That's simply not true. The old adage of "garbage in - garbage out" still applies. And yes, spooling up a multitrack master and sticking the faders at unity is EXACTLY how it should be done to sound right. The rest is all fluff. Loudness wars of the 90s on up were mainly to blame on producers wanting to outgun other songs on the radio with and aggressive sounding in your face mix, at the expense of fidelity. The amount of distortion tolerated in most modern production music is unacceptable. You wouldn't notice it as much playing it in a car or other locations as background filler material, but with even somewhat decent speakers its just intolerable. The ones who miss out here are the active listeners who enjoy music with good sound quality and production finesse.
I've built, serviced and calibrated enough large format monitors to know where the priorities are in music production. I used to own a pair of JBL 4430s and mixed on them extensively. They were my main reference back in that time, mainly because they sounded "right", providing accurate spacial cues (imaged well), very good dynamics and exposed any temporal issues or FR deficiencies. They were also very popular amongst most studios back from the early 80s to late 90s. I used to modify the crossovers to get the last bit of performance from them. I also enjoyed casually listening to music on my 4430s, getting an accurate engineers perspective on the mix.
Fact is, more and more engineers and producers are switching to smaller monitors, even for the midfield and sometimes farfield, then just add subs to fill in the bottom. This type of speaker isn't as flat across a wide field of listening, mainly due to lack of baffle area and also limited lower midrange output dynamic range at the added expense of higher distortion across the entire range. NS10s distort everywhere, which is why they don't allow an engineer to get good separation of instruments, other than just using the same exact EQ and/or processing on EVERYTHING they mix. There's little regard for the actual content being mixed and more of just knowing where in time you are in the flow of the music. Alot of engineers fly blind this way and just apply the same treatment to anything they touch. Many engineers have their own identifiable specific "sound". Nothing wrong with that but not being able to hear accurately in the tracking phase (when nearfield monitoring is mostly employed) makes for (the same habit of) poor choices ie. cranking more EQ into things which don't need it. Having some monitoring bandwidth limitations can be a good thing, but only if the quality and resolution are sufficient.
To address the actual title of the thread, large coax monitors are still relevant tools if they're designed properly. The larger Tannoy Golds are still very good, especially with some crossover upgrades. Vinyl mastering guys like Bernie Grundman have used these for most mastering processes and he trusted their accuracy over other speakers with a much higher price tag.
The last coax I built was with the Eminence KL3012CX and Faital Pro HF108 drivers, crossed at 900 Hz. They sounded alot like my older JBL 4430s. Due to the coax format, they worked well in the midfield and farfield, requiring no extra EQ between both listening fields. They also had sufficient low end to not need the help of subs. They don't however sound as accurate in the mids compared to a decent larger 3 way system.
A dedicated mid will almost always sound better than a 2 way with the same size woofer having to play up higher to mate with a CD. IMO the main drawback of large format coax are the physical VC gap and the cone being a compromised shape WG. Those can be substantial issues depending on how clever the engineers were when they designed the driver and filter networks. Having the CD acoustic center further back in plane compared to the woofer almost always necessitates DSP based crossover and delay to avoid time alignment issues and related transient errors.
There are some tricks you can use to make passive filters work properly with a coax. It almost always requires the use of mixed rolloff slopes and/or allpass delay elements. Allpass delays can be tricky and degrade signal integrity, so most people would avoid them, especially considering the cost factor requiring more expensive filter components.
Another completely derailed thread, turning into the umpteenth ******* contest. Boring, boring, boring....