A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[NTK]

From:

http://davidgriesinger.com/binaural_hearing.ppt

 

[Blueprint]

The opposite is true, believe me. Ran into Bo Diddley when he was doing smaller gigs, and he would blow your socks off - whichever guitar you'd give him.
These days everybody can look up just about anything on the interweb, promptly thinking it's not that hard - and have at it. Mixed results, mostly - pun intended.
Experience comes from failing, and trying again. As to deeply flawed, yeah, sure... If you say so.

Cheers

You are conflating sound production with sound reproduction. Sound reproduction should be uncolored in order to showcase the sound production in its purest form. Anything else is a distortion of the real sound.

 

[kyuu]

The opposite is true, believe me. Ran into Bo Diddley when he was doing smaller gigs, and he would blow your socks off - whichever guitar you'd give him.
These days everybody can look up just about anything on the interweb, promptly thinking it's not that hard - and have at it. Mixed results, mostly - pun intended.
Experience comes from failing, and trying again. As to deeply flawed, yeah, sure... If you say so.

Cheers

This is a head-scratcher. Whether someone who is skilled with an instrument can perform well on instruments of varying quality is truly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Worse, by your logic giving a beginner the cheapest piece of crap instrument will somehow make them a better performer, or make them learn faster? Total nonsense.

There's obvious advantages to having neutral speakers for mixing work. On the other hand, there are no obvious advantages to the alternative. If one wishes to alter the frequency response to test for something specific, the better way to do this would be with equalization. There's no need or advantage to having a bunch of loudspeakers with random frequency responses. The fact that one may (or may not) have made good mixes with poor equipment is really neither here nor there.

 

[Chr1]

Also, from what I have heard, Bo Diddley was not particularly highly rated amongst technically proficient guitar players. Nor was Chuck Berry or numerous others from the glory days of RnR.
Inovators sure, but not particularly technically gifted on the guitar.

 

[Palmer]

@ Kyuu - Anybody for themselves, if you have a better way, instruments or recording - go for it. I have my experiences, you have yours. Total nonsense? Sure... rude, though.

@ Chr1 - I have run into technically masterful musicians, that failed to get anyone exited. Bo Diddley, may he rest in peace, was mesmerizing in comparison.

Appreciate it...

 

[kyuu]

@ Kyuu - Anybody for themselves, if you have a better way, instruments or recording - go for it. I have my experiences, you have yours. Total nonsense? Sure... rude, though.

So you have actual experience that skilled performers perform better on poor instruments than on good ones? Do tell. Again, the fact that a skilled performer can sound good despite using a poor instrument is not the question. The question is if a poor instrument somehow makes them better.

Even then, the analogy is a poor one. A speaker is not an instrument. It has an entirely different job.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I'm sorry to point this out, but if you believe that the NS10 was used in studios to somehow represent an "average bad" loudspeaker at the home of an average music consumer, you got it all wrong.

No, I don't think that at all. What I said was that the NS-10M closely resembles the timbral signature of a loudspeaker, the Auratone 5C, that was quite deliberately designed to represent the sound of very common table radios and TVs of the 1960s. In fact, I understand that they sourced the little driver from a company that made them for that market. It was a very coloured, not at all neutral, loudspeaker, which, as I said, had some justification at that time. But that time passed. TV sound (and picture) quality has much improved. The best sound bars are quite impressive.

The acceptance of the NS-10M Pro is another topic, but it shares a remarkably similar timbral signature to the Auratone 5C. Is it an accident? So, why was/is it used? I have heard several logical arguments relating to how it assists in mixing voices, judging reverb, etc. all of which are fine for the mix operation, but not for final evaluation of the product for release. That should include the mastering phase, using more neutral loudspeakers - at least as I see it. I suspect we agree on that. I forget who said it, and I may well have mentioned it in one of my books, but a highly respected mastering engineer is quoted as saying something like "I can recognize the influence of NS-10Ms in some masters, and I do what I can to counteract it." So, it is not just me.

If any kind of non-neutral spectrum is useful in the mixing process by all means use it - but one does not need flawed loudspeakers, each one representing every kind of spectral distortion - midrange emphasis, bass limitation, etc. - that, as we both agree, can be done with equalization. It is a digital world. High pass filtering can imitate the bass limitations of small speakers, but unfortunately not the amplitude compression at low frequencies that is used in millions of small active units to prevent distortion and damage at high volume settings - and there are no standards for how this is done - there is more bass at low sound levels than at high levels.

I used to use Paul Simon's "Graceland" as an example of a mix aimed at the masses - in the version I had there was almost nothing below about 100 Hz, yet it had enjoyable kick drum. I did a spectral analysis of it. No need for a subwoofer.

I dip into some pro audio discussion groups from time to time, and the NS-10M fans are still out there. One contributor recently enthused that it was probably the best monitor loudspeaker ever created. His post got lots of "likes". This is now, not the '60s.

BTW, we absolutely agree on the topic compression/excess average loudness in mastering. I read that the mastering process, nowadays often adapting material for streaming, is often automated, and that AI looms as a replacement for human mastering engineers. Depressing.

 

[Vuki]

IMO Urei811 isn't bad - it's fr resembles in-room respone of good hi-fi speakers. In well dampened studio and fairly near-field lp it should sound fine.

 

[Palmer]

So you have actual experience that skilled performers perform better on poor instruments than on good ones? Do tell. Again, the fact that a skilled performer can sound good despite using a poor instrument is not the question. The question is if a poor instrument somehow makes them better.

Even then, the analogy is a poor one. A speaker is not an instrument. It has an entirely different job.

Dear fellow, I said that a skilled performer - cats we called them - performs well on any instrument, because, most likely, they started on lesser instruments. That's just a fact.

I did so, and a lot of the musicians I worked with, had the same background. We didn't have parents or family who'd get us the axe we wanted, so we had to work for it.

If you talk to anybody who is a master in anything, you will hear the same - I have had the honor to run into a couple. The reason why I stopped teaching recording engineering is that out of hundreds of students per semester - only a handful was open and willing to learn, and what all the other ones wanted to hear, was what they wanted to hear.
Pays the bills for sure, but makes ones heart ache, and becomes unhealthy.

I worked as a lab technician, later as the manager of a motion picture film development lab, and the old man who ran the dark end did so blindly for many years, until someone found out that with night vision goggles, if you filtered the infrared light (little red coming out, bad for film) you could actually see what the heck you were doing.
In green that is, but way easier. This man could run the line in any case, because he could do it, well, blind. Other dark end guys, not so much.

Therefore I recommend to listen to the older guys (and gals) from the time when the mains were actually just another instrument in the studio, and you'd get your behind kicked out if you weren't doing things right. Me, and many others like me, started by making very good coffee, and emptying ashtrays most of the time, thank you very much.

Cheers.

 

[goat76]

The acceptance of the NS-10M Pro is another topic, but it shares a remarkably similar timbral signature to the Auratone 5C. Is it an accident? So, why was/is it used? I have heard several logical arguments relating to how it assists in mixing voices, judging reverb, etc. all of which are fine for the mix operation, but not for final evaluation of the product for release. That should include the mastering phase, using more neutral loudspeakers - at least as I see it. I suspect we agree on that. I forget who said it, and I may well have mentioned it in one of my books, but a highly respected mastering engineer is quoted as saying something like "I can recognize the influence of NS-10Ms in some masters, and I do what I can to counteract it." So, it is not just me.

I have also heard of that mastering engineer saying that, but I have never heard anyone else before or after that saying the same. The fact is, the NS-10s were so commonly used and pretty much a studio standard for such a long time, so we should have heard many more stories of how those loudspeakers "contaminated" many audio mixes for decades. But instead, there are so many tracks and albums mixed on NS-10s that are considered some of the best done, and some of them are even regarded as top references when it comes to mixing music.

It's not like anyone was forced to use the NS-10s, and most of the mixing engineers who liked using that monitor probably came to the conclusion that it led to reliable and fast results compared to other monitors they used before, otherwise they would have quickly changed to something else, as their job is highly dependent on delivering a satisfying result to their paying clients.

I think we should first recognize the problems (which in this case should be obvious errors in many music mixes caused by the use of the NS-10s) before we go out trying the solve them. I have asked many people on this forum, people who are certain there is a problem using NS-10s in mixing music, if they can give a few examples of tracks or albums that have been negatively affected by the use of the NS-10s. No one seems to be able to do that, even though that should be a simple task based on how commonly used the NS-10s are in the studio world.

Is it just a theoretical problem?

 

[Palmer]

I somewhat have to agree with Dr. Floyd Toole, on this particular point :

"I dip into some pro audio discussion groups from time to time, and the NS-10M fans are still out there. One contributor recently enthused that it was probably the best monitor loudspeaker ever created. His post got lots of "likes". This is now, not the '60s. "

The pendulum does swing in both directions - the reason the NS-10M is still around seems to be that, despite having probably not gotten the hang of it when it "was" around first, and made the impact that they did, the perception stuck, and some (younger) people still think it is a key to a great mix. I personally never liked them in my time, but you learned how a mix should come off of them, amongst the mains (and the Auratones ) and acted accordingly.

I built a small studio, way back, for a man who made pretty good theater music, he recorded on tape and did rather well, for the limitations - as mains
I installed flush mounted JBL 4425s, in soffits- LEDE room design, and for a while he got along well with the new setup. Way better mixes, I forgot what he used before.

He did not like them, however - and a year or so later he had some guy take them out, and put something else in, what I don't recall - and his mixes went down again.
Still, he liked the new speakers, and was convinced everything turned out better for the change. Nobody, including his clients, could talk him out of it.

So, to some degree, I think that today one has much better choices for monitors than, say 30 years ago - and if I'd be getting started I would probably not get into the NS10M nostalgia. But coming of age in that era, I'd need at least some of the feedback that I am used to, and for one reason or another - the Augspurgers hang on, despite Genelec, for one, replacing the old horses. Very slowly, though...

Things change, so do tastes - in music, and how it is mixed. This is now, not the '60s... true, and true.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I have also heard of that mastering engineer saying that, but I have never heard anyone else before or after that saying the same. The fact is, the NS-10s were so commonly used and pretty much a studio standard for such a long time, so we should have heard many more stories of how those loudspeakers "contaminated" many audio mixes for decades. But instead, there are so many tracks and albums mixed on NS-10s that are considered some of the best done, and some of them are even regarded as top references when it comes to mixing music.

It's not like anyone was forced to use the NS-10s, and most of the mixing engineers who liked using that monitor probably came to the conclusion that it led to reliable and fast results compared to other monitors they used before, otherwise they would have quickly changed to something else, as their job is highly dependent on delivering a satisfying result to their paying clients.

I think we should first recognize the problems (which in this case should be obvious errors in many music mixes caused by the use of the NS-10s) before we go out trying the solve them. I have asked many people on this forum, people who are certain there is a problem using NS-10s in mixing music, if they can give a few examples of tracks or albums that have been negatively affected by the use of the NS-10s. No one seems to be able to do that, even though that should be a simple task based on how commonly used the NS-10s are in the studio world.

Is it just a theoretical problem?

It isn't theoretical, but it may or may not be a problem. Hit records are determined by more than the monitor loudspeakers - the music and musicians matter, the skill and taste of the recording and mastering engineers matter. Some people seem to prefer to give credit to technical and acoustical factors. Today's marketplace is such that it is difficult to track. Opinions that are not from blind, equal loudness, comparative evaluations are not reliable data - that is a proven fact.

The present reality is that many fundamentally neutral loudspeakers exist in control rooms. If NS-10Ms are responsible for hit records, why would anyone in their right minds use Genelec, Neumann, Dutch and Dutch, JBL or increasing numbers of other boringly neutral loudspeakers. Anyway, get the room curve right and it doesn't matter, eh?

Both pro and consumer audio have problems, but there are solutions to both. The first threshold to cross is to separate the technical, measurable factors from the artistic content. All good mics and all electronics aim for ruler flat frequency responses, and always have done. Why would loudspeakers be an exception? Look at the title of the slide in post #741 for a clue.

 

[Newman]

I have also heard of that mastering engineer saying that, but I have never heard anyone else before or after that saying the same. The fact is, the NS-10s were so commonly used and pretty much a studio standard for such a long time, so we should have heard many more stories of how those loudspeakers "contaminated" many audio mixes for decades. But instead, there are so many tracks and albums mixed on NS-10s that are considered some of the best done, and some of them are even regarded as top references when it comes to mixing music.

Like Dr Toole already replied to you, mixing on them is not a problem, as long as mastering was done on more neutral speakers.

If you have clear evidence of reference-grade releases that were mastered on them, let's see the list.

Anyway, flukes happen. The list would have to add up to a serious body of work before it becomes an indication that studio engineers are genius 'translators' who can do their final master on a seriously coloured speaker and reliably get reference grade results that sound unbelievable on reference-grade playback systems.

 

[respice finem]

...I read that the mastering process, nowadays often adapting material for streaming, is often automated, and that AI looms as a replacement for human mastering engineers. Depressing.

I'm afraid there is no escape, at least at this moment of worldwide AI hype. Producers, big or small, want to appeal to a large audience, so... Maybe there should be two versions of every new issue - one for the masses, car audio and such, and one for the more discerning listeners?

 

[goat76]

Like Dr Toole already replied to you, mixing on them is not a problem, as long as mastering was done on more neutral speakers.

If you have clear evidence of reference-grade releases that were mastered on them, let's see the list.

Anyway, flukes happen. The list would have to add up to a serious body of work before it becomes an indication that studio engineers are genius 'translators' who can do their final master on a seriously coloured speaker and reliably get reference grade results that sound unbelievable on reference-grade playback systems.

I have never heard of anyone using the Yamaha NS-10s as their main speaker for mastering, so I don't see the point in me trying to find a couple of strange guys using that speaker for that specific task.

Maybe it's you who need to do the research if your main concern is the use of NS-10s for mastering.
Can you find any releases that were mastered on them? That's the task I’m giving to you.

A hint: The NS-10s have never been a commonly used loudspeaker for mastering.

 

[Newman]

I have never heard of anyone using the Yamaha NS-10s as their main speaker for mastering, so I don't see the point in me trying to find a couple of strange guys using that speaker for that specific task.

Good, so there is no issue. As Dr Toole tried to explain to you and I tried to reiterate, the mastering speakers are the critical ones for overall sound quality and addressing circle of confusion problems. Your attempt to make it all about the mixing speakers is a non-sequitur.

Maybe it's you who need to do the research if your main concern is the use of NS-10s for mastering.
Can you find any releases that were mastered on them? That's the task I’m giving to you.

Nice try, but fail. You missed the logic of the argument.

 

[Arindal]

All good mics and all electronics aim for ruler flat frequency responses, and always have done. Why would loudspeakers be an exception?

Fully agree to the theory of a general standardization of loudspeaker tonality (not for microphones, though, but that is not the topic here). If mixing, mastering and hi-fi could agree on a standard of tonal linearity based solely on measurements, that would eliminate a lot of confusion and incompatibilities. There are some implications and practical questions coming with that, though, and I would like to hear what you think about them:

- Technical linearity to ensure that everyone is hearing more or less the same in terms of tonality, in my understanding would include on-axis response, early reflection response and diffuse response as well as a tolerance band for the ratio of direct vs. indirect sound. Which would practically remove all loudspeakers with non-constant directivity and all rooms with higher reverberation time from the list of potentially linear listening conditions.
- How do you imagine to translate that to home listening conditions for people who don't want to invest heavily in room treatment and expensive loudspeakers?
- wouldn´t a concept of standardization by measured linearity render all subjective preference tests on loudspeakers ever conducted, invalid, including controlled tests like your own´s and Dr. Olive´s I mean, if linearity is defined as a technical parameter, no-one should be even allowed to be asked if he or she ´likes´ a certain setup more than the other, as the question is answered a priori by the measurements.

 

[Palmer]

Good, so there is no issue. As Dr Toole tried to explain to you and I tried to reiterate, the mastering speakers are the critical ones for overall sound quality and addressing circle of confusion problems. Your attempt to make it all about the mixing speakers is a non-sequitur.


Nice try, but fail. You missed the logic of the argument.

Geez, don't matter how someone records the thing - the mastering can fix it, those are the geniuses, " and reliably get reference grade results that sound unbelievable on reference-grade playback systems. " Here is another one of those people who don't get it, not the best Studio either, apparently... somebody should have told Peter Gabriel.
He did get into Solid State Logic, when the time was right though - lucky, I guess. My opinion, of course - just reflecting on my decades in the field. What do I know...

 

[sigbergaudio]

I've shared this before, but as a small data point, here is an in-room measurement of the NS10s from the listening position in the control room of a relatively large studio (left and right channel, 1/12 smoothing). It sounded roughly like you'd expect from the graph.

 

[Blockader]

Geez, don't matter how someone records the thing - the mastering can fix it, those are the geniuses, " and reliably get reference grade results that sound unbelievable on reference-grade playback systems. " Here is another one of those people who don't get it, not the best Studio either, apparently... somebody should have told Peter Gabriel.
He did get into Solid State Logic, when the time was right though - lucky, I guess. My opinion, of course - just reflecting on my decades in the field. What do I know...

View attachment 466946

Appeal to authority adds close to none value in a technical discussion, especially when it's anecdotal. This kind of argument has no value in a forum focused on audio science.