Avantone CLA-10 (Yamaha NS-10M Clone) Review

[Cbdb2]

So back to mixing…

There is no point whatsoever for making different mixes for different devices, the best-sounding mix with good translation will sound good whatever the device it is played on from a strict sound quality view.

But I’m still waiting for your explanation what changes you think is needed in a mix to suit different devices, but you seem to actively avoid answering that question so I assume you really don't have an idea what that would be.

Dynamics. Highly compressed for car etc. less compression for hifi. and if you buy one you get both. Easy enough to do.
Some video games already do this, one I know gives you 4 choices plus an immersive HP mix.

 

[Doodski]

The main reason that some mixes sound worse than others is that not all mixing engineers are equally good at mixing music.

Some are seemingly horrible and erratic.

Other than that, one of the most important things for any mixing engineer, no matter how good they are, is that they trust the speakers and the gear they use. The trust comes from the result of the translation they hear and the feedback they get on their work.

That seems pretty subjective. All the more benefit of having sound quality standards globally applied to studio work and audio gear/equipment. The sooner the better.

 

[amirm]

Armin this is exactly why you should go and sit in on a few mix engineer or mastering sessions if you can. You will learn a lot.

I am sure I can learn a *ton* by doing this but none of it would be about the topic at hand: proper sound production/reproduction in rooms. There, our researchers have been looking into this topic for 40+ years. Not sitting there screwing around with a consumer speaker they saw in Tokyo, but the real deal. Having done that, they realize that what you all do can make or break even the best performing system we can put together. Yet you are not even aware of your role in that and problems you have created.

Here is one of those researchers: Dr. Sean Olive, AES fellow and ex president of Audio Engineering Society, a classically trained pianist and graduate of McGill University, one of the top schools when it comes to music technology: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

"Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction."

You see that? The single largest problem facing fidelity of music and music systems for people who consume your content.

He goes on to say:

"A random sampling of ones own music library will quickly confirm the variation in sound quality that exists among different music recordings. Apart from audible differences in dynamic range, spatial imagery, and noise and distortion, the spectral balance of recordings can vary dramatically in terms of their brightness and particularly, the quality and quantity of bass. The magnitude of these differences suggests that something other than variations in artistic judgment and good taste is at the root cause of this problem."

Still think it is a 1% problem? I think not. Here is how he nicely damns this whole process of "translation" by using crappy speakers:

"The most likely culprits are the loudspeakers and rooms through which the recording were made. While there are many excellent professional near-field monitors in the marketplace today, there are no industry guidelines or standards to ensure that they are used. The lack of meaningful, perceptually relevant loudspeaker specifications makes the excellent loudspeakers difficult to identify and separate from the truly mediocre ones. To make matters worse, some misguided recording engineers monitor and tweak their recordings through low-fidelity loudspeakers thinking that this represents what the average consumer will hear. Since loudspeakers can be mediocre in an infinite number of ways, this practice only guarantees that quality of the recording will be compromised when heard through good loudspeakers [1]. This is very counterproductive if we want to improve the quality and consistency of audio recording and reproduction."

And of course while we have been talking about the wrong speaker being used, the room is a huge problem as I showed in the Genelec study and Dr. Olive iterates:

"Another significant source of variation in the recording process stems from acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker and the listening room [1]-[3] Below 300-500 Hz, the placement of the loudspeaker-listener can cause >18 dB variations in the in-room response due to room resonances and placing the loudspeaker in proximity to a room boundary.

[....] Below 100 Hz, the in-room bass response can vary as much 25 dB among the different control rooms! You needn’t look any further than here to understand why the quality and quantity of bass is so variable among the recordings in your music library."

And the problem I told you I face in reviewing speakers (and headphones):

"Loudspeaker manufacturers are also trapped in the circle of confusion since music recordings are used by listening panels, audio reviewers, and consumers to ultimately judge the sound quality of the loudspeaker. The problem is that distortions in the recording cannot be easily separated from those produced by the loudspeaker. For example, a recording that is too bright can make a dull loudspeaker sound good, and an accurate loudspeaker sound too bright [5]. A review of the scientific literature on loudspeaker listening tests indicates that recordings are a serious nuisance variable that need to be carefully selected and controlled in the experimental design and analysis of test results."

Yet you have the audacity to say we shouldn't even be allowed to comment on this topic.

Finishing with what I have been saying (independent of their teachings, having also had a strong leg in video where standards matter for the same reason):

"As Toole points out in [1], the key in breaking the circle of confusion lies in the hands of the professional audio industry where the art is created. A meaningful standard that defined the quality and calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and consistency of recordings. The same standard could then be applied to the playback of the recording in the consumer’s home or automobile. Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist intended."

So I suggest you put aside your one-liner arguments and take the opportunity to learn what it means to have fidelity. And how a standard is critical and necessary in achieving that. Your video counterparts are laughing at you all day, every day and twice on Sunday for not understanding this simple concept. Start learning this topic at a deep level. Know that such research has a ton to teach you as well. Don't sit on folklore and useless ideas. It is never too late to start doing the right thing. Do it now. Join us in advocating proper sound production and reproduction.

 

[Robbo99999]

Now you make the same mistake as Amir and assume that the use of NS-10s will always affect the overall tonality of a mix, but that is not what that speaker generally was used for.

I think it's time for you to be more specific about how the use of the NS-10s for specific tasks for mixing music affected the end result of some specific music productions, otherwise, it is just a presumption you have no proof of, and I think you should acknowledge that.

Please be specific and analyze a few mixes you know were done using the NS-10s in the production, and report back what artifacts you find that you with a high amount certainly can say were caused by the use of that speaker. Unless you can do that, you have nothing to complain about.

The main reason that some mixes sound worse than others is that not all mixing engineers are equally good at mixing music. This is something @Geert took up earlier in the thread but I think that post was overlooked by many people in this thread. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...yamaha-ns-10m-clone-review.46954/post-1683926
Other than that, one of the most important things for any mixing engineer, no matter how good they are, is that they trust the speakers and the gear they use. The trust comes from the result of the translation they hear and the feedback they get on their work.

Fair enough, but we've even been through that before: you could just use EQ on your Anechoic Flat Full Range speakers to concentrate on the mids (you would recess the other areas using parametric EQ). And if you do it that way you're not getting any strange peaks or dips in that mids area (because it's a flat/good speaker), so you're optimising your ability to balance within the mids because you're not being mislead by an uneven frequency response in the mids. Using a wonky speaker for the task shouldn't be necessary & would be sub-optimal.

 

[PeteL]

I am sure I can learn a *ton* by doing this but none of it would be about the topic at hand: proper sound production/reproduction in rooms. There, our researchers have been looking into this topic for 40+ years. Not sitting there screwing around with a consumer speaker they saw in Tokyo, but the real deal. Having done that, they realize that what you all do can make or break even the best performing system we can put together. Yet you are not even aware of your role in that and problems you have created.

Here is one of those researchers: Dr. Sean Olive, AES fellow and ex president of Audio Engineering Society, a classically trained pianist and graduate of McGill University, one of the top schools when it comes to music technology: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

"Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction."

You see that? The single largest problem facing fidelity of music and music systems for people who consume your content.

He goes on to say:

"A random sampling of ones own music library will quickly confirm the variation in sound quality that exists among different music recordings. Apart from audible differences in dynamic range, spatial imagery, and noise and distortion, the spectral balance of recordings can vary dramatically in terms of their brightness and particularly, the quality and quantity of bass. The magnitude of these differences suggests that something other than variations in artistic judgment and good taste is at the root cause of this problem."

Still think it is a 1% problem? I think not. Here is how he nicely damns this whole process of "translation" by using crappy speakers:

"The most likely culprits are the loudspeakers and rooms through which the recording were made. While there are many excellent professional near-field monitors in the marketplace today, there are no industry guidelines or standards to ensure that they are used. The lack of meaningful, perceptually relevant loudspeaker specifications makes the excellent loudspeakers difficult to identify and separate from the truly mediocre ones. To make matters worse, some misguided recording engineers monitor and tweak their recordings through low-fidelity loudspeakers thinking that this represents what the average consumer will hear. Since loudspeakers can be mediocre in an infinite number of ways, this practice only guarantees that quality of the recording will be compromised when heard through good loudspeakers [1]. This is very counterproductive if we want to improve the quality and consistency of audio recording and reproduction."

And of course while we have been talking about the wrong speaker being used, the room is a huge problem as I showed in the Genelec study and Dr. Olive iterates:

"Another significant source of variation in the recording process stems from acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker and the listening room [1]-[3] Below 300-500 Hz, the placement of the loudspeaker-listener can cause >18 dB variations in the in-room response due to room resonances and placing the loudspeaker in proximity to a room boundary.

[....] Below 100 Hz, the in-room bass response can vary as much 25 dB among the different control rooms! You needn’t look any further than here to understand why the quality and quantity of bass is so variable among the recordings in your music library."

And the problem I told you I face in reviewing speakers (and headphones):

"Loudspeaker manufacturers are also trapped in the circle of confusion since music recordings are used by listening panels, audio reviewers, and consumers to ultimately judge the sound quality of the loudspeaker. The problem is that distortions in the recording cannot be easily separated from those produced by the loudspeaker. For example, a recording that is too bright can make a dull loudspeaker sound good, and an accurate loudspeaker sound too bright [5]. A review of the scientific literature on loudspeaker listening tests indicates that recordings are a serious nuisance variable that need to be carefully selected and controlled in the experimental design and analysis of test results."

Yet you have the audacity to say we shouldn't even be allowed to comment on this topic.

Finishing with what I have been saying (independent of their teachings, having also had a strong leg in video where standards matter for the same reason):

"As Toole points out in [1], the key in breaking the circle of confusion lies in the hands of the professional audio industry where the art is created. A meaningful standard that defined the quality and calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and consistency of recordings. The same standard could then be applied to the playback of the recording in the consumer’s home or automobile. Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist intended."

So I suggest you put aside your one-liner arguments and take the opportunity to learn what it means to have fidelity. And how a standard is critical and necessary in achieving that. Your video counterparts are laughing at you all day, every day and twice on Sunday. Start learning this topic at a deep level. Know that such research has a ton to teach you as well. Don't sit on folklore and useless ideas. It is never too late to start doing the right thing. Do it now. Join us in advocating proper sound production and reproduction.

I am not part of the recording industry but have many friends who are. I can tell you that since 2009, the year of this article, most recording rooms use room correction and will have better in room response than what, 90% of the customers? That's not even taking into account when "In room" is not even a concept in current way of consuming music. Sure it helps to have standards, the recording Industry have access to all the same research as you do and perform many on their own. And as mentioned earlier, there are standards. The majority of the speakers that you gave the highest praise here have been developed first for the recording industry, and partly adopted by the HIFI crowd. You make it sound like this industry don't care about correct response. It is just not true.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

In some cases probably, but mastering is not recording. Different process.

True ..... but same speaker response differential. In other words, the differences between equipment in different studios will exist regardless of the data. Not true?

Jim

 

[PeteL]

True ..... but same speaker response differential. In other words, the differences between equipment in different studios will exist regardless of the data. Not true?

Jim

Well. That is the crux of the matter. NS10M got this popularity largely for that. You could go from studio to studio and you would have the same speakers. We could argue that it was the wrong one, but that was a standard and that's what some people here are screaming for. Fast forward to modern time. Yes you may have variability, But fact remains that in mastering suite, calibrated rooms are a must and if there are differences they are infinitely smaller than in the consumer world. It doesn't mean that recording studios don't somehow sometimes have their own sonics. And yes some engineers will be more confortable at one place than the other. They are creative facilities. They don't only may have different speakers, and more than one pair, but they also have a different microphone fleet, different recording room acoustics. Consoles and preamps that may have somehow a "character". We just cannot completely scratch of the artistic part of recording process.

 

[amirm]

I am not part of the recording industry but have many friends who are. I can tell you that since 2009, the year of this article, most recording rooms use room correction and will have better in room response than what, 90% of the customers?

Better how? You measured their frequency response?

 

[amirm]

You could go from studio to studio and you would have the same speakers.

Same speaker but not the same sound, even putting aside some putting it on its side while others vertically. Bass response would have been different in each room as well as off-axis response due to varying wall spacing.

 

[PeteL]

Better how? You measured their frequency response?

The studios I know of around here have measured their room yes. In this area most adopted SonarWorx for room calibration.

 

[PeteL]

Same speaker but not the same sound, even putting aside some putting it on its side while others vertically. Bass response would have been different in each room as well as off-axis response due to varying wall spacing.

I don't argue with that. We are talking 30 years ago.

 

[amirm]

The studios I know of around here have measured their room yes. In this area most adopted SonarWorx for room calibration.

So they measured it but you didn't see such measurements. That means you don't know if their response is correct. It is news to me that most have adopted SonarWorx. Where does that data come from?

 

[PeteL]

So they measured it but you didn't see such measurements. That means you don't know if their response is correct. It is news to me that most have adopted SonarWorx. Where does that data come from?

Indeed, It is anecdotal based on a few producing artists and Recording engineers I know, I agree that It is not enough data to say 100% that it's a standard. What do you mean didn't see the measurments? The SonarWorks algorithm seen the measurments, that's what I need to know and it's an effort to have standardized in room response. And unlike you I trust that they know what they are doing. But what percentage of consumers do you think measured their room, let alone have correct one?

 

[goat76]

There are lot of emotional responses here, and I suspect that we're trying to much at one time, and clogging the drain, so to speak. Let's try taking one statement at a time, and see how that works.

In post #503, @amirm quoted Dr. Floyd Toole as saying .....

"Recording engineers who work in these circumstances, presumably approving
of them, are doing the art no favor. This is an excellent example of the circle of
confusion in action because members of this group of audio professionals cannot
even exchange their own recordings with a reasonable certainty of how they will
sound in one another’s control rooms."

Is the part in bold true? Can one studio send a recording to another studio and not have a reasonable certainty of what the people in the other studio will hear?

Please answer with civility. Thank you.

Jim

The main reason is not that they don't trust their speakers, a second opinion is sometimes needed when a mixing engineer has lost the overall view of the mix (can't see the forest for the trees). This can easily happen after a long time of mixing and obvious problems in the mix are missed because of the extreme concentration on solving small details in the mix. A new set of ears can sometimes be needed to hear fairly obvious and larger overall problems with the mix.

Another way to get around this common problem is to use well-known reference tracks and listen to them regularly during the mixing session to re-tune the ears and get a "reality check". This problem got nothing to do with the speakers in use, it doesn't help if the speakers are measuring flat to not. It has more to do with acclimatization to the sound and tonality, in a similar way as a certain record can sound bright and bass-shy but your hearing gets used to it after a few songs.

 

[amirm]

That’s hilarious. Genelec are made for mix and mastering engineers primarily. And now hifi enthusiasts chasing audio nirvana have cottoned on to it like they discovered them.

I had my first Genelec I think in year 2000. That is nearly 25 years ago. I bought a second pair shortly after which my son uses it to this day. Genelec doesn't market to consumers although they did for a brief period. They were too expensive so they pulled back. Their speakers just don't fit the look that home users want. That is the reason they don't have a lot of awareness although we have done a lot to change that witnessing how Genelec sends me speakers to review now.

Funny story. I was at Microsoft and had moved to a new building a bit after I had bought those Genelecs. I asked my secretary to find a room that I could make into an ad-hoc listening room. She comes back and say there is nothing available but this broom closet. It was a half-sized office. Just enough wide to put a desk and a chair. But it was all that was available so I put the Genelecs in there and bought a couple of tube traps for the corners. I didn't like going in there as it was kind of counterphobic.

Fast forward a few weeks later and I am working in my regular office. I look up and one of our LA business development people (they were responsible for getting content using our technology) walks in with half a dozen people and says: "Amir, meet Grateful Dead... they are here to see how their music sounds using our codec!!!" I could just see in their eyes that they thought no way we knew anything about music and sound when all they could see were offices and people sitting by computers.

I wasn't sure what to do but figured the broom closet would be better than my own office. So I walk them there, open the door and jam every inch of space between the two of us and the band and their manager. Thinking any minute they are going to throw up and want to leave but instead, I hear this statement: "We know those speakers!" pointing to the Genelecs. You should have seen the relief on my face and our biz dev person as the atmosphere in the room completely changed. They gave me their content on a thumb drive, I encoded it and they loved the sound.

They then proudly gave me a DVD of one of their concerts and said they had worked hard to produce highest fidelity video and audio possible. I don't remember the audio quality but distinctly recall how awful the video was with full of compression artifacts! So much for talent knowing fidelity when they see it....

 

[Cbdb2]

"Your industry's broken - you need to acknowledge how horrible it is."

- "Broken? It's good enough. We use what empirically works and few end users complain that it's not perfect."

"But - based on my own empirical data plus the prevailing science, my hypothesis is that the end result is not as good as it could be when exhibited on more accurate and expensive equipment."

- "Well, you are not the targeted end user - the vast majority of end users have extremely inaccurate equipment - plus a good part of the industry would be classified as subjective art, so standards are kind of meaningless."

"Don't you want standards?"

- "Why? We just want good enough, plus standards on the summed spectral curves of various data is somewhat meaningless, especially when the capture devices we use have their own spectral curves that we chose arbitrarily because of how subjectively we like the various combinations of spectral curves."

"But one of the measurements that you seem to use constantly is technically flawed."

- "Well, yes, but if you want standards, that flawed measurement was actually a standard: a de facto standard. We actually also use other standards as well. That one de facto standard you keep bringing up is just one of the tools we use. Plus, not everyone actually uses it as a standard - it is just there if you want to use it."

"But why used a flawed tool in the first place?"

- "Because even if flawed, it is repeatable and was used historically, so a lot of learned knowledge was built around how to use it - hence, a de facto standard. Also, while flawed, it is still an okay tool to use, even today."

"Well, a flawed tool is just going to lead to a flawed end product."

- "No - not if we know its limitations and don't use it exclusively."

"Well, I still have massive doubts."

- "Then you do something about it."

"But I'm the consumer that's being harmed."

- "But how harmed are you really? You're proposing the creation of a standard (you don't have the concrete standard itself) which will end up being a somewhat radical change to the industry as a whole. This is all to bring about a marginal benefit to a very, very, very small subset of our overall market. So, how much is being technically correct actually worth to you? Because based on basic economics, either you need to be a vocal advocate in order to change the demand curve, or the demand curve needs to change through technical advances. Otherwise, the supply curve is going to dictate you paying through the nose to get what you want, which means that my industry just won't accommodate it because it makes no business sense to do so."

"I can't believe you are giving up so easily. This is feasible."

- "Your definition of feasible ignores my learned experience of what is actually feasible in my industry."

The first line "Broken? Its good enough" Implies you don't care about improvements, so why are you even on this site.
Why not start with the easiest standard, SPL. We all know how much our freq. response changes with spl (F-M curves) so why not have a standard mix level of 76 dbspl, (or something similar to home levels) thats what we used for TV mixes, measured with a spl meter before each mix. You get so used to a level you can tell when your over with out the meters.
Movie theaters/mix theaters have had Dolby and THX standards for 40 years and there mixes almost always translate from one to the other. Sure not easy for home hifi but why not at least try?

 

[amirm]

Indeed, It is anecdotal based on a few producing artists and Recording engineers I know, I agree that It is not enough data to say 100% that it's a standard. What do you mean didn't see the measurments? The SonarWorks algorithm seen the measurments, that's what I need to know and it's an effort to have standardized in room response. And unlike you I trust that they know what they are doing. But what percentage of consumers do you think measured their room, let alone have correct one?

Please don't make claims you can't back up. You had not seen a single measurement of any of those rooms yet claimed they are better than most consumers. No way you could do that by just looking at the room or listening. You must measure. That is what I do and so does every acoustician. Bass response cannot be determined by ear or eyes.

As to consumers, we are not talking about the masses. I would say there is far, far more awareness and knowledge of room impact in this forum than there is in the Pro industry. We are absolutely ahead of the production field when it comes to knowledge and tools of high fidelity sound reproduction. Don't fall for fancy look of studios. If they are not showing you their frequency response as their business card, the most important part of that mission is lost.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

You're just not acknowledging that if there were standards then it would sound even better, more of the time - as in a greater number of well-recorded tracks. If you want to turn a blind eye to it and just enjoy the stuff they put out then that's fine (which is your approach here), but we know that with standards that it could be better.

I’m just not telling an experienced producer how they’re allowed to do their job.

There’s a reason for that - I’m not that far up myself.

There are enough good mixes out there from enough good producers done on these speakers…look, I don’t know how they manage this. And I’m not saying how they manage this.

But it’s an indisputable fact that they do do this, so I’m happy to leave them to it.

Bottom line, irrespective of what’s happened in the past, it appears that the trend is towards more neutral speakers, so I think we’re maybe flogging a dead horse anyway.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I am not part of the recording industry but have many friends who are. I can tell you that since 2009, the year of this article, most recording rooms use room correction and will have better in room response than what, 90% of the customers? That's not even taking into account when "In room" is not even a concept in current way of consuming music. Sure it helps to have standards, the recording Industry have access to all the same research as you do and perform many on their own. And as mentioned earlier, there are standards. The majority of the speakers that you gave the highest praise here have been developed first for the recording industry, and partly adopted by the HIFI crowd. You make it sound like this industry don't care about correct response. It is just not true.

One of the reasons @amirm began this site was to correct the problem that I have in bold. In this, he is paralleled by other science-minded individuals, and the impact that they have made is notable.

However, nothing happens overnight. The effort is on-going.

One of the reasons I am interested in this issue is that I remember the equipment from the '60s and '70s, both in my limited exposure to the studio scene, and my somewhat more extensive exposure to the residential listening scene. You are correct when you say that studios have better in-room response that possibly 90% (to use a nice, round number) of consumers. But if you're not as old as I am, you can't get a good handle on the improvement in the general, overall level of consumer equipment nowadays. I listened to Altec, JBL, Bozak, Burhoe, Advent, Dynaco and many other speakers before 1980, and I can testify that the quality of speakers nowadays generally outstrips the quality of speakers in those days by a great (and audible) margin. (It's my personal opinion that digital recording has fueled the movement forward.)

Consumer standards are improving. Whether the consumer uses speakers (please don't underestimate how many do) or headphones or an IEM, and whether they listen in an auto or their rooms at home, and whether they are interested in A/V sound or straight stereo, the response they get is miles ahead of what was available 40 years ago.

The work to improve the market will continue. For instance, room treatment for consumers in the '60s and '70s was not a relevant issue. Room equalization in general, and certainly as we know it today, was impossible. Today, however, Amir has stressed, as have many of the members here, that room treatment and room equalization are the next big steps that consumers can take to improve their listening experience. Judging by face value only (we can't peek into their homes, y'know!) it seems that many have taken that advice to heart. I consider that a big step up ........ don't you?

I think what we have here is a bandwagon. Instead of arguing, I would like to see us co-operate and find a way to jump on it.

Jim

 

[goat76]

Dynamics. Highly compressed for car etc. less compression for hifi. and if you buy one you get both. Easy enough to do.
Some video games already do this, one I know gives you 4 choices plus an immersive HP mix.

The thing you are talking about is different masters, but I can't see any need for any changes to the mix itself.

If compression or limitation is needed because of outside factors, like a car stereo that must be heard through the outside noise, or other types of limitations in the reproduction gear that is used, then I think it's way better if that compression or limitation is applied in that car stereo or the device with the limitation of reproducing a high dynamic recording for one reason or another, and prevail the full dynamics for the more capable full-range systems.

One ultimate mix without any dynamic limitations in the mastering process is all that is needed when it comes to the music content itself.