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

[Joshua Cadmium]

"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."

This circle of confusion is just the chicken and egg problem. Yes, you can dictate from the top down with better standards, but if the consumer doesn't want it, it's just potentially a waste of time and money.

Did consumers rush to adopt DVD audio? SACDs? Worse quality audio won the day because cost and convenience ended up trumping everything else.

In the same manner, most people don't want to spend the money and especially the space (significant other approval factor is absolutely still a thing) for better speakers.

I don't think a significant amount of consumers are going to be clambering for different mixed and mastered audio until full range speakers come down in price and size by at least an order of magnitude.

I also don't think that there would be a huge difference in how audio specifically mixed for full range would sound, but at least there would be more energy between 20-30 hz.

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.

I consider myself one of those video counterparts and I am honestly just shaking my head in this attempt to equate the video world to the audio world.

Video does not have the same standards issues because the progressively higher quality standards all ended up being consumer, manufacturer, and creative friendly. The chicken and egg conundrum was not nearly to the same magnitude when moving to higher quality video - there was no real circle of confusion in video.

Consumers could easily see the quality difference from VHS to DVD. Even if they didn't, DVDs ended up being a much better consumer oriented format. (Tape needs to be rewound, tape degrades, tape takes up more space, etc.) The costs also ended up being similar, so consumers didn't even have to pay for those quality differences.

The move from SD to HD was easily seen by consumers and also a mandated change by regulatory authorities for over the air broadcasting. It was also appreciated by content creators: you no longer had to deal with the expense of film to get higher resolutions.

The move from CRT to flat panel technologies was also a fundamental shift that audio has not really seen. The primary physical constraints (the shape of an electron beam and the size and weight of the glass envelope) were just gone.

4k standards are now the norm, partly because TV manufacturing got so good. You'd be hard pressed to even buy a non-4K set.

TVs take up an order of magnitude less room than they ever did and can more easily be incorporated into the average home than ever before. They are also considerably brighter and more color accurate than ever before.

Even if you don't have a TV, much of these standards can be seen and enjoyed on a device that the average consumer has on them virtually all of the time. And not just a low end device - half of all phones sold globally today have an OLED screen on them - the current state of the art video display technology.

Will we ever have a full range speaker fit in our pocket and weigh less than half a pound?

-----

Sound reproduction has just not had near the advances that video has. I can buy a 4K TV at Walmart (or have a similar or better experience on my phone) but 20-20k anechoic-ly flat audio is still relatively expensive, really bulky, and thus relatively rare.

Video standards basically followed something akin to Moore's law. Audio standards did not.

 

[amirm]

Thanks. So some perform less good than others. Good to know.

But I am stoke now. That those are your words or Mr Olive?

let your ears be the guide. Play some content and if the bass is too strong, it likely is. Reduce the slope some. Don't let anyone shame you into sticking with some reference as is commonly done in online forums. What sounds good is the right answer.

My words but pretty sure I can get Dr. Toole or Olive to agree with it. I know of no other way to set the target curve due to the mess the pro industry has created which we are discussing. Play your favorite tracks and set the proportion of low vs high frequencies and see what sounds right to you.

 

[amirm]

This circle of confusion is just the chicken and egg problem. Yes, you can dictate from the top down with better standards, but if the consumer doesn't want it, it's just potentially a waste of time and money.

The consumer is us and we already know it and darn well demand it. We now need to have the other side, the PROs, to deliver it.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

No. I just explained why not and you are still confused? A speaker like Genelec is necessary condition but not sufficient. Below transition frequencies, the room dominates, not the speaker. So there, you must deploy acoustic strategies including EQ to get responses that "translate" from room to room including ours.

Why did you cut off the rest of my reply that literally spoke about the room and room correction?

 

[amirm]

Will we ever have a full range speaker fit in our pocket and weigh less than half a pound?

Not a speaker but we have a $50 IEM that does that: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/truthear-x-crinacle-zero-iem-review.37380/

Headphones with EQ also get there and with ease.

Bookshelf speakers also do superbly within their frequency response range. Their enemy is the room in bass and inconsistency in music production due to lack of standards.

 

[goat76]

dynamic limitations are a necesary component of all mixes, so i dont understand. Different music needs different compression ( time constants for example ) so letting your device decide on it is a bad idea, like letting your device EQ each track after scanning it.

I'm not completely sure what you mean when you say that "dynamic limitations are a necessary component of all mixes".
For a complete mix, dynamic limitation has never been necessary, but for individual tracks in the mix like bass guitar, kick drum, and vocals it can often be necessary to tame the often uncontrollable dynamic swing those can have.

And for the dynamic limitation, I suggested. I never said I wanted the device to decide what compression level is used, it should be an option on the car stereo for the user to decide for themselves if the content had too much dynamic to be heard over the noise. The function would be similar to what Spotify used with their Loud, Normal, and Quiet settings, they had a limiter that kicked in when quiet mixes didn't reach the loudness target when the "Loud" setting was used (I know they quit using that limiter a few years ago).
Simply a loudness button for the users to decide for themselves if they want it louder.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

The consumer is us and we already know it and darn well demand it. We now need to have the other side, the PROs, to deliver it.

There is no real demand beyond a few Hifi enthusiasts seeking audio nirvana.

Only 1 streaming service charges for hires audio. Tidal. It’s got 2% of the market, not all of whom are on the hifi level of service. So that’s around 1 percent of the market willing to pay for the best of the best.

The rest throw it in for free because no one would pay extra for it.

Spotify, who are twice the size of the next biggest service don’t even offer hi res audio!

If there was a huge demand for higher quality audio then Spotify would get off their ass and finally bring it online.

 

[amirm]

Why did you cut off the rest of my reply that literally spoke about the room and room correction?

Your statement stood alone so I answered it such. On room response, you are trivializing it and shooting from the hip. Due to lack of standards, even use of auto EQ won't help you because the target is unknow. You also have simple problems like where people sit. You understand that the bass response changes with that, yes?

Do all decision makers sit in the same seat? They don't, right? We solve that problem by using multiple subwoofers and advanced signal processing and modelling. This is what went into optimizing of the location and number of subwoofers for a theater we had at work:

And a slice at ear level:

When was the last time you saw multiple subs with appropriate optimization in a studio? Or with simulations like above?

This is why I say we are years ahead of recognizing the problem of producing high fidelity in a room than the Pros.

 

[Zensō]

I have known about Sonarworks for quite sometime. I am surprised of the claim of widespread usage by pros. Here is an example of where we discussed Sonarworks: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...reference-4-studio-edition.18607/#post-608652

It doesn't make a good showing there as I stated. But I still like to test it in detail.

@amirm I believe this article is relevant to this discussion. I’d be curious to get your take on it.

Successful Mixing with the Proper Frequency Response and a House Curve - Sonarworks Blog

Flat frequency response or your own house curve - what’s best for you? We analized thousand of creator preferences and here's what we found.

www.sonarworks.com

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Your statement stood alone so I answered it such. On room response, you are trivializing it and shooting from the hip. Due to lack of standards, even use of auto EQ won't help you because the target is unknow. You also have simple problems like where people sit. You understand that the bass response changes with that, yes?

Do all decision makers sit in the same seat? They don't, right? We solve that problem by using multiple subwoofers and advanced signal processing and modelling. This is what went into optimizing of the location and number of subwoofers for a theater we had at work:

And a slice at ear level:

When was the last time you saw multiple subs with appropriate optimization in a studio? Or with simulations like above?

This is why I say we are years ahead of recognizing the problem of producing high fidelity in a room than the Pros.

You say you are light years ahead, but I think that’s because you haven’t been in a studio for decades…or perhaps never.

I would suggest your comments show that you need to get out more!

When is the last time I saw a studio with multiple subs and room correction? This is a hilarious question!

Do I really need to post pictures of Mike Deans studio again? Like I had to when you said no one serious uses NS10s?

I would suggest that you get out of the room you measure things in, go to some studios, and gain some understanding of the industry you are yelling at.

The concept of multiple subs, room treatment, room correction and flat monitors is not yours

 

[lowkeyoperations]

I’d like to hear more about how the new standard would work in practice.

Let’s say it was called COC. Circle of Confusion Standard, as that seems to be the essential root of the “problem” to be addressed.

In order to be COC certified you would need to show compliance with the standards.

So there would be a set of standards that the speakers needed to comply with. I presume that would be a suite of measurements including the usual things measured here.

There would then be a range in each measured category. +-2db 20hz-20kHz for example. Or whatever that standard may be.

If a speaker was within the tolerance’s determined then it’s certified COC? Presumably Headphones would have a similar COC certification.

Is that the concept?

Or would the concept be that the studio space as a whole needs to be certified based on the technical requirements? So for example, the room and speakers as a whole are what is certified?

Than at the listening end, an equal set of standards would be implemented?

 

[PeteL]

My words but pretty sure I can get Dr. Toole or Olive to agree with it. I know of no other way to set the target curve due to the mess the pro industry has created which we are discussing. Play your favorite tracks and set the proportion of low vs high frequencies and see what sounds right to you.

When a key influencer in the area of audio measurments tells you To do your room equalisation based on specific tracks you like and to ditch what you measured and use your taste instead and no mention of reference SPL, Indeed we know we are far from standardization but you can’t blame the recording industry… Now sure, use tone control to taste, not every mastering decision will fit your taste and your loudness choices, but the room correction?!!! please… To say the least, you are very paradoxal in your views….

 

[ZolaIII]

We have done studies to show how inconsistent your rooms are even when using pre-calibrated, neutral speakers like the Genelecs. Once again:

It is abundantly clear the the simple concept of room massively impacting the tonality and frequency response of the speaker is not understood or taken seriously. Now add to this a ton of other monitors you use with yet again varying response above transition and the mess becomes abundantly clear.

And it is not like the above is some obscure thing. Simplest concept in acoustics of a room tell you that you are going to have massive low frequency changes in the modal region. Sadly because this type of learning and education is not what you think you need to do, you get it wrong. To be sure, audiophiles also got it wrong but we are now at least 20 years into this level of enlightenment whereas the pro industry still in the dark ages.

Now hold on! As you like to hold on that graph a lot and it doesn't look as it should. There is a Directivity error at around 100 Hz which in my experience is a flour bounce (correct me if I am wrong) and will sound a bit boomy, not quite right. In any case it's bright. Seams they didn't done it right back then regarding they "reference rooms" and we know by NYC example how that whosent sorted out yet. So those Genelac's need additional accustic treatment to sort out that deep @100 Hz and PEQ slope in highs to get them where they should be.
By the way guy with small Revels from cuple day's back did a proper mid field placement and measurements (most part at least).

Seek an advice from expert for improvement of bass

Thank you for comments and suggestions. Sort of practice are needed to get more precise measurements. Since I put a mic on a chair, it must not be an equal level with speaker's height. I will check mic position and direction, and level with speakers. Here is a rough/awful drawing of the room...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Turns out it has two modes one at 100~110 Hz and another one making them siblant at 2.5 to 4.5 KHz and of course overall bright. I don't believe he took me series when I told him he is lucky that it's a peek at 100 Hz instead a deep which is much more common and harder to correct. Of course when I say room influence is determinant you say not with a proper FR measuring speakers even everything suggest otherwise and going around in circles can't be considered as progress.
Sorry for taking this in a another direction from very vivid and alive discussion about NS10's which I am certain will continue like that for long time. Thing is that become boring to me long time ago and certainly doesn't really leading anywhere (regarding some senseless conclusion at least). Best regards and have a nice time.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

It's not about being "up yourself", it's just basic logic - you don't have to be an experienced audio creator to know that "Circle of Confusion" is a problem. 1+1=2 for everybody, even the non-mathematicians. I'm not bringing up the specifics of the argument as they've been repeated by myself & others a number of times already in this thread.

"Trend toward more neutral speakers" is better, but it's still not a named & stipulated standard, and as people have already said RoomEQ is not standardised at these studios either.

I’m not taking about anyone else, I just feel I’d think I was being up myself if I criticised a professional (from a profession in which I don’t work) as to how they worked.

As I’ve said, these speakers are used during recording and basic mixing, but usually different speakers are used further along the line.

Ultimately, I’m reminded on Michael Johnson. The classic running style for his events is long stride, high knee life, but Johnson’s style was short, choppy strides, low knee lift. He took Olympic golds, world holds, and world records.

The science behind high knee lifts is absolutely rock solid, by the way.

I think what I’m saying is, a great mix is a great mix, and I’m not precious how anyone got there.

I’m not arguing that the Yamahas are a good, or even mediocre speaker. I certainly wouldn’t buy them to use in my hi-fi.

As I say, I’m just not sure what we’re arguing about. Is anyone saying these are ‘good’?

 

[amirm]

When a key influencer in the area of audio measurments tells you To do your room equalisation based on specific tracks you like and to ditch what you measured and use your taste instead and no mention of reference SPL, Indeed we know we are far from standardization but you can’t blame the recording industry… Now sure, use tone control to taste, not every mastering decision will fit your taste and your loudness choices, but the room correction?!!! please… To say the least, you are very paradoxal in your views….

First of all, tone controls have long been erased from hifi gear. The problem here is precisely the issue we are discussing, i.e. wild west of tonality as delivered by the music production industry. From Dr. Olive's paper on Room EQ and topic of target curve: The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products,

"The lack on consensus regarding room correction target function is evident in these experiments.

[...]
A more pragmatic approach in defining the in-room target function would be to use the same target function in the home as used in the monitoring and mixing of the recordings in the control room. This ensures consumers will hear the recordings as the artist intended. Unfortunately, there are no current recording industry standards that provide quality controls in the rooms and monitors used to make recordings. Surveys of professional control room monitoring chains indicate no evidence of quality control below 200 Hz in the sounds heard by recording engineer [5]. Given that most recordings are optimized over monitors where the room gain is left intact, the recordings will sound most natural when played back through room corrections that leave the room gain alone."

Therefore you have no choice but to use the corpus of music you listen to and try to come up with an average or two (or whatever your EQ system allows). The slope of what someone listening to classical music predominantly will be different than someone listening to pop and rock. The industry has created infinite variety here resulting in no single curve to ever be correct. You have to live with a compromise or degraded fidelity.

There are also issues with measurements due to psychoacoustics which I won't get into seeing how this simple concept is not understoond.

Really, complain less and learn more. I gave you the link to this paper already. Read it before making insulting posts like this.

 

[Robbo99999]

It's just the general idea that is put forward that in the pro world, anything goes when in the consumer world there is all this great science that I find really weak. There are standards for what is a calibrated room is, and that's what these DSP applications like Dirac, SonarWorx, etc aim to bring. Is it perfect, maybe not, is it 100% everywhere, maybe not, do some Engineers are reluctant to change how they always did, surely. But it is still a fact no matter how you look at it that the quest for a calibrated response Is not only adopted by the "Industry" It's driven by them. The simple fact that Studio Monitors by Pro Brands like Genelec and Neumann are crossing over to the HIFI world is a pretty clear demonstration of that. I don't have that much experience in the studio world, but much more in the live sound and SMAART was released in freekin 1995, almost 30 years ago and it's common practice to make way more complicated measurements in a concert hall than a simple consumer listening place the frequency response is checked to measure flat in every areas, the delay time are checked between sound sources including subs to achieve phase coherence etc, etc.

Even so, there's not really any negatives associated with there being a named standard that studios can comply with.......to cut down Circle of Confusion even more.

 

[Robbo99999]

The point is that the current state of music mixing is far from broken, despite arguments to the contrary.

I am on this site because I deeply care about all the work that Amir is doing on the measurement side. I think he and his work are going to be responsible (it's already started) for a huge shift in the way that audio is understood, consumed and enjoyed. I am telling anyone interested to check out this site as it has been such a breath of fresh air after years of pseudoscience. For audio playback, Amir is playing a huge role in pushing the industry forward.

However, the music creation side is not so straight forward. It is part art and part engineering, and in both fields there is a tendency to spend too much time on creating perfection, so you have to be focused on the "good enough".

Artists know that their work can outlast them, but part of being a good artist is knowing when to stop working. Perfection can even ruin an artist - think Brian Wilson trying to make SMiLE.

Engineering is about constraints. There is the classic tale of the engineer wanting to waste time and money on getting to 95% accuracy when 80-90% is good enough. Perfection doesn't pay the bills.

Perhaps if there were named standards that studios could comply with, then perhaps it would take less time (& therefore less money) & less effort to make a good mix.

 

[Robbo99999]

It's not about being "up yourself", it's just basic logic - you don't have to be an experienced audio creator to know that "Circle of Confusion" is a problem. 1+1=2 for everybody, even the non-mathematicians. I'm not bringing up the specifics of the argument as they've been repeated by myself & others a number of times already in this thread.


I’m not taking about anyone else, I just feel I’d think I was being up myself if I criticised a professional (from a profession in which I don’t work) as to how they worked.

As I’ve said, these speakers are used during recording and basic mixing, but usually different speakers are used further along the line.

Ultimately, I’m reminded on Michael Johnson. The classic running style for his events is long stride, high knee life, but Johnson’s style was short, choppy strides, low knee lift. He took Olympic golds, world holds, and world records.

The science behind high knee lifts is absolutely rock solid, by the way.

I think what I’m saying is, a great mix is a great mix, and I’m not precious how anyone got there.

I’m not arguing that the Yamahas are a good, or even mediocre speaker. I certainly wouldn’t buy them to use in my hi-fi.

As I say, I’m just not sure what we’re arguing about. Is anyone saying these are ‘good’?

I know what you're saying, so you don't have to say it again. I also know what I was saying, which is standards would improve the situation, (athletic analogies don't change that).

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Perhaps if there were named standards that studios could comply with, then perhaps it would take less time (& therefore less money) & less effort to make a good mix.

It might depend on how much it costs to comply with the standard though. As that would have to be recouped through charge out rates.

 

[Robbo99999]

It might depend on how much it costs to comply with the standard though. As that would have to be recouped through charge out rates.

Yes indeed, although as an additional positive benefit it should mean better mixes/recordings being made which can contribute to increased sales.....and then if the standard is deemed a positive thing in the industry then more clients will want to use the studio - so more money from all areas. Additionally, it might not mean that much more money to comply to the standard, depending on how close the current studio is to that standard - it might just mean some added room correction/treatment rather than purchasing different speakers for instance, so might just be the cost of the initial setup time and admin cost for gaining a "certificate of approval".