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

[lowkeyoperations]

..... In a situation where the room response varies from a reference of 82 dB at 67 Hz to 69 dB at 260 Hz (70 dB for the Genelec) back up to 79 dB at 260 Hz (78 dB for the Genelec) before a relatively smooth response from 1.2K onward, yes. That's +/- 6 dB, not +/- 2 dB. That sort of response masks (or swamps) a great deal, especially regarding the 2 dB cut in the high treble. Remember that I'm old and have hearing loss. That's why I said, "If your hearing is so good ......."

And yes, I said "a casual listen". That's what it was. I am just one person, and I've noted in previous posts that, as I said, I'm old. There are literally millions of people out there who have MUCH better hearing than I do. So I am not the average listener .... not at ASR, and not in the general public, either. Maybe I would be the average listener among that segment of the population who use assisted living, but that's about it. (Yes, I really am that old. @Blumlein 88 is no spring chicken, either.)

I have no idea as to the location of the room in which this recording was made, but if this was a room in a studio and this was the finished response at the workstation using DSP, then the so-called "circle of confusion" not only lives on, but it's getting worse! If anything, this indicates that the industry needs standards for the room response as well as standards for the response of the speakers to achieve consistency.

But to get back to the original, core issue ......

If you can hear the differences in response between these two speakers so clearly, especially in-room, any argument that the NS-10 or the CLA-10 clone are necessary (or even useful) is specious. (Compared to these two speakers, the NS-10 is like the Incredible Hulk hitting a person over the head with a lamp post.) That's the original, core issue. That is the issue that @amirm brought up in this review.

Indirectly, you have proven him correct.

Jim

All this shows Jim is that you can’t hear a 2dB difference in the low mids and low highs between two audio files played back.

And that difference is not meaningful to you. I’d say it’s not audibly significant to the majority of casual listeners.

For your hearing or playback system, the different measurements I posted of the two speaker systems can be defined as “consistent” enough for you not to be able to hear the difference.

Try on headphones. Can you hear them differences more clearly? If so, then it’s your room being a problem. Try Dirac live. It’s very good!

 

[Zensō]

Dynamic range and the over use of compression is a good start. Is that compression where they boost the low signal level stuff and it becomes a clipping fest? Create standards for the recording dynamic range. Of course frequency response standards too.

Honestly, I can’t see this ever happening. These are artistic decisions in my opinion.

That said, the streaming services have implemented volume leveling (around 14-16 LUFS) which has disincentivized the use of heavy compression simply for the sake of loudness. Some may still use those techniques for artistic reasons though.

 

[Geert]

So please, no more stunts and high school debating tactics like this.

What stunts? I don't see a clear message from people supporting your standardization proposal. Do they just want a tonality reference or do they want better recordings? I want to hear input from more customers on that, and I want to make sure they fully understand what they're asking for. That's one of the most important rules in customer minded thinking.

Be part of the solution and not the problem.

As part of my professional services I've been measuring and tuning speakers systems, for live sound as well as studio's, for about then years before Toole published the first edition of his book. At that time I also already new about our common preference for a flat anechoic response, didn’t need Toole for that. It's that knowledge and my measurement based approach that gave me a big advantage in my job. I'm propably also one of the biggest active supporters of Toole's work, and science in general, on this forum. So I request you for the second time, stop throwing all audio pro's on the same pile.

 

[Doodski]

Honestly, I can’t see this ever happening. These are artistic decisions in my opinion.

The spec will exist that enables the use of effects and won't make them unstable or poor sounding. It's when they use clipping unintentionally that it becomes a issue and not when it is used as a effect. The fix is at the recording and mastering and not with the musicians expressing themselves from what I've seen. An example would be a top shelf recording that suddenly appears and includes huge amounts of clipping and lots of distortion. That standard needs to be stopped.

 

[Zensō]

The spec will exist that enables the use of effects and won't make them unstable or poor sounding. It's when they use clipping unintentionally that it becomes an issue and not when it is used as an effect. The fix is at the recording and mastering and not with the musicians expressing themselves from what I've seen. An example would be a top shelf recording that suddenly appears and includes huge amounts of clipping and lots of distortion. That standard needs to be stopped.

Pushing hard into a limiter is still an artistic decision that is frequently made during mastering. How does one determine if the clipping was accidental or on purpose? Also, these days the musician is often also the mixing/mastering engineer, so the lines are much more blurred than they used to be.

I’m stating the obvious, but the studio is an instrument, music is an art form, and outside of mainstream genres pretty much anything goes.

 

[Robbo99999]

Understood. But, you need to take into account that a large majority of the 120K tracks that are being uploaded to streaming services every day are produced in home studios. To make a real difference, these “bedroom producers” must also be taken into consideration. This conversation seems to assume most music is being made in large professional studios, which is not true today.

If that is the case it still doesn't make headphones any more suitable to be included as a standard, it doesn't change their unpredictable nature, which is why most music creators won't rely on headphones, but I suppose they'll do a check on them, probably in relation to the imaging difference of them I imagine, or to check for bass detail when tuning the bass area if they've not got a sorted studio that's room corrected down to 20Hz - headphones have that advantage with more easily having good bass extension and no room modes of course. But I can't see headphones being used as a named standard to avoid Circle of Confusion, as it's not possible to stipulate one frequency response target for a headphone due to personal anatomy differences that affect HRTF & headphone coupling (as previously discussed). We're talking about reducing the Circle of Confusion by employing named standards in studios, so let's not lose sight of that.

EDIT: re "bedroom producers", and if a named standard is adopted in the recording industry then bedroom producers will either have to do their best to comply as close as possible (and at least they'll have something concrete to aim for!), or they will have to do their best without complying, so "bedroom producers" are certainly not an argument against the imposition of standards for reducing Circle of Confusion.

 

[Zensō]

If that is the case it still doesn't make headphones any more suitable to be included as a standard, it doesn't change their unpredictable nature, which is why most music creators won't rely on headphones, but I suppose they'll do a check on them, probably in relation to the imaging difference of them I imagine, or to check for bass detail when tuning the bass area if they've not got a sorted studio that's room corrected down to 20Hz - headphones have that advantage with more easily having good bass extension and no room modes of course. But I can't see headphones being used as a named standard to avoid Circle of Confusion, as it's not possible to stipulate one frequency response target for a headphone due to personal anatomy differences that affect HRTF & headphone coupling (as previously discussed). We're talking about reducing the Circle of Confusion by employing named standards in studios, so let's not lose sight of that.

EDIT: re "bedroom producers", and if a named standard is adopted in the recording industry then bedroom producers will either have to do their best to comply as close as possible (and at least they'll have something concrete to aim for!), or they will have to do their best without complying, so "bedroom producers" are certainly not an argument against the imposition of standards for reducing Circle of Confusion.

As a standard, I don’t disagree that headphones are a challenge due to the issues you described around their unpredictability. But then there’s the inconvenient truth that more and more engineers (including some top tier Grammy winning engineers) are mixing and mastering primarily on headphones, both for flexibility (mixing on site with an artist at their residence for example), and in acknowledgement of the fact that >80% of music is now consumed on headphones/earbuds. It’s important to consider the changes that are taking place in how music is created and consumed if a standard has any hope of being widely adopted.

 

[Robbo99999]

(In general, I'm still amazed that there is so much backlash/opposition from the music creators in this thread to the idea & desire to minimise/eliminate "The Circle of Confusion", as it's such an obvious weak link in the whole audio reproduction chain. It seems like real head-in-the-sand stuff from people who I'm assuming surely know the fundamentals of audio science from the all the reviews & discussions that happen here on ASR day in & day out, as they themselves are participants here (some experienced participants). I'm quite amazed.)

 

[lowkeyoperations]

(In general, I'm still amazed that there is so much backlash/opposition from the music creators in this thread to the idea & desire to minimise/eliminate "The Circle of Confusion", as it's such an obvious weak link in the whole audio reproduction chain. It seems like real head-in-the-sand stuff from people who I'm assuming surely know the fundamentals of audio science from the all the reviews & discussions that happen here on ASR day in & day out, as they themselves are participants here (some experienced participants). I'm quite amazed.)

I’m amazed that those who see the circle of confusion as the root problem cannot put forward a standard that they think will solve it.

Something beyond “the standard will fix everything, trust me”.

What standard are you all talking about?

 

[Robbo99999]

As a standard, I don’t disagree that headphones are a challenge due to the issues you described around their unpredictability. But then there’s the inconvenient truth that more and more engineers (including some top tier Grammy winning engineers) are mixing and mastering primarily on headphones, both for flexibility (mixing on site with an artist at their residence for example), and in acknowledgement of the fact that >80% of music is now consumed on headphones/earbuds. I know I’m not really helping here, but I also think it’s important to consider the changes that are taking place in how music is created and consumed if a standard has any hope of being widely adopted.

Thanks for your patience…

Well, if you're committed to mixing on headphones, then you're gonna have to choose a frequency response, and the only one that makes sense is the Harman Headphone Curve. A lot of headphones follow at least the broad outlines of some of the Harman Curve, and the well-received ones do anyway, eg HD600 is close eventhough it was made before the Harman Curve research. If they're really committed to just using headphones for their mix creation, then the only sensible option is the Harman Headphone Curve. I think it's an arse about face way of approaching music creation though for all the reasons I've mentioned earlier.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Well, if you're committed to mixing on headphones, then you're gonna have to choose a frequency response, and the only one that makes sense is the Harman Headphone Curve. A lot of headphones follow at least the broad outlines of some of the Harman Curve, and the well-received ones do anyway, eg HD600 is close eventhough it was made before the Harman Curve research. If they're really committed to just using headphones for their mix creation, then the only sensible option is the Harman Headphone Curve. I think it's an arse about face way of approaching music creation though for all the reasons I've mentioned earlier.

Trying to mix only on a pair of HD600s is a real challenge!

However it might work for people who only listen on headphones. I think that needs a study.

 

[Robbo99999]

I’m amazed that those who see the circle of confusion as the root problem cannot put forward a standard that will solve it.

Something beyond “a standard will fix everything, trust me”.

What standard are you all talking about?

Lol, really? Look at the work from Floyd Toole, we've already got that sorted in the shape of Anechoic Flat Speakers with good directivity and Room EQ below the transition zone. That's already been shown to be the preferred consumer frequency response to deal with the "variety of tracks out there". Probably because it approximates an average studio if you graphed them all and averaged them, plus the good directivity ensures that the speakers are more stable in a variety of rooms & placements. So, don't play dumb. It's easy, use that as a standard, as that is what already works best for the vast amount of music already out there. This is about creating a standard so that future music you make is more likely to be a good recording & is what you intended the consumer to listen to. It's so so simple!

EDIT: if you were gonna turn Anechoic Flat with Good Directivity & RoomEQ below Transition Zone into a standard then I suppose you'd have to put some numbers to it. You'd have to say within what range +/- xdB is Anechoic Flat through what frequency range. Likewise for directivity, you might stipulate something like +-60 degrees in terms of following graph.

And for Room EQ & room treatment you might stipulate just ironing out the peaks & trying to fill the dips below the transition zone in a way that continues the natural downslope of the in-room measured frequency response of the Anechoic Flat Speaker, or instead it might have the Harman Curve hump there in the bass. Floyd Toole's research would say have the Harman Curve hump.

So there's a bit of work to agree on the minutia of what the boundaries of the standard would be, but I think that's probably small fry - it's more about how does this standard get created & implemented & taken up in the industry. Who / which body / which studio / who pioneers it, who brings about this standard and begins it's implementation in the industry.

 

[Robbo99999]

Trying to mix only on a pair of HD600s is a real challenge!

However it might work for people who only listen on headphones. I think that needs a study.

Lol, I never said a person should use headphones to create music, I advised against it. Read my posts.

 

[Zensō]

Well, if you're committed to mixing on headphones, then you're gonna have to choose a frequency response, and the only one that makes sense is the Harman Headphone Curve. A lot of headphones follow at least the broad outlines of some of the Harman Curve, and the well-received ones do anyway, eg HD600 is close eventhough it was made before the Harman Curve research. If they're really committed to just using headphones for their mix creation, then the only sensible option is the Harman Headphone Curve. I think it's an arse about face way of approaching music creation though for all the reasons I've mentioned earlier.

Sure, the Harman Curve makes sense, or perhaps Sonarworks since it’s such a widely used piece of software and their target is close to Harman anyway.

Whether or not headphones are an “arse about face way of approaching music creation” is neither here nor there. The reality is that it’s happening now and it appears it is only going to become more prevalent in the future. Best to deal with the reality if one is looking to create a standard.

 

[Robbo99999]

Sure, the Harman Curve makes sense, or perhaps Sonarworks since it’s such a widely used piece of software and their target is close to Harman anyway.

Whether or not headphones are an “arse about face way of approaching music creation” is neither here nor there. The reality is that it’s happening now and it appears it is only going to become more prevalent in the future. Best to deal with the reality if one is looking to create a standard.

Sonarworks isn't as legitimate as Harman, last time I looked into it, but sorry I've forgotten the details - for a start Sonarworks doesn't use an industry standard rig & target that has any significant preference research behind it, is my broad understanding.

I don't have quite the same defeatist attitude as you, inasmuch that if a standard becomes adopted and is seen as the preferred best way target to have when creating music, then people will start using that, even if it's not headphones. Then if those music creators that can't afford decent speakers & rooms and instead they have to use headphones then they can do their best at re-creating the target in headphones. If the standard were to become Anechoic Flat Speakers with RoomEQ below transition zone combined with Harman Hump in the bass, then Headphone Harman Curve would already be the best equivalence for them to use, and that exists already in the form of the 2018 Harman Headphone Curve. If the new standard were slightly different then perhaps they could iterate from that by making comparisons. It's hard to create a standard in headphones, I don't think any admin body would commit to doing that, as they're not predictable enough like I mentioned, but if people wanted to make do & get by with just using headphones to mix then Harman Headphone Curve would probably be best.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I’m amazed that those who see the circle of confusion as the root problem cannot put forward a standard that they think will solve it.

Something beyond “the standard will fix everything, trust me”.

What standard are you all talking about?

Well even if things are not at the level of creating well defined standards, why would anyone understanding this could be beneficial then defend the use of Auratones or NS10s?

If response is within +/- 3db limits, there are audible differences in the balance. Still better than something with much worse response variation. So a step in the right direction. A case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. While still letting things move closer to perfection.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Lol, I never said a person should use headphones to create music, I advised against it. Read my posts.

I’m agreeing with you Robbo!

Im just pondering that there might be a headphone standard that could work if the listeners are all listening on headphones?

If both the producers and the listeners were using the system you linked, or VSX, then I think we would have that “as heard by the artist” link that people are chasing here.

 

[amirm]

As part of my professional services I've been measuring and tuning speakers systems, for live sound as well as studio's, for about then years before Toole published the first edition of his book. At that time I also already new about our common preference for a flat anechoic response, didn’t need Toole for that.

Book? Did you say his book? Dr. Toole's seminal paper on controlled tests of loudspeakers came out in 1985 in J. AES ("Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance"). He did not publish the book until after he retired from Harman in 2008. That's 23 years later. If you didn't know about his work until his book came out, you sure were living in a cave as far as acoustic science is concerned.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Well even if things are not at the level of creating well defined standards, why would anyone understanding this could be beneficial then defend the use of Auratones or NS10s?

If response is within +/- 3db limits, there are audible differences in the balance. Still better than something with much worse response variation. So a step in the right direction. A case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. While still letting things move closer to perfection.

Because anyone would understand that in the studio, not all tasks are about adjusting the frequency.

No way would I master on NS10s.
But compiling vocals, yes.

 

[amirm]

What stunts? I don't see a clear message from people supporting your standardization proposal.

You are fight toothing and nail the notion of any standard. If you are already onboard and understand the problem your industry has created due to lack of one, then we can talk about proper way to address it. Which is it? Are you already onboard that a problem exists or not?