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

[Jimbob54]

SP-10s? That model does not exist.?

Note the apostrophe.

 

[rocksteady]

Note the apostrophe.

Hey? That apostrophe is wrongly used there. To indicate a Plural, simply add an S. Regardless, I was asking about the existence of the SP-10s. I had assumed the Poster was referring to Speakers? The SP-10 was obviously a Turntable…

 

[Jimbob54]

Hey? What apostrophe?

Technics SP10 definitely did exist.

 

[rocksteady]

Technics SP10 definitely did exist.

Yes, I understand that. But giving the context of the post, I had assumed that he was referring to some speakers…

 

[rocksteady]

Every time a pro audio product is being reviewed this forum goes crazier with fantasies and assumptions then any audiophile believers forum. Sound engineers don't know better than audiophiles, sound engineers must have serious hearing loss and so on.

For a start, I have never seen this Avantone in a commercial studio. It's not because someone makes a speaker and calls it a monitor, that it's effectively being used by audio pro's. Major logic error.



Don't know what you mean by that, but this actually was a common thing to do. That is, until Yamaha recognised engineers didn't really appreciate the overly bright character of these speakers and came with a second generation with reduced highs. So far for the deaf sound engineers myth.

And from practice I can tell you, if you could make a mix work on NS10's you were golden. It's hard work to pull that off. And of course you still finalise your mix on state of the art monitors.

By Second generation, do you mean the Pro and Studio? I have read that they’re technically identical,
but the Tweeter designation on the Studio has an added A. Could you confirm this?

 

[mhardy6647]

The SP-10 was a pretty good studio deck. Had one here for a wee bit (dump find) but passed it along to someone who'd make better use of it than I.

 

[LSPhil]

After reading about the NS10 speakers on Wikipedia, I learned that the Tieton membrane is made of a sheet of paper.
This fact raises the question: How can speakers known for their subpar sound be used for mixing?
It is a known fact that they are indeed used. They are also utilized for home listening, as mixes created on these monitors sound best on the NS10 at home. However, the major challenge lies with those who own linear speakers and must listen to recordings where 5 dB are missing from 1 kHz, and the bass ends at 80 Hz.
By the way, I noticed that when analyzing the impedance curve, the NS10 exhibits the following parameters: F0=100Hz, Qtc=0.83. These parameters are almost ideal for Dolby home cinema. When combined with an RXA filter set at 80 Hz, an acoustic Linkwitz Riley 24 dB/octave is created.
Upon comparing the characteristics of the NS10 and LS3/5a, I understood that I need to replicate my linear speakers using EQ corrections to listen to old recordings mixed on these monitors.
Currently, I am listening to a playlist found on the internet on Spotify titled "Rogers LS3/5a." What do you think is the reason behind creating this playlist? In conclusion, both were measured by Amira:

 

[Deleted member 21219]

This fact raises the question: How can speakers known for their subpar sound be used for mixing?

They are also utilized for home listening, as mixes created on these monitors sound best on the NS10 at home.

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Jim

 

[goat76]

The only confusion that’s (still) going on here is that some of you guys seem to think that all things done in music production are dependent on the frequency response of one studio monitor. One monitor used during one of many stages of music production, one tool among many other tools will hardly ever dictate the outcome of the final product.

In a similar way…
Must we all be using a magnifying glass to be able to appreciate a photo, just because someone did use the zoom function in Photoshop while editing the picture?

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

This fact raises the question: How can speakers known for their subpar sound be used for mixing?
It is a known fact that they are indeed used.

They emphasize the upper midrange. In conjunction with their good transient response, and because the sound is always in the midrange, they easily show severe problems, if instruments have too much, or an annoying sound, or - even more important in the digital age - if transients are too hard, because on these speakers things quickly sound annoying or poke the ears.
Thanks to their good transient behaviour their stereo imaging is good and thanks to their hyped upper mids buildups or annoyances are good to hear. Which makes it easy to hear delays and reverb tails, and if these are too bright, or too brittle or too thin sounding.

 

[Ktacos]

I mix for a living for the most part and boy, I will never agree that worse speakers make for a valuable mixing tool. If anything, they lead you to chase problems that aren't really there, and if you do hear something that needs fixing on say the ns-10, once you take that mix back to good monitors you'll hear the problem there as well. The difference was your mental state when using the worse speakers, your expectations are different, you're going to hear things differently.

My mix translation has always improved when my monitoring setup improves and gets closer to linearity.

 

[ZolaIII]

I mix for a living for the most part and boy, I will never agree that worse speakers make for a valuable mixing tool. If anything, they lead you to chase problems that aren't really there, and if you do hear something that needs fixing on say the ns-10, once you take that mix back to good monitors you'll hear the problem there as well. The difference was your mental state when using the worse speakers, your expectations are different, you're going to hear things differently.

My mix translation has always improved when my monitoring setup improves and gets closer to linearity.

Take a look at calculated score for EQ-ed CLA 10 with perfect sub, for NS 10 M it's considered able better (for the highs part). So to which bad speakers where you refering? And don't forget times domain this do very good (simply as they are closed enclosure).

 

[holdingpants01]

Take a look at calculated score for EQ-ed CLA 10 with perfect sub, for NS 10 M it's considered able better (for the highs part). So to which bad speakers where you refering? And don't forget times domain this do very good (simply as they are closed enclosure).

I've seen and heard dozens of NS10s in countless studios, no one used them with an EQ to flatten them out, all of them sounded like dirty cardboard with nails sticking out

 

[LSPhil]

I've seen and heard dozens of NS10s in countless studios, no one used them with an EQ to flatten them out, all of them sounded like dirty cardboard with nails sticking out

Your contribution proves that the membrane of these speakers immediately falls apart when exposed to a small amount of energy and begins to vibrate partially. It is no secret that a speaker in a closed housing is easier to filter than a bass reflex. It is just my conviction that if you mix a recording with these monitors, then only they can sound good, otherwise you have to switch on an EQ correction +5dB from 1kHz. It is often the case that very poor things achieve success, e.g. VHS cassette, Vinl LP, tube amplifier.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

If anything, they lead you to chase problems that aren't really there, and if you do hear something that needs fixing on say the ns-10, once you take that mix back to good monitors you'll hear the problem there as well.

But it does not necessarily work vice versa. At least not for me (producing EDM mostly). A big plus of these speakers when it comes to unmasking problems. For the same reasons I keep the sub off most of the time, or why I sometimes use bandpass EQ settings on the monitoring chain.
For example, on my KH-120s, with full kick and bass, I don't hear, if the cymbals bus has transients that are still too hard, while the NS-10 poke the ears. Once noticed on the NS-10, it becomes obvious on the KH-120, like it becomes hearable everywhere.
Or when it comes to the attack of softsynths, especially with fast notes like low sequences. On my KH-120 a lo seq can sound good, but on the NS-10 it immediately stands out, if it has the typical VSTi attack.

 

[ZolaIII]

I've seen and heard dozens of NS10s in countless studios, no one used them with an EQ to flatten them out, all of them sounded like dirty cardboard with nails sticking out

Yet they were used in production of so many great recordings which translate and sound great even today and on pretty much anything half decent. They were valuable tool for those who learned how to use them. Calculated score don't lie and physics are well phisics. Today's ported design with bad and way lower then woofer could possibly push (so that you get one half tone out of the half of octave and in front instead as reinforcement) with additional cost of increased (a lot) distortion under the port tuning aren't better design's, just cheaper pretending to do what they possibly can't. That they don't do under 100 Hz even it's a 9" woofer also ain't a big downfall as for equal loudness compensation consistency you will do crossovers higher (120 Hz as low self for it is at 105 Hz). If we really have to pick a flaw for NS 10M's then it would be a crossover that could have been done both better and from components of better quality.
What people do or don't do and consider themselves clever it's not up to me.
Need less to say CLA 10 is a complete miss even compared to regular NS10's.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I’m at this site because I listen to experts like Amir. He’s an expert in the field of audio electronics, measuring hi-fi gear and the science of what we hear.

I listen to quite a few producers because they’re expert in their field, and I find it interesting to hear how they’ve accomplished certain sounds and recordings, etc.

All the producers I know who’ve commented say they know the tonal balance of the Yamaha is ‘wrong’, but know it so well that they know how to work around that.

That may sound counter-intuitive to you and I, but as I say, I listen to the experts. If they say they can do it, I trust them.

I’m seeing a lot of producers saying now that so many excellent, neutral speakers are available for such relatively little money, that almost everyone is using these, so I think it’s a bit of a moot point.

Good, balanced comments from Warren here:

Do We Need To Use NS10's Anymore?

producelikeapro.com

He uses Genelecs these days.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

I've seen and heard dozens of NS10s in countless studios, no one used them with an EQ to flatten them out, all of them sounded like dirty cardboard with nails sticking out

Nice description and the reason why I use them. If it sounds good and powerful and balanced on that cardboard and nails do not stick out, then it is sounding even better on more pleasing sounding speakers.

 

[goat76]

It is just my conviction that if you mix a recording with these monitors, then only they can sound good, otherwise you have to switch on an EQ correction +5dB from 1kHz.

So where are those records you are concerned about, the ones mixed with NS-10s and only sound good when listening to NS-10s?

I have asked that same question to others who are concerned about the use of NS-10s as a mixing tool, but not a single person has yet come up with any examples of how these specific loudspeakers have ruined any particular audio productions.

In my world, a problem should first be identified, and then after that, you should try to solve it.
But in this case, no one seems to have identified a problem any of you can lead to the use of Yamaha NS-10s as a mixing tool in studios.

It is often the case that very poor things achieve success, e.g. VHS cassette, Vinl LP, tube amplifier.

The big difference with the things you see as "very poor things" like VHS cassettes, Vinyl LPs, and tube amplifiers is that those are usually just used for listening pleasure, while the NS-10s in a studio environment are used as tools to achieve a result. If that result is met and the paying clients are happy there is nothing to be concerned about, but if it isn't, the clients would go somewhere else.

The thing is that there are many reference records made with the use of NS-10s, done by some of the best mixing engineers out there. That's proof that these speakers didn't ruin the result, and as long as they didn't, it shouldn't be of any concern what monitors they used to reach that good reference result. These mixing engineers didn't choose the NS-10s because they were bad monitors to mix on, they chose them because they simply worked out great for them to quickly identify problems and speed up their workflow, in a similar way as a magnifying glass can be useful for picture editing.

 

[Waxx]

I think that a lot of you don't get that those NS-10's (or auratones) were always used next to a very neutral monitor, to check mixes and how they translate to lo fi consumer speakers. Both the Auratone and the NS-10 are very good at that. They were rarely used for the mixing itself, but more as doublecheck, or to find a certain problem that a neutral speaker can't show so clear.

When i did some studiowork (more than a decade ago), i've used the NS-10 in combo with the Klein & Hummel o310A (ancestor of the KH310) and in an other sessien auratones with a pair of ATC 150's (if i remeber right). In both sessions you use the clean monitor in +90% of the time, but you were happy those crappy speakers were there also to have a different view on the mix and double check on translation.

I see them also sometimes in top end mastering studio's like the one of Jerboa (one of Belgians best), next to his Kii Audio Tree BXT monitors. And he uses them for the same reasons as I and most did. But as only monitor in a studio, they are worthless, i agree. The measurements that exist on the web show clearly why...