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

[ZolaIII]

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...

If you're precious KH or Genelacs score the same or worse to NS10M's both paird with two closed enclosure Genelac or KH 10" sub's and EQ-ed still having considerably worse time domain how are they better in any regard? Sure they sound better on their own then NS10M's party because they are already EQ-ed (integrated DSP) but for the same reason react worse to additional EQ-ing and are harder to handle (ported design). Future more you can pair NS10's with better power amplifier (not that it will matter much especially not with KH's which already have very quiet amp) of course with much better ADC and DSP (you can't pass at least part of internal processing all do you can pass ADC by using digital input and then only down to worse DAC but really not a problem).
NS10M's are old and definitely deserve retirement even industry really failed to give people who really liked them improved successors (i really don't like mica cones with which Yamaha got stuck for too long time now). Actually there are so little closed enclosure design speakers today present on market that it's a shame. Open buffle design all do rare are present and they act very similar and use room instead of box but are harder to handle and separate while dominant ported designs can be good if done properly don't expect to find any of such in HiFi or home tire, some in pro tire and mostly DIY. Thing are not as simple as their may seem at first look.

 

[thewas]

If you're precious KH or Genelacs score the same or worse to NS10M's both paird with two closed enclosure Genelac or KH 10" sub's and EQ-ed still having considerably worse time domain how are they better in any regard?

First of all even with subs and EQ the NS-10 wouldn't score as good as they have also directivity issues which cannot be corrected by equalisation. Second the better time domain behaviour of the closed baffle bass is only relevant without subwoofers as when you use such you mainly bypass the port region of the "satellites".

 

[holdingpants01]

If you're precious KH or Genelacs score the same or worse to NS10M's both paird with two closed enclosure Genelac or KH 10" sub's and EQ-ed still having considerably worse time domain how are they better in any regard? Sure they sound better on their own then NS10M's party because they are already EQ-ed (integrated DSP) but for the same reason react worse to additional EQ-ing and are harder to handle (ported design). Future more you can pair NS10's with better power amplifier (not that it will matter much especially not with KH's which already have very quiet amp) of course with much better ADC and DSP (you can't pass at least part of internal processing all do you can pass ADC by using digital input and then only down to worse DAC but really not a problem).
NS10M's are old and definitely deserve retirement even industry really failed to give people who really liked them improved successors (i really don't like mica cones with which Yamaha got stuck for too long time now). Actually there are so little closed enclosure design speakers today present on market that it's a shame. Open buffle design all do rare are present and they act very similar and use room instead of box but are harder to handle and separate while dominant ported designs can be good if done properly don't expect to find any of such in HiFi or home tire, some in pro tire and mostly DIY. Thing are not as simple as their may seem at first look.

O300/KH310 are closed box design, anyway, no serious mixing person would pair them with a sub, amp and DSP to flatten them out just to have something resembling proper monitors. And no, EQing badly designed and awful sounding passive speakers is not the same as well engineered active design, regardless of what fantasy scenario score says. They are what they are, and people use them because of their flaws.

 

[dfuller]

I should note that directivity takes a back seat in decently designed studios as early reflections are heavily attenuated (25dB or more down).

Regardless of that, NS10s are bad and the Avantones aren't even good clones as the frequency response doesn't match at all.

Also - the mid peak is not a cabinet flaw or even a driver flaw, it's the result of the crossover interacting with the voice coil inductance of the woofer. You can flatten it out with a zobel network.

 

[ZolaIII]

O300/KH310 are closed box design, anyway, no serious mixing person would pair them with a sub, amp and DSP to flatten them out just to have something resembling proper monitors. And no, EQing badly designed and awful sounding passive speakers is not the same as well engineered active design, regardless of what fantasy scenario score says. They are what they are, and people use them because of their flaws.

This is CLA 10 and fantasy scenario is simple written EQ. So that even those less fortunate can use it.

Measurements for speaker Avantone Pro CLA-10

www.spinorama.org

That's 8.15 score EQ+ sub and for CLA 10 which is partly broken in highs and therefore you can't EQ that part good. One the other hand NS10M's is much better in that area so actual EQ scores would be considerably better.
Now same thing for KH310A:

Measurements for speaker Neumann KH 310A

www.spinorama.org

8.39 score. Serious studios (including Harman for they show room's) pay acoustical engineer's (serious money) to do that job for them so that less fortunate one's can just go sit down and listen to it.
@thewas time domain is relevant way more far than 120 Hz.
I hope that settles your fantasies at least.

 

[holdingpants01]

This is CLA 10 and fantasy scenario is simple written EQ. So that even those less fortunate can use it.

Measurements for speaker Avantone Pro CLA-10

www.spinorama.org

That's 8.15 score EQ+ sub and for CLA 10 which is partly broken in highs and therefore you can't EQ that part good. One the other hand NS10M's is much better in that area so actual EQ scores would be considerably better.
Now same thing for KH310A:

Measurements for speaker Neumann KH 310A

www.spinorama.org

8.39 score. Serious studios (including Harman for they show room's) pay acoustical engineer's (serious money) to do that job for them so that less fortunate one's can just go sit down and listen to it.
@thewas time domain is relevant way more far than 120 Hz.
I hope that settles your fantasies at least.

EQing flawed speakers, adding subwoofer, adding "better" amp, adding DSP just to make them score better (on a metric that's irrelevant in the end), even if their sole reason for still being used today is because of their flaws, is some twisted logic I can't really argue with, but sure, have fun

 

[Ktacos]

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 would by all accounts fit the bill of "expert" here and I don't at all agree with this. It's almost a trope at this point, people suggesting to "hear through the poor reproduction", whatever that even means. You pretty much can't anyway since your ears will acclimate to the poor sound and then you'll be mixing into that sound without even realizing it. It's just another aspect of the circle of confusion as far as I'm concerned, tossed in with a bit of justification for product ownership. Music making and mixing folk come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their process, even when much of it could be considered to actually have little impact.

 

[thewas]

@thewas time domain is relevant way more far than 120 Hz.
I hope that settles your fantasies at least.

But at that region a closed baffle box doesn't show significant differences to a ported one.
Fantasies? Why do you have to divert a technical discussion to such inappropriate expressions?

 

[ZolaIII]

EQing flawed speakers, adding subwoofer, adding "better" amp, adding DSP just to make them score better (on a metric that's irrelevant in the end), even if their sole reason for still being used today is because of their flaws, is some twisted logic I can't really argue with, but sure, have fun

Not adding anything, not using your brain and just throwing speakers in your room will make best ones sound bad for sure. I didn't made up anything and it's plane formal logic (in which I am good at). I mean sure if you don't want to add sub's the NS10M's will sound pretty bad but even with high end floor standers adding subs is beneficial and there you go it's elementary logic. As simply the self filter for equal loudness compensation is at 105 Hz and you do want to limit it's impact on lower mids (ringing and harmonics) you will want higher crossover for sub's (120 Hz to received response order Butterworth with great attention EQ-ing transition area) and with such a sub to each speaker (close to it literally). If you don't want to use or do any of that that's on you.

 

[ZolaIII]

But at that region a closed baffle box doesn't show significant differences to a ported one.
Fantasies? Why do you have to divert a technical discussion to such inappropriate expressions?

It does take a look at numerous RT60 decay plots form numerous closed/ported design speakers. Arguably there are some potted one's with great designed boxes that will behave great in that regard if crossed at 120 Hz (I actually know only one's and their are passive budget bookshelfs) but that's very rare.
Nope, someone else used that term I just put it back into the context it belongs with some cold fact's and measurements data. If you are trying to twist that, just don't at least not hire.

 

[thewas]

It does take a look at numerous RT60 decay plots form numerous closed/ported design speakers.

Could you show such here?

Nope, someone else used that term I just put it back into the context it belongs with some cold fact's and measurements data. If you are trying to twist that, just don't at least not hire.

You used it directly after the sentence you replied to me so I logically assumed it was directed to me.

 

[MAB]

I hope that settles your fantasies at least.

Do you have to turn everything into an insult?

Do you really think a 'better amp' is going to improve these speakers? If so, how will they change the characteristics?

Do you think you can determine cone material in a controlled and unsighted test?

Can you explain the interaction of EQ and a large DI error like this?

I really can't follow the rest of your comments, perhaps language barrier, but seems more like a misunderstanding of driver integration. People are talking in physical and acoustic terms, and you are not.

 

[ZolaIII]

Could you show such here?


You used it directly after the sentence you replied to me so I logically assumed it was directed to me.

Well read to who that reply whose direct addressed. I am sure you can find a lot examples by your self if you want and if you don't it's pointless for me to do it.

 

[ZolaIII]

Do you have to turn everything into an insult?

Do you really think a 'better amp' is going to improve these speakers? If so, how will they change the characteristics?

Do you think you can determine cone material in a controlled and unsighted test?

Can you explain the interaction of EQ and a large DI error like this?
View attachment 386178
I really can't follow the rest of your comments, perhaps language barrier, but seems more like a misunderstanding of driver integration. People are talking in physical and acoustic terms, and you are not.

That's (circled out) is exactly how much space for improvement you will have. On already DSP corrected you will have less and pretty much any active one you won't know how much you have in the first place.
No I fulfil bizarre fantasies of random strangers and they are a compliment to me. And when you build an established scientific terminology related to audio, feel free to let me know and send me a published and universally recognized lexicon with defined terms, and I will make an extra effort to overcome the language barrier and adopt them as such.

 

[MAB]

That's (circled out) is exactly how much space for improvement you will have. On already DSP corrected you will have less and pretty much any active one you won't know how much you have in the first place.

Are you saying the Directivity error that I circled is responsive to EQ? It is actually not, Directivity is an intrinsic parameter, and EQ will simply cause even larger mismatch between the tweeter and woofer. EQ'ing it flat on-axis will result in even worse performance in a room. Using a better amp will have zero effect, except to waste a better amp on a really poor and stubborn speaker. This Directivity phenomenon is discussed extensively on ASR. Also widely available literature, a good starting point are white papers and publications from Klippel, since they are well written and have good illustrations. And the reason this speaker and the NS-10 fill a narrow niche application for a narrow purpose.

No I fulfil bizarre fantasies of random strangers and they are a compliment to me. And when you build an established scientific terminology related to audio, feel free to let me know and send me a published and universally recognized lexicon with defined terms, and I will make an extra effort to overcome the language barrier and adopt them as such.

It took me years to absorb the common language of physics. And I have spent a lifetime absorbing the language of electrical measurements. I am learning the language of acoustics. I know of no lexicon like you describe in any serious field of study.

 

[amirm]

Aren't these used a lot less in the last 10 years than decades back? If so, has the quality of the mix worsen as a result of it?

 

[dfuller]

Aren't these used a lot less in the last 10 years than decades back? If so, has the quality of the mix worsen as a result of it?

Yes and no; the NS10 per se is less common but the idea behind them (a deliberately crappy speaker as a sanity check) has not gone away at all. They're still a fairly popular choice for that role, but less than they were; parts have become hard to come by and the "reproductions" aren't exactly all that. CLA10s are monstrously brighter than any actual Yamaha I've used.

What has made mixes worse? Budgets going through the floor.

Nobody wants to pay for (or in some cases can afford) a good studio, they'll do it at home. Nobody wants to pay for a good mixer, they'll have their friend with a bunch of cracked Waves plugins do it for free. Nobody wants to pay for mastering, just have the mixer slap a limiter on it and call it good.

The great mixes of past decades were when there was more budget and more time could be spent on tracking and tonal selection then.

 

[ZolaIII]

@MAB that whose sarcasm. I really, really won't quote myself but if you would be kind enough to read closing point in #1136 you would see how I exactly already pointed the same thing. And it's not only pore implemented crossover but combination of that and cabinet resonance prior to it. Ironically creators of CLA 10 praised around how they did a much better job regarding crossover, and they clearly didn't. Space between the line's represent possible headroom, of course you can't correct that entirely with EQ, not even with EQ+phase correction never the less calculated score and measurements are that what there are not my phantasy and done by our host and who ever did calculate EQ, everything else is a subjective bias and if you want to question that be my guest and take it with them. Enjoy your time and spend it wisely.

 

[MAB]

@MAB that whose sarcasm. I really, really won't quote myself but if you would be kind enough to read closing point in #1136 you would see how I exactly already pointed the same thing. And it's not only pore implemented crossover but combination of that and cabinet resonance prior to it. Ironically creators of CLA 10 praised around how they did a much better job regarding crossover, and they clearly didn't. Space between the line's represent possible headroom, of course you can't correct that entirely with EQ, not even with EQ+phase correction never the less calculated score and measurements are that what there are not my phantasy and done by our host and who ever did calculate EQ, everything else is a subjective bias and if you want to question that be my guest and take it with them. Enjoy your time and spend it wisely.

I see you are sarcastic.
I don't see the reason in the rest though.
And you are arguing with people who know more than you + me about speakers and acoustics, so it's even more odd.
And your past comments to me were not coherent either, I did give you the benefit of doubt back then.
I spend my time as I see fit.

 

[thewas]

Well read to who that reply whose direct addressed. I am sure you can find a lot examples by your self if you want and if you don't it's pointless for me to do it.

I haven't seen such "RT 60" measurements of either the NS-10 not the CLA-10, but you should since you made that claim?

Since it seems also you haven't seen yet what Toole had written in the past about the NS-10 (who even had met its designer who apologised to him(!)):

The NS1000 was an exceptional loudspeaker at the time, and not embarrassing even now. See Figure 18.3. The only problem was that they were designed for a flat sound power target, so they were slightly bass shy - turn up the bass and/or turn down the treble for better balance. The NS-10 was also designed for flat sound power, and in a two-way that was most regrettable - although inexplicably many recording engineers got sucked into what can only be described as a "fashion". Truthfully it was an Auratone with more bass. The designer visited me at the NRCC and went away swearing never to do it again. He didn't, and subsequent Yamaha monitors were flat on axis. Section 12.5.1 in the 3rd edition discusses this and shows measurements.

Hi, I know the document and I know the authors. There is much to say about it, including noting the comment early on that the Yamaha NS-10M "appeared to have a sound character that mixing personnel had been looking for" - in other words the speaker was selected for being a pleasing equalizer for pop/rock music, not a neutral revealer of recorded "truths". There is the admission later on that the obvious mid frequency excess will be reflected in recordings, saying "the resultant balance of low- vs mid-frequencies will probably be correctable using equalisation should that be deemed necessary during the mastering process". This is a classic "kick-the-can-down-the-road" attitude. They assume that mastering engineers will be using neutral monitors and therefore might hear the coloration and can fix it.

This is precisely what professional recording engineers should not be doing - in my opinion . . .

It is important to understand that loudspeaker performance at low frequencies is minimum-phase behavior. That is, its time domain performance is predictable from its amplitude response. Apply ANY EQ and the time domain behavior changes - are there any control room systems that do not have some EQ?. Woofer performance is predictable from contemporary mathematical modeling of transducer/enclosure interaction. Of course, superimposed on speaker behavior are the medium-to-high-Q room resonances. Listening at about 1 m over the top of a console work surface is one thing. Listening a 2 to 3 m in a normally-reflective domestic space is another. All their measurements were on axis only; no off axis data that might have added insights. Anechoic chambers are not anechoic at low frequencies, and even attempts at corrective EQ have limitations (I know because I have "calibrated" chambers for use below cutoff frequency).

Section 12.5.1 "Old-School Monitoring" in the 3rd edition of my book shows measurements on several relevant loudspeakers, showing clearly that the Pro version of the NS-10 was modified to do an even better job of imitating "ye olde original crappy speaker" the Auratone 5C, an inexpensive 5-inch full range paper-cone speaker that was widely used in CRT television sets of the period.

BTW, the designer of the NS-10M and the NS-1000M visited me at my NRC lab in Canada to experience the measurement process and double-blind listening tests. They left with many physical measurements and photographs intending to duplicate some of the facility and processes. The original speakers were designed to exhibit flat sound power (believed, incorrectly, to be what listeners heard in the far field), which my measurements showed they did extremely well. The problem was that the two-way NS-10 ended up with a very non-flat on-axis response, but the three-way NS-1000M, with more uniform directivity with frequency, was an exemplary loudspeaker at the time (1974) - see Figure 18.3 (e).

I could go on, but fortunately I don't need to because the recording industry has done it for me; it has moved on. The fad has substantially passed, and the current norms for monitor loudspeakers (including Yamahas) are not different from the current objectives for neutral sounding domestic entertainment loudspeakers, which is as it should be.

I don't wish to argue about "why" the NS10M became popular - I have heard and read several versions, including the one you refer to - and one more from someone who said he was in a position to know, saying that many were given away free to recording engineers. Personally I have no insight except that I have measured and heard the products, and spent time with the designers, who also went through a double-blind evaluation of their own products. They took notes. The products are what they are and the chips will fall where they may.

According to the designer, the NS10M was designed to be used by consumers in relatively reflective rooms, placed close to a wall for bass reinforcement and auditioned at a large distance at which the radiated sound power was assumed to be the dominant factor. It was not designed to be a near-field monitor, placed on the meter bridge in the open (no bass reinforcement) and auditioned at a distance of about 3 ft where the direct sound (on-axis response modified by a console reflection) would be the dominant factor. These are almost diametrically opposite uses.

At the time the Auratone 5C was in widespread use as a loudspeaker representing what many consumers were listening to - mixing for the audience was the notion. It was a simple small cone speaker in widespread use in TVs and elsewhere installed in a small box - absolutely nothing special. Whatever other arguments are put forward, it is hard to ignore the fact that the professional version of the NS10M measured and sounded remarkably like the Auratone, but with more extended bass and much better production quality control. The Auratones were highly variable. See the attached curves, which include a curve of a more recent Yamaha monitor (Figure 12.11 from the 3rd edition - there are more to be seen there). Yamaha clearly walked away from a market for their NS10M Pro and its seeming ability to reveal audible secrets. So, equalize the new one to have the frequency response of the old one when needed - too logical?

There is another school of thought, supported by work and writings of Philip Newell, that claims the advantage to be uncommonly "tight" bass. To all of these perspectives I would add one thought - why not use equalization? In fact, these days does anyone NOT equalize a monitor loudspeaker? Simply start with a broadband, neutral monitor and if one wishes to focus on specific bands of frequencies during a mix dial/switch in the appropriate equalization. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum phase devices so the time-domain performance follows the amplitude-domain (anechoic frequency response) curve. At bass frequencies there is not even a consideration of directivity to be concerned about - EQ is king. Tight bass, loose bass, fat bass, thin bass, all are possible with EQ. In my discussions of such things with several pros I got the kinds of responses typical of many consumers - they really didn't understand how loudspeakers work, but they know what they hear and they have "ideas".