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

[Sacha]

You seem to totally understand the premise, but something in your heard won't let you accept it as fact. I'd be trying to figure out what that thing is. If you truly find it reductive you simply don't have the experience in production or mixing to see how true it really is.

I have 20+ years experience, tens of millions of streams of my work, numerous awards etc. so I think I'm OK on that front, not to enter a dong-waving contest or anything. I indeed think it's an over-simplification to believe calibrated monitoring = perfect mix translation (whatever that even means). Maybe that's not what the author intended to say and I misinterpreted it. What I'm saying is how do we know how / why the outcome was reached? Was it compromised monitoring, was it artistic intent, was it lack of skill? People love a lot of things I think sound terrible and vice versa. Who's right or wrong? What if they sound terrible intentionally? It is art, after all.

Look at all the writers and musicians in the world today, and how they are threatened by AI. All their life, they've been perfecting their craft and honing their skills. Now there's a computer algorithm that can potentially take the wind out their sails. Is it not understandable that they resist it?

In the same way, is it possible that you find solutions to the "circle of confusion" reductive because the very premise threatens to diminish your artistic skills? Like writers and musicians, production teams depend on personal skills, developed over time and sometimes with a great deal of effort.

Just as free trade eventually destroyed the medieval guilds, so may progressive solutions in the recording industry destroy the dominance of personal artistry. Unfortunately, time and tide wait for no man.

Jim

That's quite a leap to intuit I feel threatened. I have a very well calibrated monitoring system myself, and it still involves skill, hard work, taste and artistic interpretation to produce a mix that meets the artist's vision and relates well to other people's listening environments. AI is a whole other ball of wax so I'm not even going to touch that one. Anyway like I said, having better quality reproduction of sound on both the production and listening side is not something I'm against in any way; I just don't think it will achieve the outcome the author seems to seek of more 'correct' mixes, if that's what they meant. If they just want artists and end listeners to have better quality reproduction then heck, I'm all for it.

 

[Jim Taylor]

That's quite a leap to intuit I feel threatened.

Yes ..... that's why I asked a question rather than made a statement. I was interested in your opinion.

Jim

 

[Geert]

I indeed think it's an over-simplification to believe calibrated monitoring = perfect mix translation (whatever that even means). Maybe that's not what the author intended to say and I misinterpreted it. What I'm saying is how do we know how / why the outcome was reached? Was it compromised monitoring, was it artistic intent, was it lack of skill?

Lack of calibration at production and reproduction side is what causes the 'circle of confusion'. If the producers and customers system would sound the same, the customer would hear the music like the producer did. People in the studio being uncapable is not part of the concept presented.

 

[goat76]

Lack of calibration at production and reproduction side is what causes the 'circle of confusion'. If the producers and customers system would sound the same, the customer would hear the music like the producer did. People in the studio being uncapable is not part of the concept presented.

But isn't the real goal here that the production of the music content maintains a more even level of continuity tonality-wise?

If the goal is just to make sure the customer hears the music the same way as the producer did in the studio, no matter how "wacky" or "off" the tonality ends up being, I don't see much point in chasing an end to the "circle of confusion" as the content would still end up being all over the place tonality-wise anyways.

As @Sacha said, it's an oversimplification to believe calibrated monitoring would make a significant change in production deviations, as the reason can be everything from compromised monitoring, artistic intent, lack of skill, or even completely intentional. The solution to unintentional deviations is listening to accurate reference recordings and using them as targets during the audio production, and that will work equally as well even if your monitoring system may have a few deviations from perfection.

I don't see why anyone would be particularly interested in hearing the music the same way as the producer if it sounds totally "wacky" or "off" tonality-wise.

 

[Geert]

But isn't the real goal here that the production of the music content maintains a more even level of continuity tonality-wise?

Sure, so the argument that there's no right amount of highs and lows is an oversimplification. You can model sounds as an artistic choice, but the end product still needs some consistency. That's why you have mastering.

As @Sacha said, it's an oversimplification to believe calibrated monitoring would make a significant change in production deviations, as the reason can be everything from compromised monitoring, artistic intent, lack of skill, or even completely intentional.

It's taking away one uncertainty. One that can make a substantial difference if the production or reproduction system deviates a lot (like in most hifi systems). As you know this is what the research domain of Toole is about. He never said his work covers everything that leads to go sound. It certainly doesn't deal with the artistic part.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Lack of calibration at production and reproduction side is what causes the 'circle of confusion'. If the producers and customers system would sound the same, the customer would hear the music like the producer did. People in the studio being uncapable is not part of the concept presented.

Having the same setup, even having identically sounding setups + acoustics, does what?!
I wonder how can anyone make such statements?

In the hifi scene this very strange imagination of "purity" exists. Maybe stemming from the term "high fidelity"? And it has been nourished by the hifi-industry forever...

When it comes to recording, the producer decides, for each instrument, which one of very differently sounding(!) mics he will choose, the number of mics, which room, the amount of the recorded room's ambience, the positioning of the mic(s). Then what preamp to use, recording with or without compression, which compressor, the chosen converters or maybe even the kind of tape machine, at what speed, tape formula and bias.

And this is only the important but small recording part of production of one instrument. The rest of production follows later. And then follows the mixing part and the mastering part. Recorded music always has been an artificial, artistic product and never has been authentic.

It reminds me about these stupid boomer talks about "real music" and authenticity, if a drug riddled person on stage was playing a guitar, or why live recordings were "more authentic" than studio productions...

Lack of calibration at production and reproduction side is what causes the 'circle of confusion'.

 

[LSPhil]

maybe this is the answer to our question:

 

[LSPhil]

Here are the settings for those who have line monitors and would like to hear what the NS10 sounds like.

HS 1063Hz +7dB Q=0,7
HS 2780Hz -7dB Q=1
HP BU2 150Hz

 

[Geert]

Having the same setup, even having identically sounding setups + acoustics, does what?!

>>>

the customer would hear the music like the producer did

It's taking away one uncertainty.

When it comes to recording, the producer decides, for each instrument, which one of very differently sounding(!) mics he will choose, the number of mics, which room, the amount of the recorded room's ambience, the positioning of the mic(s). Then what preamp to use, recording with or without compression, which compressor, the chosen converters or maybe even the kind of tape machine, at what speed, tape formula and bias.

>>>

It (Toole's research) certainly doesn't deal with the artistic part.

I wonder how can anyone make such statements?

Yeh, who is that Toole guy anyway?

 

[Jim Taylor]

Having the same setup, even having identically sounding setups + acoustics, does what?!
I wonder how can anyone make such statements?

These might help:

Book Review - Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction - SoundGirls.org

Like some of you, I have made it a priority to read more this year. One of those books is going to be Floyd Toole’s Sound Reproduction. Let me preface this by saying I have read this book, but in chapters that were required for a college class. I have never read it in its entirety nor out of...

soundgirls.org

SoundStage! Solo | SoundStageSolo.com - Can Accuracy in Music Reproduction Exist?

Reviews of headphones, earphones, and headphone amplifiers

www.soundstagesolo.com

Jim

 

[mhardy6647]

Look at all the writers and musicians in the world today, and how they are threatened by AI. All their life, they've been perfecting their craft and honing their skills. Now there's a computer algorithm that can potentially take the wind out their sails. Is it not understandable that they resist it?

[emphasis added]
Ahh, but will AI have the facility with metaphors that we humans have?

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

bla bla bla

You profile is not reflecting the truth. Open minded people do not ignore reality!

 

[Jim Taylor]

You profile is not reflecting the truth. Open minded people do not ignore reality!

??????????????????

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

??????????????????

Of course not.

 

[amirm]

I indeed think it's an over-simplification to believe calibrated monitoring = perfect mix translation (whatever that even means).

Neutral monitoring is the first step in achieving end to end calibration. We have this in video and it works excellently with respect to fidelity.

In today's situation however, with consumption devices being all over the map, it wouldn't help the situation in the short term and may make it worse. But at some point we need to right the ship.

In fairness I should say that in audio we can't have bass response down to 10 Hz one every device so this aspect won't work with this open loop type of solution. This is why I have proposed a different system: including the frequency response of the room as metadata in the recording. This way, the playback system can use that to optimize and even be able to deal with non-neutral productions.

 

[MAB]

Here are the settings for those who have line monitors and would like to hear what the NS10 sounds like.
View attachment 386433
HS 1063Hz +7dB Q=0,7
HS 2780Hz -7dB Q=1
HP BU2 150Hz

This will replicate only the on-axis frequency response.
Aside from the boosted midrange, another distinguishing feature of the NS-10 is the directivity errors between woofer and tweeter and the off-axis behavior, which EQ can't directly reproduce.
It will allow the listener to see if they really like the sound of boosted midrange. But it will won't reproduce the poor imaging and head-in-vise frequency sensitivity, unless their speakers already suck.

 

[Sacha]

Neutral monitoring is the first step in achieving end to end calibration. We have this in video and it works excellently with respect to fidelity.

In today's situation however, with consumption devices being all over the map, it wouldn't help the situation in the short term and may make it worse. But at some point we need to right the ship.

In fairness I should say that in audio we can't have bass response down to 10 Hz one every device so this aspect won't work with this open loop type of solution. This is why I have proposed a different system: including the frequency response of the room as metadata in the recording. This way, the playback system can use that to optimize and even be able to deal with non-neutral productions.

How would you define 'non-neutral productions'? What is 'too much bass'? What is 'too bright'? These are not, never will be, and should not be objective statements. I could mix on the flattest speakers ever in an anechoic chamber and still make the artistic choice to produce what the author feels is 'too much bass'. How would we know? Who is right or wrong? That's the part of this theory I don't agree with. Art is not created to be 'neutral'.

If the circle of confusion idea stopped at 'everyone should have better and more calibrated sound reproduction' I'd be 100% on board, recording studios have already been striving for this goal for a long time. Those with less than perfect reproduction (so everyone) also have numerous tools and skills to work around it. I'm not on board with trying to calibrate and neutralize artistic expression, and even if we wanted to, no one would ever agree on what that means.

Respectfully, have you or Toole ever mixed a song? It seems like conflating two relatively vast domains of expertise to equate knowing how music should be produced to knowing how speakers work. I could be an expert on race cars and engines and and mechanic tools; that doesn't mean I know how to get in the car and win the race.

 

[Jim Taylor]

How would you define 'non-neutral productions'? What is 'too much bass'? What is 'too bright'? These are not, never will be, and should not be objective statements. I could mix on the flattest speakers ever in an anechoic chamber and still make the artistic choice to produce what the author feels is 'too much bass'. How would we know? Who is right or wrong? That's the part of this theory I don't agree with. Art is not created to be 'neutral'.

Methods for dealing with the "circle of confusion" have absolutely nothing to do with artistry. There is no right or wrong in artistic choice.

But your questions, and the confusion that they display, are excellent at making the circle of confusion obvious. You are correct to ask, "How would we know?" Using the present system, no artist or mastering engineer can know how his work will sound in a customer's home. Not only that, but no customer can be sure that what he hears on the recording is what the artist and the mixing engineer meant for him to hear in his house. If it sounds "too bright", was it meant to sound that way? If it sounds like there's "too much bass", was it meant to sound that way? You're right to ask, "Who is right or wrong?"

If there was a standard, the customer would know that whatever he heard was intended. Too much bass? Fine; it was intended to sound that way. Vocals too recessed? Fine; they wanted it to be that way. So the artist could produce the most awful Yoko-Ono-esque travesty, and the buyer could be sure that what he was listening to was correct and intentional.

Jim

 

[amirm]

Respectfully, have you or Toole ever mixed a song?

Respectfully, have you listened to nearly 300 speakers and experienced the mess we have on our hands as far as variation in playback systems? How about another 200 headphones with the same problem? Do you ignore race car driver's feedback if he hasn't designed the race car? We don't need to mix a song to know what is wrong and what should be there as far as standardization. Fact is that if you are mixing on a non-neutral system, i.e. what we are trying to produce at home, you are almost guaranteed to make a sub-optimal mix. Again, we have seen this in video.

As to my experience, I have managed development of video in broadcast and post production. I know full well how those "engineers" approach this vs audio engineers. They make fun of audio engineers all the time and for good reason. When done right, color of red is the same as real life color of red. We have nothing like this in audio. Audio companies use this as an excuse to create whatever response curve they want in their transducers. Our leverage is low when it comes to getting them to produce neutral products. Not so in video. Today's TVs are very close to calibration even though they are mass produced because there are standards that pushed them in that direction. Every one in the video chain is happy to have these standards, not advocate lack of them.

 

[amirm]

OK, interesting to hear the artists spending their lives working hard to create the music you purport to enjoy are a joke to you. I hope one day you can show us all how it's done. 'Sub-optimal mix' has no objective grounding in reality and your video metaphor is a tenuous analogy at best.

A joke? No, a disaster when an industry that wants consumers to experience its products as intended, defends lack of any standard to enable it.. Nothing about this is about how you produce content. What skills go in it or level of work. I imagine it is hell to try to figure out how a mix "translates" when there is zero science behind such a practice.