• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

Rate this studio monitor

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 164 88.6%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 8 4.3%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 8 4.3%

  • Total voters
    185
I would prefer not having to use tone controls to get a good tonal balance just because someone in a studio can't seem to get that right. Regardless what the cause is.
One can use tone controls to get the sound to personal taste at home.
It would have to be a one-time setting in that case instead of consumers having to adjust for themselves AND for the studio as well (per album as it were).
 
My big takeaway from this is that it is completely and entirely pointless to even try and discuss audio production on this forum... Dunning-Kruger to the max here. Being somewhat astute consumers does not, in fact, give you any insight into being producers...
 
All I know is that balance and mixing engineers, do get used to their monitors and rooms typically and adjust their sensibilities around them. NS10s were part of the armoury of tools and as far as I gather from peeps I knew who were in the industry, that's all they were, plain and simple. I'd been told thirty years ago that huge 'mains' in studios were used to impress the bands or visitors to the control room and most monitoring was done on smaller near to mid-fields apparently.

I suspect most sound engineers here have been driven away from this thread, but I repeat that on a bookshelf tight to the wall behind them helping the bass a little, the original NS10's weren't so bad at all, they really weren't! I admit I never heard them in free space, but then I disliked the then smaller Linn speakers which mimicked this tonal balance.
 
I suspect most sound engineers here have been driven away from this thread ...

I don't think so. It's my opinion that professional sound engineers aren't interested in this thread. They take care of their business on a day-to-day basis, and if something in the industry changes, they take it in stride ... as they have for almost a century.

Most of the professionals who I've met will explain their positions once ... then they ignore further arguments. Most have neither time nor energy for it.

Jim
 
I'd been told thirty years ago that huge 'mains' in studios were used to impress the bands or visitors to the control room and most monitoring was done on smaller near to mid-fields apparently.
Generally speaking, correct; and it is of course because the mains tended to not translate to home or car systems very well. They got loud, for sure, but they were never in an acoustically good place or tuned correctly. It was pretty common to use a smaller set of full-ish range midfields as your main speakers and use the others as checks.
Remember - the entire point of grotboxes is an attempt to break the circle of confusion.
 
the entire point of grotboxes is an attempt to break the circle of confusion.
An attempt, yes. But what worries me is that when beginners see dozens of pictures of studios with NS-10s on top of a console, they think they too need a pair to be part of the crew, look professional, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the task of mixing audio. I know because I wanted to get a pair myself many years ago. Then one day I finally heard what they sounded like at a friend's place, and was quite relieved that I'd spent my hard-earned money on more sensible investments instead :D

As I see it, the main problem is that working on the same material for hours, days or even weeks at a time will inevitably distort our perception, even if we have the most neutral system (in which I include the room) at our disposal. Hence why some rely on a secondary pair, which is fine as long as it helps them, of course.

Personally, when I need a change of perspective while working with audio, I certainly don't want to switch to a different pair of speakers with a single button press. Instead, I get out of the studio and simply play what I'm working on alongside other tracks I know well, on my living room system while I do other things. Passive listening in a different context is much, much more powerful than any other secondary speaker system in making obvious problems jump out at me. And if I can't move or just need a quick 'reset', then having a small playlist of well-produced tracks around can also act as a kind of palate cleanser for the ears.
 
I know because I wanted to get a pair myself many years ago. Then one day I finally heard what they sounded like at a friend's place, and was quite relieved that I'd spent my hard-earned money on more sensible investments instead
Not that it will make any difference to explain this here, but what you write is exactly how speakers for music production can not be judged.
It is done by listening at least a few hours to reference material on them and do some work.
Then you start to hear, if the speakers are helpful in hearing details.
  • For me Auratones are exceptionally good in showing if the levels of the instruments are even correct.
  • They also work much better for me than any other speaker to get the midrange right, because they immediately show, if something is too thin, or muddy.
  • Besides great tonal helpfulness, their transient behaviour is amazing.
  • You also hear the finest details in kicks-, basses- and sequencer-attacks, where (at least to me) it is impossible to hear on full range speakers. The dynamic interaction between the kick and the bassline and sequencers int he upper bass range is so good. Especially in gernes, where the low end needs to be stuffed/filled to the maximum.
  • Where the Auratones are probably the best speakers ever, is when it comes to delays, reverbs, ambiences and stereoizing of tracks, especially hooksounds or fat pads.
  • Judging dynamics and setting the compressor is also where they are good/helpful at.

It is another story, if someone, who has worked on them, comes to the conclusiuon he does not like them, like the funny video where Warren Huart talked about his NS-10 induced paranoia. But the way how everybody in hifi forums is talking and "judging" speakers, is just ridiculous and really stupid and this forum is obviously also not helpful at all to educate people about speakers.

If you want to know, if a studio speaker is helpful, you need to work on it for some time and then check, if it helped to reveal all important details and how the things that got worked on, are translating.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know, if a studio speaker is helpful, you need to work on it for some time and then check, if it helped to reveal all important details and how the things that got worked on, are translating.
If the Auratones help you in your work, that's fine. But there's nothing appealing to me in hearing music through a distortion box:



The only way to make sense of such a jagged response would be to spend ages learning how they respond to various material. Not impossible, but why not spend valuable time learning to work on a decent, full-range system instead? Please note that this comment is not directed at you (as you seem to have found a setup that suits you well), but at people who want to get started and may be tempted to buy a questionable reissue of those 'iconic' black and white speakers they've seen everywhere :)

Anyway, things certainly got easier for me as I upgraded my monitoring chain to more neutral setups.
 
No one denies (and those that do don't understand) that Auratones and NS10 are tools that can be used in a studio.
That does not make them good hifi speakers and that is the point for most ASR members.
What @splitting_ears says is what ASR is all about and ASR is not for recommending tools for studios.
But what worries me is that when beginners see dozens of pictures of studios with NS-10s on top of a console, they think they too need a pair to be part of the crew, look professional, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the task of mixing audio. I know because I wanted to get a pair myself many years ago. Then one day I finally heard what they sounded like at a friend's place, and was quite relieved that I'd spent my hard-earned money on more sensible investments instead :D
Consumers that 'want to hear what was heard in the studio' look at pictures of studios. See Auratones and NS10 (or something similar) placed on those impressive consoles and think that in order to hear what the guys in the studio heard they must buy those. Handily forgetting that main monitors (or smaller monitors) are the that are tuned to a conditioned control room would be much closer.

So its a good thing this is discussed and reviews of professional speakers are shown here and are evaluated for the purpose of 'home audio enjoyment'. For this the Auratones and NS10 are totally not suited.
People read things like this:
  • For me Auratones are exceptionally good in showing if the levels of the instruments are even correct.
  • They also work much better for me than any other speaker to get the midrange right, because they immediately show, if something is too thin, or muddy.
  • Besides great tonal helpfulness, their transient behaviour is amazing.
  • You also hear the finest details in kicks-, basses- and sequencer-attacks, where (at least to me) it is impossible to hear on full range speakers. The dynamic interaction between the kick and the bassline and sequencers int he upper bass range is so good. Especially in gernes, where the low end needs to be stuffed/filled to the maximum.
  • Where the Auratones are probably the best speakers ever, is when it comes to delays, reverbs, ambiences and stereoizing of tracks, especially hooksounds or fat pads.
  • Judging dynamics and setting the compressor is also where they are good/helpful at.
.... and could conclude that's what they want/need at home too. They don't. They are tools that can help in a studio and is why studios have them in the first place.

Remarks like the ones below may seem 'correct' for some studio guys with different priorities but is not helpful for people looking for advice on hifi-speakers in home usage.
In fact it is the opposite of helpful.

But the way how everybody in hifi forums is talking and "judging" speakers, is just ridiculous and really stupid and this forum is obviously also not helpful at all to educate people about speakers.
Sure, a lot of reviewers talk nonsense and you need good understanding of speaker measurements and able to interpret all the different plots in order to make an informed decision on which speakers might do well for you in your room.
Please take that in considerations. People look on ASR to look for home-audio speakers and can find different type of info as on more 'subjective' review sites.
ASR actually can be (is) helpful to educate about speakers... for home situations... and even for studio monitor performance.
 
Last edited:
Not that it will make any difference to explain this here, but what you write is exactly how speakers for music production can not be judged.
It is done by listening at least a few hours to reference material on them and do some work.
Then you start to hear, if the speakers are helpful in hearing details.
  • For me Auratones are exceptionally good in showing if the levels of the instruments are even correct.
  • They also work much better for me than any other speaker to get the midrange right, because they immediately show, if something is too thin, or muddy.
  • Besides great tonal helpfulness, their transient behaviour is amazing.
  • You also hear the finest details in kicks-, basses- and sequencer-attacks, where (at least to me) it is impossible to hear on full range speakers. The dynamic interaction between the kick and the bassline and sequencers int he upper bass range is so good. Especially in gernes, where the low end needs to be stuffed/filled to the maximum.
  • Where the Auratones are probably the best speakers ever, is when it comes to delays, reverbs, ambiences and stereoizing of tracks, especially hooksounds or fat pads.
  • Judging dynamics and setting the compressor is also where they are good/helpful at.

It is another story, if someone, who has worked on them, comes to the conclusiuon he does not like them, like the funny video where Warren Huart talked about his NS-10 induced paranoia. But the way how everybody in hifi forums is talking and "judging" speakers, is just ridiculous and really stupid and this forum is obviously also not helpful at all to educate people about speakers.

If you want to know, if a studio speaker is helpful, you need to work on it for some time and then check, if it helped to reveal all important details and how the things that got worked on, are translating.
Bull shite. Plain and simple. A crooked ruler is always the best ruler.........yeah right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
If the Auratones help you in your work, that's fine. But there's nothing appealing to me in hearing music through a distortion box:



The only way to make sense of such a jagged response would be to spend ages learning how they respond to various material. Not impossible, but why not spend valuable time learning to work on a decent, full-range system instead? Please note that this comment is not directed at you (as you seem to have found a setup that suits you well), but at people who want to get started and may be tempted to buy a questionable reissue of those 'iconic' black and white speakers they've seen everywhere :)

Anyway, things certainly got easier for me as I upgraded my monitoring chain to more neutral setups.

Avantone != Auratone
I'm done here.
 
In all fairness the Auratone 5C (plot below) isn't as 'horrific' as the Avantone 'clone' just as the original NS10 isn't nearly as bad as the Avantone CLA10...in technical performance... gauged against 'normal studio monitors'. Sure they are popular and well known in studios but really should stay in there and not end up in living rooms just because they are used in studios and they love them for certain purposes.
1724004096064.png
 
Last edited:
In all fairness the Auratone 5C (plot below) isn't as 'horrific' as the Avantone 'clone' just as the original NS10 isn't nearly as bad as the Avantone CLA10...in technical performance... gauged against 'normal studio monitors'. Sure they are popular and well known in studios but really should stay in there and not end up in living rooms just because they are used in studios and they love them for certain purposes.
View attachment 387220
Honestly if people are buying NS10s for home use given their well known story as being an awful sounding speaker but a useful tool we may just be doomed.
 
Some do look for those classics (could be collectors or guys setting up home studios) and for the same reason even buy equally non suited monitor headphones thinking they must sound super good or other studio gear.

Just because they see it being used in pictures of impressive studio consoles or some YT video and/or because they have a 'professional' label on it so it must be good.
I don't think people will be buying Auratones but they will buy similar looking Yamaha models just because they look a bit like NS10.

Sure... there are plenty of people buying the good Genelec, Neumann, Adam or other midfield monitors for home usage which will probably work fine in suitable rooms but people see things and want it because of the pro label or see pros use them.
 
Last edited:
ITU-R BS.1116 is a quality recommendation for broadcasting services describing high precision audio listening conditions, for monitoring applications such as recording studios, post-production and audio editing. You can freely download the full text of the ITU-R BS.1116 recommendation at https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en
Which is a mess as it is based on a wrong premise, namely equalising a listening position response to a fixed target while ignoring flat direct sound, directivity, listening distance and room reverberation.

Here is why such equalisation doesn't work https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/ and some comments of Toole on above recommendations.

A fundamental problem has been the incorrect assumption, made long, long ago (in the age of RTAs), that the audio rule "flat is beautiful" should apply to steady-state room curves, not the direct sound. It corrupted the movie industry and its problematic "X-curve" (Chapter 11 in my book), and the rest of audio in its application to the ITU-R BS.1116-3 and EBU Tech 3276 standards, unfortunately still used by at least some. broadcasters and monitor manufacturers. Turning back the clock is difficult.

Interestingly Genelec, up until recently at least - I have not checked lately - followed the guidance of the ISO and EBU standards (they are the same) because of their business with the broadcast industry. In brief, these standards require loudspeakers with anechoic (1/3 octave smoothed) on axis responses that are flat within +/- 2dB. OK. But then they tell users to measure steady-state in-room curves and adjust as necessary to make them flat (with a large tolerance). Unless one is listening in a non-reflective environment, or extremely close to the speaker, one cannot have both. There are more shortcomings of the standards, but this is a very bad start. In normally reflective rooms the steady-state room curve from well designed, neutral, loudspeakers will tilt downwards - they are flat and smooth on axis as measured in an anechoic space.

This emphasis on steady-state room curves above the transition frequency is wrong - it is a poor correlate of sound quality. My JAES paper cited in the first post in this thread explains, as does my book. It is embarrassing to look at the performances of some "reference" pro monitor loudspeakers over the years. Several spinoramas are shown in my book, especially Chapter 18.

The EBU Tech 3276 and ITU-R BS.1116-3 standards are essentially identical, and both are wrong. They require that the loudspeakers be flat on axis (good!, but a 4 dB tolerance for 1/3-octave measurements is quite generous) and also flat in the listening room, using EQ if necessary. The topic is fully discussed, with measurements, in Section 13.2.2 in the 3rd edition of my book. A flat ORR (operational room response, a.k.a. steady state room curve) will be perceived as being to bright in all normally reflective listening rooms using forward-firing (not omnidirectional) loudspeakers.
 
Last edited:
"They require that the loudspeakers be flat on axis (good!, but a 4 dB tolerance for 1/3-octave measurements is quite generous)..."

Hmmmm .... sounds familiar.

Jim
 
Which is a mess as it is based on a wrong premise, namely equalising a listening position response to a fixed target while ignoring flat direct sound, directivity, listening distance and room reverberation.

Here is why such equalisation doesn't work https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/ and some comments of Toole on above recommendations.
"Unless one is listening in a non-reflective environment, or extremely close to the speaker, one cannot have both." which is exactly what nearfield monitoring in a typical recording studio is doing. Thanks for the links anyway, I read through it all, very interesting stuff.
 
"Unless one is listening in a non-reflective environment, or extremely close to the speaker, one cannot have both." which is exactly what nearfield monitoring in a typical recording studio is doing. Thanks for the links anyway, I read through it all, very interesting stuff.

The nearfields that I saw were on the meter bridge, and there was a very noticeable "desk bounce" that needed to be taken into consideration.

I guess things must have progressed greatly since I was in a studio.

Jim
 
“Desk bounces” are unlikely a severe problem in mastering studios where the final judgment of the overall tonality usually takes place. Using midfield monitors and making the desk as acoustically invisible as possible are common things in mastering studios.

It would have been interesting to see a bunch of acoustic measurements and speaker measurements from different mastering studios.
 
Back
Top Bottom