• 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
Good modern studio room designs (even more mastering) usually are not using as much absorption as they used to in the past as they had to due to the poor directivity of contemporary monitors.

I don’t think much has changed. It's still highly important to have an acoustically well-controlled environment to be able to judge what ends up in the material or not, especially when it comes to having a clear idea of the amount of reverb and room sounds on the recording which will be hard to judge if the listening environment is too lively.
 
I don’t think much has changed. It's still highly important to have an acoustically well-controlled environment to be able to judge what ends up in the material or not, especially when it comes to having a clear idea of the amount of reverb and room sounds on the recording which will be hard to judge if the listening environment is too lively.
Too lively of course not but also not the extremely "dead" acoustics used in the past, even more for mastering.
 
Good modern studio room designs (even more mastering) usually are not using as much absorption as they used to in the past as they had to due to the poor directivity of contemporary monitors.
Not really true, the best modern studios I've been in are Northward designs which have a truly heroic amount of absorption. They have just enough reflection to not feel dead.
 
Not really true, the best modern studios I've been in are Northward designs which have a truly heroic amount of absorption. They have just enough reflection to not feel dead.
Just because you personally like a specific small share of studios does not negate my statement that good modern studios use more diffusion that absorption as there many (more) of those.
 
Just because you personally like a specific small share of studios does not negate my statement that good modern studios use more diffusion that absorption as there many (more) of those.
Having been in a bunch of those "diffusion instead of absorption" studios, they largely sound terrible for their intended purpose. Waaaaaay too much reflected energy going on, and you can tell - reverbs are unclear, imaging is very diffuse and not useful. Sounds kind of fun, but pretty poor as a critical environment.
 
Having been in a bunch of those "diffusion instead of absorption" studios, they largely sound terrible for their intended purpose. Waaaaaay too much reflected energy going on, and you can tell - reverbs are unclear, imaging is very diffuse and not useful. Sounds kind of fun, but pretty poor as a critical environment.
In my experience a good mix between diffusion and absorption is usually the best option for stereo reproduction where for example the rear part of the studio is more absorptive. Also for mastering (not mixing) there are advantages if the acoustics resemble more the "final destination home setup".
 
Hi-fi bros sitting in a 12db null in their untreated living room looking down on recording studios for not being neutral enough be like

vultouri.jpg


Why can't studio speakers in real rooms with real people working in them measure as flat as the imaginary room on my computer screen? :mad:
 
Hi-fi bros sitting in a 12db null in their untreated living room looking down on recording studios for not being neutral enough be like

View attachment 387349

Why can't studio speakers in real rooms with real people working in them measure as flat as the imaginary room on my computer screen? :mad:
You are talking more to acousticians here than HiFi bros.

This would be funny at Romy the Cat's Goodsoundclub.
 
It's great to see so much banter about the ns10's going back decades now. They are still one of the most misunderstood/undervalued pieces of monitoring out there. I've worked on many 5 figure sound systems and nothing is easier than flipping on the ns10s and getting 80% of the mix sounding clean fat and punchy. Until you've worked all day on a pair of 20,000 dollar speakers only to turn on the ns10's and realize you fucked up you may not understand.
 
Hi-fi bros sitting in a 12db null in their untreated living room looking down on recording studios for not being neutral enough be like

View attachment 387349

Why can't studio speakers in real rooms with real people working in them measure as flat as the imaginary room on my computer screen? :mad:
Care to share your acoustic measurements, I have asked Mr Northward, well on quite a few occasions but he is unwilling to post any measurements.
Keith
 
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.
You know, one of the ways to get pre-conceived or rigidly fixed perceptions crashing down, is to take time out away from the rig you normally listen to, say, a fortnight or so... Many times in past times I've done this - and been mightily disappointed in the noise my then speakers emitted on return (and don't give me the old Linn-Naim bull about the system needing to warm-up and bed back in again after being powered down)!

It's amazing how 'we' music/gear enthusiasts can adapt to our noise boxes (sorry, speakers) and make all kinds of excuses for them over time. I don't have friends here to have round for a music session, so for me, it's a solo thing when herself is out (she won't use the stereo, so that must say something I know). Even using the cheap ear-phones which I get on with well, is rather isolating, even when we're in the same room together.

Enjoy your music passions folks and maybe the gear too while you're able to chop, change and generally have fun with the hobby side of music reproduction.
 
Care to share your acoustic measurements, I have asked Mr Northward, well on quite a few occasions but he is unwilling to post any measurements.
Keith

While It would have been interesting to see a full suite of acoustic measurements of a Northward studio room, I still don’t get your obsession with it making you hunt Thomas around different forums such as ASR and Gearspace. Most information is already out there but he has said he doesn’t want to share specific measurements as it is up to the studios/clients themselves to do so if they want to, and it's not illegal for him to protect some of his trade secrets as it's a business after all.

Out of the information he has shared and by looking at pictures, it's not hard to figure out that the rooms are highly acoustically dampened and all/most of the first reflection points are taken care of, both with absorption material and by minimizing wall-to-wall bounces which means making sure there are few parallel walls in the room. As such a highly dampened environment can be somewhat unnatural to be in, he has made sure that there are some reflections open for self-noise in the room to make it more natural. It's not that hard to figure out that those reflection points for self-noise must be located at some of the first reflection points from the view of the main listening position, like a parallel wall, the floor, or the ceiling for the self-noise to bounce back as a first reflection as long as it's not a first reflection point from the loudspeaker's point of view.


The goal is of course an even response in the time domain, and the secondary goal is an even frequency response as possible and the rest is probably taken care of with EQ. The only measurement graph I've seen from a Northward studio room is the one Jesco at Acoustic Insider has shown. https://www.acousticsinsider.com/blog/flat-frequency-response

1724769228657.png


"Note the effect of the floor reflection creating a comb filter causing, in this case, a slight bump at 95Hz, followed by a dip at around 140Hz, and another slight bump around 180Hz.

Thomas says himself that this reflection is the last and final reflection that simply cannot be avoided, no matter how well designed a room is, carpet or no carpet. He mentions that it will be broken up, however, once the studio furniture is put in its way." - Jesco
 
Last edited:
Care to share your acoustic measurements, I have asked Mr Northward, well on quite a few occasions but he is unwilling to post any measurements.
Keith
Post stalking me here as well now eh Keith?

His name is Thomas Jouanjean, one of the world's preeminent studio designers and acousticians. Yes, I remember you chased him out of here so nobody else could learn from his vast expertise designing studios like Sterling Sound, the most prolific mastering studio on earth.

index.php


You can see my room measurements in the thread for them: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-your-in-room-measurements.13540/post-2015513. +/- 2db above 100hz, early reflections below -20db and a pretty even sub-200ms decay time. Not bad for a home studio innit. How about yours?
 

Attachments

  • Sterling-Sound-NY-02.jpg
    Sterling-Sound-NY-02.jpg
    79.7 KB · Views: 177
It would have been nice to see some measurements from the ‘world’s pre-eminent studio designers and acousticians’ shy I guess.
Just to see how much better things could get.
@goat76 measurements aren’t trade secrets how he achieved them is the trade secret aspect.
Keith
 
It would have been nice to see some measurements from the ‘world’s pre-eminent studio designers and acousticians’ shy I guess.
Just to see how much better things could get.
@goat76 measurements aren’t trade secrets how he achieved them is the trade secret aspect.
Keith
I have to ask Keith - How do YOUR rooms measure, please?
 
... which means making sure there are few parallel walls in the room.

This reminds me of the Andrew Lipinski recommendations for what's listed as a "surround room", but what I believe was formerly listed as a mixing studio. (I could be wrong about that.) Lipinski makes various equipment, but what I am concentrating on here is the room, not his equipment.


Note that the thumbnails can be enlarged.

Jim
 
I have to ask Keith - How do YOUR rooms measure, please?
I have this on me, Sigberg Mantas left channel only, the only treatment are three Modex panels, no eq,
Keith
IMG_4567.png
 
This reminds me of the Andrew Lipinski recommendations for what's listed as a "surround room", but what I believe was formerly listed as a mixing studio. (I could be wrong about that.) Lipinski makes various equipment, but what I am concentrating on here is the room, not his equipment.


Note that the thumbnails can be enlarged.

Jim

It seems to be the same concept.

Northward has probably refined it and added the self-noise solution to lessen the claustrophobic feeling caused by a mismatch of what is expected by all the senses combined, what is seen and what is heard in the room, something that can occur in a severely acoustically dampened room to the point of even make some people feel sick or dizzy. But just by adding the expected room reflection when speaking and moving can probably be enough to preserve the sense of the space we see.
 
This reminds me of the Andrew Lipinski recommendations for what's listed as a "surround room", but what I believe was formerly listed as a mixing studio. (I could be wrong about that.) Lipinski makes various equipment, but what I am concentrating on here is the room, not his equipment.


Note that the thumbnails can be enlarged.

Jim
I was with him till this:

"Our extensive experiments with top rated speaker cables clearly indicate that a quality, short length cable elicits better sonics than a superb quality, longer cable."

Now I have trouble believing any of it, even if he's right. What I get from that is that they use there ears to design the systems but they imagine hearing things.
 
I was with him till this:

"Our extensive experiments with top rated speaker cables clearly indicate that a quality, short length cable elicits better sonics than a superb quality, longer cable."

Now I have trouble believing any of it, even if he's right. What I get from that is that they use there ears to design the systems but they imagine hearing things.
Maybe... maybe the longer cable has so much snake oil applied through the windings and such that it changes the frequency response and the short plain Jane cable is better?
 
Back
Top Bottom