• 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
@Blumlein 88
I can give you one simple example of why it's possible to make a mix sounding better even on the full-range speaker when using a frequency-limited speaker.

As pretty much all instruments share and overlap in the midrange, mixing a kick drum can sound pretty okay on the full-range speaker but totally disappear on the limited speaker. This can indicate that there is a misbalance in the frequency response of the kick drum, and it may need a lift higher up in the frequency for the overtones and transients to come through in the most natural way, and when doing so the mix will most likely also sound better on the full-range speaker.

That is why a full-range speaker will not always reveil faults that are obviously there when hearing the mix with the limited-ranged speaker. Not every task done in mixing are dependent on a totally flat frequency response, and as a music production hardly ever goes directly from the mixing stage as a fnished production without passing through a number of other loudspeakers, there is a very small risk that any possible faults in the mixing monitors slip through all the processing stages.

It's a bit naive to think that the faults in the frequency response of the NS-10 would transfer to the sound of the end product. If you think so, I hope you can give some example of albums mixed on the NS-10 that without doubt was colored by speakers.
 
If you think so, I hope you can give some example of albums mixed on the NS-10 that without doubt was colored by speakers.
Once again, there is no better proof than the industry moving away from such colored speakers.
 
@Blumlein 88
I can give you one simple example of why it's possible to make a mix sounding better even on the full-range speaker when using a frequency-limited speaker.

As pretty much all instruments share and overlap in the midrange, mixing a kick drum can sound pretty okay on the full-range speaker but totally disappear on the limited speaker. This can indicate that there is a misbalance in the frequency response of the kick drum, and it may need a lift higher up in the frequency for the overtones and transients to come through in the most natural way, and when doing so the mix will most likely also sound better on the full-range speaker.

That is why a full-range speaker will not always reveil faults that are obviously there when hearing the mix with the limited-ranged speaker. Not every task done in mixing are dependent on a totally flat frequency response, and as a music production hardly ever goes directly from the mixing stage as a fnished production without passing through a number of other loudspeakers, there is a very small risk that any possible faults in the mixing monitors slip through all the processing stages.

It's a bit naive to think that the faults in the frequency response of the NS-10 would transfer to the sound of the end product. If you think so, I hope you can give some example of albums mixed on the NS-10 that without doubt was colored by speakers.
Sorry, still not making any sense. You can roll off your good speakers for what you are describing. This speaker is broken. Always was, always will be.

I would say any recordings with mixes done on these are sure to be colored as the person mixing them wouldn't be able to tell. If they altered the mix even if using these as a check because it had little low end, they were unintentionally hearing other anomalies that aren't helping. It is just a wrong idea. Does not matter how common it was.
 
Sorry, still not making any sense. You can roll off your good speakers for what you are describing. This speaker is broken. Always was, always will be.

I already said that is an easy task nowadays in the digital era, but in the old days when the NS-10 where an industry standard, it didn't need any setting up and was an easy solution out-of-the-box.

I would say any recordings with mixes done on these are sure to be colored as the person mixing them wouldn't be able to tell. If they altered the mix even if using these as a check because it had little low end, they were unintentionally hearing other anomalies that aren't helping. It is just a wrong idea. Does not matter how common it was.

Bring on all your examples of those faulty audio productions you are so sure of sounding in a certain way because of the use of NS-10 in the mixing stage.

When your at it, you can hopefully give examples how much better you think the audio productions got in general when flat-measuring speakers like Genelec became more common in audio studios.
 
I already said that is an easy task nowadays in the digital era, but in the old days when the NS-10 where an industry standard, it didn't need any setting up and was an easy solution out-of-the-box.



Bring on all your examples of those faulty audio productions you are so sure of sounding in a certain way because of the use of NS-10 in the mixing stage.

When your at it, you can hopefully give examples how much better you think the audio productions got in general when flat-measuring speakers like Genelec became more common in audio studios.
I will have those examples as soon as you give us the examples of how the mixes were lesser and people improved them once they ran them thru the NS10's. You know the before and the after.
 
Once again, there is no better proof than the industry moving away from such colored speakers.

And what do you think that has done to audio productions in general? I have not noticed any jump in quality whatsoever.
 
As you see, this shows elevated treble response which the clone also has but Erin's doesn't show.
Erin says in his review and it can also be seen in the plot I posted from his video that the NS-10M Studio he measured has lower treble than the NS-10M "non-studio". But both of them don't have the treble of Avantone you measured which almost stays in the level of the mid hump.

We need someone who is good at this sort of thing, scan and overlay these measurements so that we can tell what we are looking at.
Here you go
1734859262227.png

The match except the treble is surprisingly high, even more considering the age and sources of the measurements, very long before NFS.
 
Last edited:
They have very low standard of proof, much like subjectivists have with audio tweaks. That kind of proof should not be brought here.


If something is broken and obviously so, I would have to prove that it is not impacting the results I am producing. For speakers, there were a lot of objections when I first started with Klippel NFS as folks were not familiar with it. Objections did not go away until I showed that independent measurements such as Neumann's in their anechoic chamber matched mine. It was only then that folks started to trust my work. So until such data exist in favor using a color speaker to produce mixes, the only logical conclusion is that good work was produced despite the failure of the methodology used.
Well creative process is somewhat different and not for everyone.
So if you put NS10M's close to the wall behind (as bookshelf) that will give 2~3 dB boost under 500 Hz (and more under 100 Hz but less important as they can't do that anyway, works the same with any and you can use REW simulator to see for yourself) now midrange peak is 3~4 dB. For the time you would do bass +2 (as they can't handle more) and treble -3 on tone control's and then it gets down to 1~2 dB, they aren't bright nor "broken" anymore. In the days you didn't had DSP to play with so the 3~4 dB boost in upper midrange and where most over tone's second harmonics for female vocals and most instruments are (our hearing is best for that same reason). Focusing on untangling that forest is priority and making it sound as good as you can and bringing it up in front for two levels of what you can register as output volume increase (let's say a level is 1.5 dB) helps there. As long as you remember to adjust level back to what it should be (-3 in this case) in affected area everything will be fine. Today you can do that with PEQ and quite easily but then you couldn't. You can do a hell of a more actually now so the score with calculated PEQ and with "perfect sub's" goes sky rocket, more than regular NS10's or God forbid CLA10 to a point of much less deviation from tweeter which DSP and especially PEQ is bad at dealing with. It reaches and outmatched many of bellowed Neumann's and Genelac's that way. It's not a great speaker by any norm nor it ever whose. It whose handy for the time. The 9" woofer for the size doesn't go down much more than some 6.5" one's from today but still thanks to it's size does good regarding THD on what it can do. Besides they are good for 100~120 Hz crossovers (I prefer 120 Hz). I don't want to waist time about tweeters used nor crossovers, which both could have been a lot better even for the time and progressed most up to this days (from long horns, ribbons, wave guide's... to digital crossovers and things you can do with PEQ which can't be done on passive ones). It's not fundamentally broken and can score and sound pretty good with some effort put into it. In this day and age there simply are better speakers even if NS10M's where new and not old and worn out.
 
Most recordings are pretty poor.
What?

That's the sort of comment I see from audiophiles with a room full of boutique tat. Did not expect it from you.

If we overlook heavy limiting/compression (which is mastering not recording) the vast majority of professional recordings range from adequate to excellent.

Even recordings made in the early days like The Doors first album, or The Band 'Music From Big Pink' still sound good on modern SOTA kit.

I really don't understand where this comes from. Can we have an example of something you think actually is a good recording, just as a benchmark?
 
Somewhat anecdotal and/or just a single data point, but our main reference studio here in Norway has the NS10s and they hardly use them anymore after getting speakers with a balanced in room response. The head engineer/producer there said "One of the important things with the NS10 is that it's easy to hear if the midrange is off. You can hear if the snare drum is 0.5dB too loud. (..) I used to think having "flat" or thin sounding monitors like the NS10 or the Auratones was important to be able to hear that critical midrange. (..) now I hardly use the NS10s anymore. I sometimes switch to them to see how it sounds, and it always translates well. "

Another related discussion is flat in-room response or not in the studio, which is what you pretty much get with the NS10. The setup they have now has about 6dB drop from 50-10,000hz in the listening position, and they find the tonality to be spot on, and very close to real life (this is the control room to the recording studio).
 
That's the sort of comment I see from audiophiles with a room full of boutique tat. Did not expect it from you.
Out of every 50 or so tracks that I listen to as Roon automatically selects from Tidal, I mark one as being very high fidelity. You know, demo worthy track that makes you happy that you are an audiophile. :) Surely you are not saying that most music you listen to falls in this category, are you?
 
I will have those examples as soon as you give us the examples of how the mixes were lesser and people improved them once they ran them thru the NS10's. You know the before and the after.

What is it I have to prove, that a balanced midrange is the most important thing to get right in a music mix, and that by isolating the midrange it can often be much easier to hear if something is masked by the other sound objects if a particular object is too recessed or is in need of more room in important areas. It is already a well-known fact that a balanced-sounding midrange will help in getting a mix to translate well to all sound systems, and a translation goes both ways, otherwise, it could bever be called a good translation.

I have not said that the Yamaha NS-10 in particular make music mixes better, I have only pointed out the above well-known fact.

You on the other hand said; “I would say any recordings with mixes done on these are sure to be colored as the person mixing them wouldn't be able to tell”, so it should be fairly easy for you to show all these artifacts that the NS-10 caused to all these audio priductions using this particular monitor.

But I see you already know you will have a hard time finding any proof of that (in all production mixed with these speakers), as it is just based on your assumptions. That's why you are now cheaply trying to turn this around to as if I have anything to prove. ;)
 
Out of every 50 or so tracks that I listen to as Roon automatically selects from Tidal, I mark one as being very high fidelity. You know, demo worthy track that makes you happy that you are an audiophile. :) Surely you are not saying that most music you listen to falls in this category, are you?
I named a couple of very old recordings made on what is now very primitive equipment that still sound great. I could name plenty more.

Are we counting everything except Diana Krall-style showcase productions as poor recordings now? That's pretty extreme.

IME baring a lack of money or a technical issue, the client usually gets what they ask for. That's not always a showcase production. Some recordings are deliberately 'low-fi.'

I have never bought music or listened to music solely because it has good production values. That's something audiophiles do.
 
Michael Jackson 'Off The Wall' - Horrortones in the studio! NS10 in the studio!

And yet that recording still sounds like the voice of god (well does on my system). How is that possible?

Is there maybe a little more to this recording and mixing business than 'Bad speaker = bad recording'?

The recording engineers here seem to think so. Maybe listen to them?
 
You can do a hell of a more actually now so the score with calculated PEQ and with "perfect sub's" goes sky rocket
It reaches and outmatched many of bellowed Neumann's and Genelac's that way
Does it? I would have thought not really as its directivity is significantly poorer.
 
Out of every 50 or so tracks that I listen to as Roon automatically selects from Tidal, I mark one as being very high fidelity. You know, demo worthy track that makes you happy that you are an audiophile. :) Surely you are not saying that most music you listen to falls in this category, are you?

As we all here have a high interest in audio quality, I’m sure you have a large collection of demo-worthy tracks even if it's only 1 in 50 that goes into that list. I’m also pretty sure that many of the tracks in your list where mixed on NS-10 as they where a studio standard for a very long period of time. ;)
 
Michael Jackson 'Off The Wall' - Horrortones in the studio! NS10 in the studio!

And yet that recording still sounds like the voice of god (well does on my system). How is that possible?

Is there maybe a little more to this recording and mixing business than 'Bad speaker = bad recording'?

The recording engineers here seem to think so. Maybe listen to them?

I don't think the claim is that it is impossible to produce a good recording on them, rather that it would have been even easier on better monitors.
 
As we all here have a high interest in audio quality, I’m sure you have a large collection of demo-worthy tracks even if it's only 1 in 50 that goes into that list. I’m also pretty sure that many of the tracks in your list where mixed on NS-10 as they where a studio standard for a very long period of time. ;)
And that is rather a proof of how good and experienced the people who used them where despite the poor tools they used. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Back
Top Bottom