As per my previous post, professional studios don't just have one brand/model of monitor.
By calculated score it does (take a look even at CLA one's). Remember those scores are that good on their own as they are already DSP-ed and gain less with pretty high level what's possible one. I will go a step more claiming they will have better SPL and DR in mid upper bass that most today's up to 8" studio monitors (simply as they are bigger). Early refractions and sound power are actually quite smoother than direct/window and there is enough headroom (DI between later two) to almost remove hump entirely and remember it does time domain very good. It's also more cooperative regarding trimming output under the crossover as it's sealed enclosure after all.
And that is rather a proof of how good and experienced the people who used them where despite the poor tools they used.
I only found the score at spinorama.org for the CLA (that's why I had asked) and its even with EQ and SUB lower than the one of good directivity monitors of the brands you mentioned, for example:
That is an assumption you madeI think we can be assume that most of the engineers who preferred working on NS-10 once in a while came across other studio monitors, but still they returned to those poor speakers. So that raises a question, did they do that just to make their job way harder as some people here seem to assume, or maybe they actually find the NS-10 useful as a working tool that helped them in their professional job? What do you think has the highest probability?
but in my experience most didn't use the NS-10 as their only or primary monitors.
No, they used them because they found them useful in their professional job, where they are both time-restricted and have to deliver a product that the clients will approve. Otherwise, they will lose the job.
No one where forced to use the NS-10, it's as if some of you believe that these mixing engineers were stranded on an deserted island where there are only NS-10 monitors available, and never being able to use any other speakers during a very long period of time.
If recording and mixing were just a mirror-image of sitting down at home with a cup of tea and listening to the playback then that would be true. But fact is the two processes are almost totally unconnected.
I think we can be assume that most of the engineers who preferred working on NS-10 once in a while came across other studio monitors, but still they returned to those poor speakers. So that raises a question, did they do that just to make their job way harder as some people here seem to assume, or maybe they actually find the NS-10 useful as a working tool that helped them in their professional job? What do you think has the highest probability?
No, I base that on all the working professional mixing engineers who has found out that this particular monitor helps them in their line of work, in the same way as one carpenter may prefer a set of tools that he personally find getting the job done in a more effective way (for him), that may or may not work as good for his carpenter friends (or the idea of a bunch of non-professionals writing on a forum about measuring hammers).
I think most mixing engineers have switched to ”better” monitors than NS-10 by now as they are starting to be pretty rare, but for the ones that still use them they will probably work as good getting the job done tomorrow as they worked yesterday. A tool that works is a tool that works.
Not sure how this is different from what I suggested that your claim was, it feels like you replied "No", and then wrote the same as I did with different words. But okay.
Now they over blown tweeter output on CLA in the way it's too bright even for NS10's and M's are better (about 5 dB at least) part of which how it falls off can't be DSP-ed and in generally not very efficient to do it that way. So the score should be better. On the other hand finding NS10M's that will behave now how Yamaha measured them is apparently on science fiction level but if we take they didn't lie it's possible to calculate the score based on their graph.
Yamaha did slightly reduce the tweeter level in the Pro/Studio (same thing, they just turned the text 90 degrees). It's not the same thing as the original, though not far off.
NS 10s don't have a balanced midrange.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.
