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

[sigbergaudio]

Your question was; “Is your claim / assumption that since the NS-10 is/were widespread”, and my “no” was that it doesn't matter how “widespread” they were, the only thing that matter if the monitor/tool worked for the individual mixing engineer/carpenter to get the job done in an for him reliable, fast, and predictable way.

So my answer was the opposite of your assumption that “widespread” is an important factor. It's all about what works for the individual.

That lots of sound engineers were able to make them work isn't in question. What I think is interesting is to explore is if the NS10 actually was a better choice than more neutral speakers, or if the opposite is true (those who used the NS10 would have been even better off with better speakers). I believe the latter.

 

[Putter]

I noticed that the Yamaha/Auratone freq response curves are elevated by as much as 10 db in the critical 1000 to 2000 hz area makes me wonder if this was the reason that BBC style monitors with the depressed response around 2 khz were so popular among audiophiles. Maybe they were compensating for the mastering decisions.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

That lots of sound engineers were able to make them work isn't in question. What I think is interesting is to explore is if the NS10 actually was a better choice than more neutral speakers, or if the opposite is true (those who used the NS10 would have been even better off with better speakers). I believe the latter.

I do not doubt for a second that all concerned would have been better off with a neutral speaker to monitor. I'm not sure I've seen anyone arguing otherwise.

For me, I think it's great that we live in times where there's far more 'good stuff' at far lower prices, and which can be identified with just a little research .

 

[dfuller]

I noticed that the Yamaha/Auratone freq response curves are elevated by as much as 10 db in the critical 1000 to 2000 hz area makes me wonder if this was the reason that BBC style monitors with the depressed response around 2 khz were so popular among audiophiles. Maybe they were compensating for the mastering decisions.

You have that backwards. The boost would make that region get pulled back at mix.

 

[goat76]

I noticed that the Yamaha/Auratone freq response curves are elevated by as much as 10 db in the critical 1000 to 2000 hz area makes me wonder if this was the reason that BBC style monitors with the depressed response around 2 khz were so popular among audiophiles. Maybe they were compensating for the mastering decisions.

I think you need to work on your timeline for your theory as the BBC monitor era was before the NS-10’s became popular in mixing studios.

And for the second thing, the NS-10’s have never been used widely as a “mastering” monitor, and if it ever had been used for that, the audio productions would in that case have had a recessed response in that frequency area, so the BBC dip would have exaggerated that even further.

 

[thewas]

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.

But the with EQ score exactly does that, implement an optimal/theoretical equalisation. But its big problem, namely its large directivity discontinuity between the woofer and tweeter remains and get punished because you cant smoothen at the same time both direct and reflected sounds and this is detrimental and audible:

 

[thewas]

I noticed that the Yamaha/Auratone freq response curves are elevated by as much as 10 db in the critical 1000 to 2000 hz area makes me wonder if this was the reason that BBC style monitors with the depressed response around 2 khz were so popular among audiophiles. Maybe they were compensating for the mastering decisions.

This argument doesn't work though in that direction as with an elevated mid/presence region monitor the mixing/mastering would be rather done by reducing those levels and listening such recordings with loudspeakers that have a dip there would make this even more subdued. It was even one of the famous arguments of mixing with the NS-10, namely if it sounds good on it, it will sound good on anything. Also the BBC/presence dip is rather around 3 kHz so not where the NS10 have their peak.

 

[ZolaIII]

This argument doesn't work though in that direction as with an elevated mid/presence region monitor the mixing/mastering would be rather done by reducing those levels and listening such recordings with loudspeakers that have a dip there would make this even more subdued. It was even one of the famous arguments of mixing with the NS-10, namely if it sounds good on it, it will sound good on anything. Also the BBC/presence dip is rather around 3 kHz so not where the NS10 have their peak.

No that's Onkyo (Institute). CLA 10 is a faliour now mater how you look at it, CLA 10A should be more in line with regular NS10's but NS10M's. The Erin's measurements of NS10M's will appear soon on Spinorama.org but even those deviate a lot from Yamaha and sure if crossover is broken you won't be able to EQ that.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/yamaha-ns-10m-studio-user-manual-vs-erins-audio-corner-png.415689/

 

[thewas]

No that's Onkyo (Institute). CLA 10 is a faliour now mater how you look at it, CLA 10A should be more in line with regular NS10's but NS10M's. The Erin's measurements of NS10M's will appear soon on Spinorama.org but even those deviate a lot from Yamaha and sure if crossover is broken you won't be able to EQ that.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/yamaha-ns-10m-studio-user-manual-vs-erins-audio-corner-png.415689/

Again, the NS-10 suffers under similar directivity mismatch as it has the same size drivers, baffle and similar crossover frequency and this cannot be corrected via EQ, while issues with overall tuning or drivers response are corrected in the optimal EQ score.

 

[ZolaIII]

Again, the NS-10 suffers under similar directivity mismatch as it has the same size drivers, baffle and similar crossover frequency and this cannot be corrected via EQ, while issues with overall tuning or drivers response are corrected in the optimal EQ score.

If you take a look at that picture you will see pretty smooth transition and directivity with just a little bit of notch where crossover is. Measured by Erin one is bad. So either Yamaha lied or what's left is in pretty bad shape. No wonders there either. They used cheap and far from great crossovers and it's (capacitor) degradation can be reason we are seeing in Erin's measurements also tweeter coil is certainly in pore condition resulting in lower output. As Yamaha isn't exactly known for lies.
Edit at least we know what is the midrange hump caused (cabinet second order harmonic) but again it shouldn't look or be prominent as it is on the old ones (who knows maybe that little dumping material inside also lost parts of its purpose/function).

 

[MAB]

If you take a look at that picture you will see pretty smooth transition and directivity with just a little bit of notch where crossover is. Measured by Erin one is bad. So either Yamaha lied or what's left is in pretty bad shape. No wonders there either. They used cheap and far from great crossovers and it's (capacitor) degradation can be reason we are seeing in Erin's measurements also tweeter coil is certainly in pore condition resulting in lower output. As Yamaha isn't exactly known for lies.
Edit at least we know what is the midrange hump caused (cabinet second order harmonic) but again it shouldn't look or be prominent as it is on the old ones (who knows maybe that little dumping material inside also lost parts of its purpose/function).

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. You are anecdotal speculation exemplar.

 

[Putter]

I think you need to work on your timeline for your theory as the BBC monitor era was before the NS-10’s became popular in mixing studios.

And for the second thing, the NS-10’s have never been used widely as a “mastering” monitor, and if it ever had been used for that, the audio productions would in that case have had a recessed response in that frequency area, so the BBC dip would have exaggerated that even further.

It has naught to do with timeline. I'm talking how the BBC monitors became popular with British audiophiles AFTER the heyday of their use as a BBC monitor. The use of a recessed midrange continues today, just look at the Audyssey curve as well as many British speakers. Admittedly this is all speculation, but it does relate to Toole's 'circle of confusion' where the monitors used and room conditions are different from home setups.

 

[thewas]

If you take a look at that picture you will see pretty smooth transition and directivity with just a little bit of notch where crossover is.

Can you please show which picture you mean?

 

[goat76]

It has naught to do with timeline. I'm talking how the BBC monitors became popular with British audiophiles AFTER the heyday of their use as a BBC monitor. The use of a recessed midrange continues today, just look at the Audyssey curve as well as many British speakers. Admittedly this is all speculation, but it does relate to Toole's 'circle of confusion' where the monitors used and room conditions are different from home setups.

Okay. But as others have also pointed out, if someone strangely decided to use the NS-10’s as mastering monitors and they wanted to “iron out” that midrange bump, the music material would not end up with a bump in that area and instead have less energy for that range. So if that music material was then played on loudspeaker with a BBC dip in that same frequency area, it would just dig that pit even deeper.

You see, you got the above thing the wrong way around in your speculation as if the music material would get the same midrange bump as the NS-10’s, but if anything, the material would have ended up with less energy in that frequency area.

 

[goat76]

NS 10s don't have a balanced midrange.

If you had read my replies more carefully, you would have understood that I've never said the NS-10’s have “balanced midrange”. That’a why you should never adjust the overall tonality based on what you hear on these loudspeakers, but you can still use them to adjust the relative balance between the different instruments in the mix, and that's where these monitors apparently “shined” as a mixing tool as they were brutally revealing for faults and unbalances in the midrange area which is the part of the frequency most important for good mix translation.

 

[goat76]

That lots of sound engineers were able to make them work isn't in question. What I think is interesting is to explore is if the NS10 actually was a better choice than more neutral speakers, or if the opposite is true (those who used the NS10 would have been even better off with better speakers). I believe the latter.

You don’t have to speculate about that as those mixing engineers would have swapped out their NS-10’s in a heartbeat if they had found a better tool for the job, that helped them reach the goal even faster.

What most of you fail to take into account is that the professional audio engineers we are talking about are always seeking tools that they find help them in their line of work, never the other way around. So the main reason for them to use the NS-10’s in the first place where that they were highly revealing for faults in the mix, which in turn speeded up the work, not the opposite as you have decided to presume.

They simply found these speakers an effective tool in their arsenal of other folks for specific mixing tasks, otherwise they would have changed them out faster then you change underwear.

 

[amirm]

You don’t have to speculate about that as those mixing engineers would have swapped out their NS-10’s in a heartbeat if they had found a better tool for the job, that helped them reach the goal even faster.

What research did they do into what would be better? None, I would say or they would have found the answer that exists today: neutral speakers based on proper research and engineering.

They simply found these speakers an effective tool in their arsenal of other folks for specific mixing tasks, otherwise they would have changed them out faster then you change underwear.

The marketing value of those white cone speakers was huge. For a time, every "serious" studio would have had to have one. I can also see the value of them being everywhere so work was portable to other studios. These are the only true, reliable advantages of this speaker. Not some made up notion that they made mixing easier.

 

[mhardy6647]

White.
Cones.
In.
Studios.

source: https://lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1973-l100.htm

Yamaha could honestly claim, if they cared to:
We didn't start the fire.

 

[Blumlein 88]

For a few centuries many physicians practiced bloodletting. I'm sure they would have told you how effective it could be even though it wasn't always. They would be looking for any effective tools more than recording guys as it was life and death. This was based upon the theory of balanced humours in the blood being the cause of disease. Various, sometimes very odd, methods of bloodletting were developed and used for centuries. Some people survived proving it could work. However, it was based upon a faulty premise. I don't have any records to prove people died of the practice, but people died because of the practice.

Now I don't have access to provide definitive proof of even one example of recordings being negatively effected by using Auratones, car speakers or NS-10s to help create a mix that translated well. No matter the times things have been effective this way it does not prove the method. I cannot show recordings were made worse than otherwise might be the case, but there were some because the premise of this approach is faulty.

 

[sigbergaudio]

You don’t have to speculate about that as those mixing engineers would have swapped out their NS-10’s in a heartbeat if they had found a better tool for the job, that helped them reach the goal even faster.

What most of you fail to take into account is that the professional audio engineers we are talking about are always seeking tools that they find help them in their line of work, never the other way around. So the main reason for them to use the NS-10’s in the first place where that they were highly revealing for faults in the mix, which in turn speeded up the work, not the opposite as you have decided to presume.

They simply found these speakers an effective tool in their arsenal of other folks for specific mixing tasks, otherwise they would have changed them out faster then you change underwear.

I don't think this is true at all. Way too many people use super cheap monitors for this to be true. Also remember that most engineers didn't actually own the studio, so they weren't necessarily the boss of what monitors were available.