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

[goat76]

Read the entire thread. Commented too. You have posted many many times, read them all. Your arguments are vague, and you don't support them with evidence. And they are repetitive. So I ask for evidence now since none is provided.

Enemy, no. I am still looking for one specific example among your posts.

Not an example, another anecdote. With an additional anecdote that the risk is small that the bad sound of a NS-10 or clone will damage the final product.

If you only find anecdotes in the following text, I don't know what type of answer you seek.

In short, the mixing stage is mostly about finding a balance between all the individual tracks that often are 20-50 tracks, and most of those tracks contain elements that share the whole midrange, which in turn is the most important range to get right if the mix will translate to most speaker systems. The mix will often be listen to on a full-range and more linear speaker system, either or both in mixing making sure of the overall tonality, but also in the mastering stage and in a bunch of other systems for quality check. There is a very small risk that a speaker as the NS-10’s used during as on tool among many others would color the final product.


And my answer to Torbjørn:

That depends on the other qualities of those other loudspeakers, I don’t think the wacky frequency response is the main reason why some mixing engineers find the NS10’s highly revealing of problems in the midrange, I believe it’s the limited range which could be achieved by limiting other loudspeakers to the same range, and i also think that the speaker (for the time) had an extraordinary clean response with very few resonances (”fast start and stops”) making it reliable as a tool to clearly hear the reverb tails in a music mix. So I believe the more linear speaker alternative must as least match those qualities, as everything in mixing doesn’t have to do with frequency response.


What type of information is it you want that you wouldn't call an “anecdote”?

 

[amirm]

What type of information is it you want that you wouldn't call an “anecdote”?

I told you already. Mix results with this speaker and a proper one. Your posts are simple appeal to authority and pleading to be believed. We don't work this way here.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I don’t state MY opinion, it’s a fact that the NS-10’s work for some mixing engineers and some of them has even won prices for their reference-grade mixing, and some of them are considered the best mixing engineers in the world, but you want to state your opinion about their choice of tools making those mixes. I have never heard the NS-10’s in my whole life, I don’t have my own opinion about that speaker.

I'm not sure how you can have assumptions about engineers using the NS-10, or at least not how your assumptions are better than the opposite assumption?

I haven't disputed any of what you are writing above. I however have heard the NS-10. I have also actively investigated this matter through our main reference studio. Going into it, I wanted to test two theories:

1. It is not true that you need poor monitors (for instance the NS-10) to ensure your mix translates well. If it sounds good on a really good monitor, it will also sound good on a lesser system. It is also more effective, more fun and less fatiguing.
2. It is not true that you need a flat in-room response in the studio (neither for mixing or mastering) for the production to translate well. Rather it should be a slope, more similar to what is recommended at home. This would both sound better and more natural for those in the studio, and it would translate well.

We measured the response of all their current monitors. We listened to all their current monitors. We talked to engineers about what they were happy and less happy about their current systems. They were convinced the NS-10 was a necessary evil during mixing due to its midrange qualities. they also had the Auratones. We also talked to them after that studio got our monitors in both their control room, and in their mixing/mastering studio, and had used them for months. They had changed their mind. I was there again recently (about 1.5 years after they got them), and their original impression still stands.

They are able to mkae mixing choices earlier in the process, and according to them faster and more effective. They also make better choices.

I've also had a number of producers listen to their own commercial / published tracks on our systems. A common theme is comments like "I wish I had these monitors when I mixed that track. Then I would have done this or that differently."

The point here is not to brag about our monitors, but to point out that a poor monitor is not a good thing or a benefit. Quite the contrary.

You can read about some of the reflections from our main reference studio here (there's a section about the NS10 as well):

How Velvet Recording fixed the most common sound problems in studio control rooms

We recently sat down with Christer Krogh, mixing & mastering engineer and producer at Velvet recording. We had a chat on the topic of the Sigberg Audio Manta wideband cardioid monitors, and how they have changed and improved the way he works. Velvet recording has a a setup of Sigberg Audio Manta...

www.sigbergaudio.com

That depends on the other qualities of those other loudspeakers, I don’t think the wacky frequency response is the main reason why some mixing engineers find the NS10’s highly revealing of problems in the midrange, I believe it’s the limited range which could be achieved by limiting other loudspeakers to the same range, and i also think that the speaker (for the time) had an extraordinary clean response with very few resonances (”fast start and stops”) making it reliable as a tool to clearly hear the reverb tails in a music mix. So I believe the more linear speaker alternative must as least match those qualities, as everything in mixing doesn’t have to do with frequency response.

My experience so far is that there are only benefits to getting a full range system.

With regards to few resonances / clean response, I agree. Small ported monitors isn't necessarily a great idea.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I don't have to listen to the speaker as we all already know it has worked well for many great mixing engineers to make great-sounding mixes.

The mix will often be listen to on a full-range and more linear speaker system, either or both in mixing making sure of the overall tonality, but also in the mastering stage and in a bunch of other systems for quality check. There is a very small risk that a speaker as the NS-10’s used during as on tool among many others would color the final product.

I find these statements to be somewhat of a contradiction.

The use of the NS-10 has a very small risk of coloring the final product, but at the same time they are responsible for great sounding mixes?

As you just said yourself the mixing part with the NS10s is just a small part of the production chain, so how do we know that the NS10s were working well in all those situations? For all we know the mix were "saved" by the alternative monitors used during mixing, the tonality saved during the mastering process, etc?

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

If your issue is the opinions of sound engineers who have used the NS-10s, I suggest that it would be better to let them speak for themselves ... I am sure that they are quite capable of that. Their testimony will be far more authoritative.

Otherwise, your comments amount to the fallacy of argument from false authority.

Look. I totally agree with what you're saying.

And I'm most definitely NOT of the opinion that these are good speakers.

But I have posted a video of a producer commenting on these, and can post others if required.

Bottom line, producers mixed with these, and produced extremely good mixes, but largely now say that, whilst compensating for flaws is (and clearly was) possible, that we're better off with 'flat' speakers.

I'm afraid this whole discussion has become too tribal.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I don't have to listen to the speaker as we all already know it has worked well for many great mixing engineers to make great-sounding mixes.

In the first place, what "we all already know" is a fallacy. You are not privy to what "we all" know or what "we all" don't know.
Secondly, the phrase "a great many mixing engineers" is ambiguous and indefinite. How many engineers, and out of a pool of how many in total? Thousands? Again, this is an "appeal from false authority".

It just takes a little bit of common sense to understand that if these engineers had changed to another loudspeaker in a heartbeat, if they found them better for reaching a work-dependending better result.

You might be right, and you might be wrong. However, without evidence, that's just an unsupported assumption.

I simply add some sensible balance to the discussion,

There are many members of ASR who contribute to sensible balance in the many on-going discussions here. You are not unique.

if that is argumentative behavior to you you just show that you are against an open type of discussion.

"Argumentative" means, among other things, "disputatious". I believe that characterizes your posts here. If I am wrong, others may correct me.
For you to assert that I am "against an open type of discussion" is a method of restricting my opinion by arbitrary mischaracterization. That is unnecessary.

The mixing engineers who used this speakers has over the years in many interviews already explained why they found the NS-10 useful as a mixing tool, and that’s what I repeat, they just don’t happen to be members of this forum.

They are free to come here and join in the discussions.

In fact, you bring up a fascinating possibility. We (various members here) could contact mixing engineers, publicly recognized and well-known in the industry, telling them about this thread and asking for their opinion and any advice they might have.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

 

[amirm]

But I have posted a video of a producer commenting on these, and can post others if required.

I watched that video. It was totally supportive of them not being any good compared to a neutral speaker.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I watched that video. It was totally supportive of them not being any good compared to a neutral speaker.

And I wholeheartedly support that point.

But then there's a second point that, whilst it's absolutely 100% better to use neutral speaker, producers, engineers, and mixers managed to work round this, knowing the speakers' defects, and whilst acknowledging that this was far from ideal.

I just don't feel that I'm qualified to gainsay them on that second point.

 

[Andysu]

$699 daylight robbery these knock off yamaha look like white van curry speakers that i wouldn't even put in a dog cat charity recuse shelter , these speakers should be in the hall of snake oil of shame

 

[amirm]

I just don't feel that I'm qualified to gainsay them on that second point.

Well, he couldn't think of a reason why they would be any good other that deferring to famous mix engineers using them. In other words, there is nothing there in defense of their use.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I would like to offer an oblique ratification of Amir's stance.

Our esteemed member, @John Atkinson, is a professional recording engineer. He had measured the Revel Ultima Salon2 speakers in June of 2008. This is the chart of their frequency response, complete with the ever-present 100Hz "hump" endemic to Stereophile's charts:

Notice that this speaker's response is quite flat. It has none of the so-called "emphasis" characteristics that many respected mix engineers (per @goat76 's claim) need in order to sus out differences in recorded material. Here is an example of the use of the Ultima Salon2 by Mr. Atkinson and Erick Lichte:

"An example: Last May I recorded Minnesotan vocal group Cantus in concert, performing covers of pop songs, for release next summer. As you can read in producer Erick Lichte's Follow-Up on the Musical Fidelity 550K amplifier, this was not a purist recording. I used close mikes on all the singers and percussion instruments, and took direct electronic feeds from the Yamaha keyboard and Rickenbacker bass guitar.

Erick and I were working on the provisional mixes last fall, [bolds are mine - Jim] monitoring with the Revel Salon2s, and it was apparent that for the concert's opener, Curtis Mayfield's "It's All Right," we needed to add some mild equalization to the five vocal tracks in order to compensate for the cardioid mikes not being quite close enough to give the full proximity effect demanded by this kind of music. I dialed in +3dB in the upper bass for each of the vocal tracks and Erick gave a listen.

"Something's not right," he said. "Did you apply the EQ to the second tenors?"

I looked at the settings. Under pressure to work fast, I had applied the EQ to just four of the five vocal tracks. The second tenor track was indeed playing back flat.

Such resolution of fine detail is rare among loudspeakers."

I believe this example shows that speakers with neutral characteristics are quite apt for mix work. I also believe it shows that speakers with "emphasis" are not needed ... at least not by experienced professionals.
It also shows that presence (or lack) of a 3 dB adjustment is enough to be detectable, at least on a neutral speaker. The 5 to 7 dB emphasis of the NS-10 (and its clones) should therefore be classified as over done and unnecessary.

The NS-10 was launched in 1978. Audio engineers were still mired in the so-called "vinyl era". There have been enormous changes since then.

 

[goat76]

I told you already. Mix results with this speaker and a proper one. Your posts are simple appeal to authority and pleading to be believed. We don't work this way here.

For that to be done, we need a time machine taking us back to the time when the Yamaha NS-10 was widely used and compare it to other studio monitors available at the time. Which other commonly used speaker do you suggest the comparison would be against, and which mixing engineer do you know has experience with both these loudspeakers?

As the above is hard for both you and me to achieve, I still see digging up information as to why these mixing engineer found the NS-10 a fast and highly revealing tool for finding problems in the mix, as way more informative than a few guys on a forum who don't even know the difference between mixing and mastering pointing their fingers blaiming the use of a loudspeakers, and that without even being able to give one single example of what problems that this supposedly have caused the final product.

What would be the reason for the mixing engineers saying that the NS-10 were highly revealing for mixing problems in the midrange, if that wasn't truly the case?

Nowadays there are way better choices of loudspeakers to be had, and if someone wants to highlight the midrange it's an easy task with today's DAWs to just limit the monitor-out channel to whatever the frequency range you want. When talking about NS-10 we are talking about its history of mixing, I’m not comparing it to today's choices as some of you seem to do.

But…
If I stumbled across an old pair of NS-10s and tried them for mixing, and if I found them giving me a fast and revealing way of identifying problems in my mixes, I wouldn't care the slightest how badly the frequency response looks like as it would still be a useful tool anyways.

 

[amirm]

For that to be done, we need a time machine taking us back to the time when the Yamaha NS-10 was widely used and compare it to other studio monitors available at the time.

Nope. You can do it now. Go to people who still promote this speaker and its clone which is the subject of this review. Have them objectively demonstrate that what you state is true.

What would be the reason for the mixing engineers saying that the NS-10 were highly revealing for mixing problems in the midrange, if that wasn't truly the case?

No different than people who swear by the efficacy of audio tweaks (cables, etc.). They have a belief and loathe to be shown to be wrong.

If I stumbled across an old pair of NS-10s and tried them for mixing, and if I found them giving me a fast and revealing way of identifying problems in my mixes, I wouldn't care the slightest how badly the frequency response looks like as it would still be a useful tool anyways.

"If?" If you have no insight to share, I suggest stopping here. We know your argument. It is not compelling in the least. I have argued with Pros across myriad of topics. They hold their beliefs just like subjectivists audiophiles do, science be damned. They forever claim the same argument no matter what the topic: that they are able to produce better mixes than using proper, science based tools.

So move along and don't keep appealing to these arguments. You are not sharing anything new or any data whatsoever to back your claim.

 

[goat76]

I find these statements to be somewhat of a contradiction.

The use of the NS-10 has a very small risk of coloring the final product, but at the same time they are responsible for great sounding mixes?

I have answered this many times in this thread already, sorry @MAB, but if the same question gets repeated over and over…

But again…
The NS-10 where according to the mixing engineers using them highly revealing of problems in the very important midrange, and by finding them in a fast and reliable fashion and a dressing them, the final mix will also sound better on the good full-range linear speaker system generating a good translation. Finding a fault in the mix is finding a fault no matter what tool was used to identify the fault.

As you just said yourself the mixing part with the NS10s is just a small part of the production chain, so how do we know that the NS10s were working well in all those situations? For all we know the mix were "saved" by the alternative monitors used during mixing, the tonality saved during the mastering process, etc?

Yes, the NS-10 were working more as a magnifying glass for finding problems in the mix, and most mixing engineers knew that they were bad-sounding speakers so no one in their right mind would use them for adjustments of the overall tonality, well unless the ones who said they where able to work around the problems. I have also seen people mentioning using the NS-10s for finding and addressing the problems, and then checking what those changes sound like on the better speakers to realize problems that had slipped through, making the mix sound better also on the more capable speakers. The same could nowadays be done by limiting the frequency range granted that the “better” loudspeakers are truly better and or as good for aspects other than the frequency response.

Most audio production goes through many speaker systems before they are released to the masses. First it is a monitoring speaker system during the recording, then it's the mixing speakers that can be a combination of near-field, mid-field, and/or far-field monitors. After that it goes through other speakers at the mastering stage which are usually very fine loudspeakers, and sometimes the mix goes back and forth (sometimes many times) between the mastering engineer and the clients who listen to the mix on their speaker systems coming with ideas of changes they want.

So yes, it's a very small chance that a wacky frequency response of one of the speakers used as one tool during the mixing stage would color the final audio production.

 

[goat76]

Well, he couldn't think of a reason why they would be any good other that deferring to famous mix engineers using them. In other words, there is nothing there in defense of their use.

I have provided many specific mixing examples where a frequency-limited speaker with fast decay times and low distortion as the NS-10 can come in handy while mixing music, and not only deferring to famous mixing engineers using them.

I thought that at least some people here would be interested in why a loudspeaker with such a wacky frequency response could become a studio standard, and I only try to contribute reasons as to why that was the case.

 

[amirm]

I have provided many specific mixing examples where a frequency-limited speaker with fast decay times and low distortion as the NS-10 can come in handy while mixing music, and not only deferring to famous mixing engineers using them.

You are creating hypothesis. They are not real examples as you haven't even heard this speaker let alone be able to articulate such usage. I can hypothesize that a thicker shielded AC cable produces more dynamic range, lower noise floor, etc. That doesn't mean any of these supposed benefits are real.

I thought that at least some people here would be interested in why a loudspeaker with such a wacky frequency response could become a studio standard, and I only try to contribute reasons as to why that was the case.

Once more, we have known about this argument from the start. We don't need to be told about it again and again. You have new data and research to back it, we are all ear. But for heaven's sake, don't keep appealing to lay intuition.

 

[Travis]

74 Pages and no data either way on how monitors impact the final result, the finished product. The recording. Which has been the point of many a post.

No data that NS10's or Auratones or Westlakes, or JBLs or Harbeth BBCs, or ATCs or anything else contributed to the success of a recording, or it's demise.

Still no standards for studio monitors, by any organization, still no standards for studio listening/mixing rooms.

The only data I have seen is that there tends to be a correlation between better recordings and mixes among a small group of recording/mixing engineers. They all use different monitors. That's a handful of people producing most of the highly revered stuff.

The day you can predict how a recording will sound based upon the frequency response of the monitor speakers, or the DI, or what the reverberation time of the studio mixing room is the day you will see: Mixed by "AI".

 

[Andysu]

if these speakers were sent to Danny research he would just bin them

 

[goat76]

@amirm

When someone I’m having a discussion with asks me a question I usually give them my answer, and when the same question repeats itself I normally repeat the answer in greater detail in the hope that my answer gets through.




Usually, things are done in the following order if something is in need of being solved:

1. A problem is identified. In this case that would mean that the audio quality of audio production where NS-10’s were used had compromises that could be blamed on the loudspeaker.

2. The easiest solution would be to stop using the loudspeaker for audio productions, or doing something about the problem if that is possible.

The funny thing with this thread is that some people here are trying to solve a problem before they have even identified a problem. If someone could at least give examples of audio productions that undoubtedly were compromised by the use of NS-10’s, then we would have a case to solve. But where are all the faulty mixes made on NS-10s?



I don't see the importance of finding out if another loudspeaker would work as a replacement for the mixing engineer using the NS-10s, they just happened to get the result they wanted and there doesn't seem to be any bad traces in the audio productions that can be lead to the use of this speaker. But somehow there is something that some people here think needs to be solved.

For me, it’s enough to just put some trust in the mixing engineers who swear by why they find the NS-10 useful as a tool, they like the workflow and they deliver a result that makes their clients happy. Theres really not much more than that to it, but if any of you like to investigate this further by setting up an AB test of mixes done with the NS-10 and another speaker of you choice, you are free to do so.

 

[amirm]

I don't see the importance of finding out if another loudspeaker would work as a replacement for the mixing engineer using the NS-10s, they just happened to get the result they wanted and there doesn't seem to be any bad traces in the audio productions that can be lead to the use of this speaker.

There is no evidence that they got what they "wanted." They finished a production. That doesn't mean the same thing. They got to a point where everyone involved decided it was ready to release. If they had more time and money, they could have done better. And we say that if they had better tools like better speakers, they could have also done better.

That aside, most music is produced poorly from fidelity point of view. There are so many "bad traces" that we as end customers can't go and analyze the fault to a single aspect. If they wanted to produce highest fidelity music, they should have organized survey teams and have them evaluate the final product on this ground before releasing them. As is, they are satisfying themselves as to whether the music is good and ready for release. You can't keep grading your own exams.