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

[amirm]

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.

Exactly what i said above. They are grading themselves. They are not asking audiophiles what they think of the fidelity of their music and have a closed feedback loop that way.

 

[sigbergaudio]

@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.

It's hard to discuss on a forum with many participants. It feels like we mostly agree, but we are interested in different problems. My apologies if I yet again contribute opinions to you that are not your own.

It seems the problem you are interested in, is whether the NS10 has contributed to bad mixes. This is not of great interest to me, and I have never even claimed this to be so. I am not sure why you find it important to defend the NS10 as a tool, but you are of course free to do so.

The problem I am interested in, is to find out if it is indeed true that the deviant frequency response of the NS10 was a good thing. It seems this is not of interest to you.

So then it will be hard for the two of us to discuss, since we're in essence discussing two different problems, and are not interested in each others perspective.

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.

As mentioned earlier, and I accept that this is anecdotal to a point, I have been in the interesting situation where a mixing engineer who swore by the NS-10 almost stopped using it after getting access to a neutral, high resolution monitor. He found making mixing choices became easier. This makes me question rather than trust the aforementioned mixing engineers. As Amir mentions, they're not stupid, just prone to the same bias as everyone else.

Merry Christmas!

 

[goat76]

As mentioned earlier, and I accept that this is anecdotal to a point, I have been in the interesting situation where a mixing engineer who swore by the NS-10 almost stopped using it after getting access to a neutral, high resolution monitor. He found making mixing choices became easier. This makes me question rather than trust the aforementioned mixing engineers. As Amir mentions, they're not stupid, just prone to the same bias as everyone else.

Merry Christmas!

I don’t doubt there are better choices of loudspeakers nowadays, and yes, I’m more interested in finding out what problem people finding with the audio productions mixed with NS-10s. As I wrote earlier, usually a problem should first be identified before anyone goes out trying to solve it, but no one here seems to be able to find anything wrong that could be directly related to the use of this speaker. Instead, all the concerns seems to just come from seeing a wacky frequency response and out of the knowledge that such speaker must undoubtably be a disaster for pleasure listening, ”it must destroy all the mixes” this speaker is used creating them.

As your mixing engineer friend have used the NS-10s until now, why don’t you ask him for a detailed explanation why he has found it useful, and apparently still isn’t prepared to let it go even if he has found other loudspeaker useful. And please, ask him if you can share his information in this thread, some people apparently want to hear from ”real” engineers instead of me.

God Jul!

 

[thewas]

I don’t doubt there are better choices of loudspeakers nowadays, and yes, I’m more interested in finding out what problem people finding with the audio productions mixed with NS-10s. As I wrote earlier, usually a problem should first be identified before anyone goes out trying to solve it, but no one here seems to be able to find anything wrong that could be directly related to the use of this speaker.

These arguments have been gone in rounds in this thread several times already. The counter argument is that these people did good mixes despite and because of them. Also about the problem you want to identify, how could this be done when to my knowledge there is no data on most recordings on what they were mixed on NS-10s? Do you know of any famous recordings where it is clearly documented that the mixing or mastering was done purely on NS-10?

 

[sigbergaudio]

I don’t doubt there are better choices of loudspeakers nowadays, and yes, I’m more interested in finding out what problem people finding with the audio productions mixed with NS-10s. As I wrote earlier, usually a problem should first be identified before anyone goes out trying to solve it, but no one here seems to be able to find anything wrong that could be directly related to the use of this speaker. Instead, all the concerns seems to just come from seeing a wacky frequency response and out of the knowledge that such speaker must undoubtably be a disaster for pleasure listening, ”it must destroy all the mixes” this speaker is used creating them.

As your mixing engineer friend have used the NS-10s until now, why don’t you ask him for a detailed explanation why he has found it useful, and apparently still isn’t prepared to let it go even if he has found other loudspeaker useful. And please, ask him if you can share his information in this thread, some people apparently want to hear from ”real” engineers instead of me.

God Jul!

I referred you to an interview with his reflections earlier, but I can quote them here. Below are all his comments mentioning the NS10 from an interview done with him. Due to the context this means there are also comments here about the Manta, anyone feeling that is undue product shilling please disregard. Hopefully it is relevant as it is direct comparison between NS10 and a more neutral, full range montior from a mixing engineer that has used the NS10 for years and years.

(..)
One may think that with plenty of bass available, I may create mixes that are too thin. But the sound (with the Manta) is perfectly balanced. What happens is that you get more transparency and information about what is really going on. I sometimes have people over who bring mixes they've done on other monitors. After listening here they realize their mix is actually too thin. There's more room in the bass frequencies than they thought. Other times you hear mixes that sound just fine for instance on the NS10, but when you listen to the Mantas you realize there's muddiness in the bass that wasn't reproduced at all on the NS10s, and that drowns out the midrange.

(..)

It's awesome that your mixes sounds so good through the Mantas, but how does it translate? What happens if you switch to your trusted old Yamaha NS10s for instance?

That's the interesting part, they translate great! Somehow the room to push everything forward was there all along, it was just more difficult to find. There was always an element of searching and guessing what would work. With the Mantas the entire process is much more effective, and the end result is better.

Black Metal is an interesting genre, and a good example. The drums especially are often intense and very fast, and hard to get right in the mix. I try to get it to sound like we recorded it back in the 1990s, but with better sound.

Many modern Black metal recordings have the entire drum track replaced by samples because there's a trend to have every attack of equal loudness. I don't like that programmed sound, as it becomes too clean and "nice" sounding. There's no dynamic range. I don't feel anything when I listen to it. I'm lucky enough to often work with talented drummers. Then I always try to get a real, live recording and to get that source material recorded as well as possible. Blending something like that into a mix is much easier with the Mantas.

The B3 Organ is another example of an instrument that is difficult to find space for in the mix. With the Mantas I work with different frequencies than I usually do, and it's easier to find a place for it.

(..)

Talking about the NS10s, some say they sound so bad that if your mix sound good on those, it will sound good on anything. You have several different monitors in the recording studio, including those trusted old NS10s. What is important in a studio monitor, and has the answer to that changed after you got the Mantas?

Haha! Yes, and there may still be some truth to that, but now I hardly use the NS10s anymore. I sometimes switch to them to see how it sounds, and it always translates well. (..) As I mentioned it feels like I have more options, and it's easier to experiment and find good choices. It's weird, because in many ways the Mantas is the complete opposite of the NS10.

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. With Manta, everything including the midrange is excellent. 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. Every other monitor sounded colored somehow, and clouded that important midrange. (..)

 

[goat76]

These arguments have been gone in rounds in this thread several times already. The counter argument is that these people did good mixes despite and because of them. Also about the problem you want to identify, how could this be done when to my knowledge there is no data on most recordings on what they were mixed on NS-10s? Do you know of any famous recordings where it is clearly documented that the mixing or mastering was done purely on NS-10?

Mastering using the NS-10s must be as rare as rain in Sahara as it’s definitely not the right tool for mastering, but many of the mixes done by the famous mixing engineers in the following Gearspace thread are done using NS-10s.
If you can find a common problem in their mixes that you can relate to the response curve of the NS-10s, it would be highly interesting to see.

Marry Christmas!

https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/356335-ns10m-hall-fame.html

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

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.

Amir, that’s not true.

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.

Actually that’s not true. He didn’t just refer to famous mix engineers, he’s clear that it’s how he worked himself.

But let’s not get away from the main point he made. These speakers are awful, and everyone would be better off mixing in ones which are tonally flat. It’s not a defence of the speaker, it’s an explanation as to how it was possible to mix on them.

 

[thewas]

Mastering using the NS-10s must be as rare as rain in Sahara as it’s definitely not the right tool for mastering, but many of the mixes done by the famous mixing engineers in the following Gearspace thread are done using NS-10s.
If you can find a common problem in their mixes that you can relate to the response curve of the NS-10s, it would be highly interesting to see.

Marry Christmas!

https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/356335-ns10m-hall-fame.html

That thread seems to be mainly a collection of some photos with the common NS-10 next to some other monitors and again is clear no documentation for some specific recordings that the mix was just done purely on those? Also if the mastering stage wasn't done with them like you claim another question arises, namely if tonal problems from the mixing were (partially) corrected during that? So many open questions and speculations with no clear answers.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I’m not sure why this thread is here/continuing.

Are these speakers flat? No.

Does that mean they sound awful? Yes.

Were they once widespread? Yes - whilst the data is anecdotal, what we have is convincing. As we have no hard and fast figures, we have no choice be to go with what we have.

Are they still used today? Certainly nothing like as much.

Why are they barely used? Because we now have tonally flat speakers at low prices, which far easier to mix on.

How did producers manage to mix in them? Time after time, producer after producer says they could mix on them because they knew their sound and compensated.

Does anyone disagree with any of that? If anyone wants to say producers couldn’t compensate when mixing, take it up with them, but me. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just not going to call a bunch of producers liars.

 

[Ported]

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.

How to you test the mix results ? The one the radio like?.. the one to dance to? The one that sounds good on reasonable audio gear? Or in the car maybe? Most likely the one the recording company likes best.

 

[amirm]

Mastering using the NS-10s must be as rare as rain in Sahara as it’s definitely not the right tool for mastering

More guessing and hypothesizing? Here is someone who says he mastered on them (for the sake of vinyl) and says to this day there are people who do so:

 

[goat76]

The interview is obviously used for promotion of your loudspeakers, but I dig in anyways…

I referred you to an interview with his reflections earlier, but I can quote them here. Below are all his comments mentioning the NS10 from an interview done with him. Due to the context this means there are also comments here about the Manta, anyone feeling that is undue product shilling please disregard. Hopefully it is relevant as it is direct comparison between NS10 and a more neutral, full range montior from a mixing engineer that has used the NS10 for years and years.

(..)
One may think that with plenty of bass available, I may create mixes that are too thin. But the sound (with the Manta) is perfectly balanced. What happens is that you get more transparency and information about what is really going on. I sometimes have people over who bring mixes they've done on other monitors. After listening here they realize their mix is actually too thin. There's more room in the bass frequencies than they thought. Other times you hear mixes that sound just fine for instance on the NS10, but when you listen to the Mantas you realize there's muddiness in the bass that wasn't reproduced at all on the NS10s, and that drowns out the midrange.

There is not anything unexpected as you clearly can not mix the bass on NS-10s alone as they don't reproduceenough bass. Either you support the NS-10s with subwoofers, or you use full-range speakers when mixing the low end. If you mix the bass on the NS-10s alone, you will end up with anything from bass-thin to muddyness as you simply can't hear what is done.

I must ask, didn't your friend use additional subwoofers when he mixed to bass on the Yamaha speakers?

(..)

It's awesome that your mixes sounds so good through the Mantas, but how does it translate? What happens if you switch to your trusted old Yamaha NS10s for instance?

That's the interesting part, they translate great! Somehow the room to push everything forward was there all along, it was just more difficult to find. There was always an element of searching and guessing what would work. With the Mantas the entire process is much more effective, and the end result is better.

Black Metal is an interesting genre, and a good example. The drums especially are often intense and very fast, and hard to get right in the mix. I try to get it to sound like we recorded it back in the 1990s, but with better sound.

Many modern Black metal recordings have the entire drum track replaced by samples because there's a trend to have every attack of equal loudness. I don't like that programmed sound, as it becomes too clean and "nice" sounding. There's no dynamic range. I don't feel anything when I listen to it. I'm lucky enough to often work with talented drummers. Then I always try to get a real, live recording and to get that source material recorded as well as possible. Blending something like that into a mix is much easier with the Mantas.

The B3 Organ is another example of an instrument that is difficult to find space for in the mix. With the Mantas I work with different frequencies than I usually do, and it's easier to find a place for it.

Again, he can’t expect to hear the full range of the drums if he is listening on the NS-10s alone, but using them will at least make sure the overtones and transients of the drums are getting through in the midrange, which in turn will make them audible for range-limited reproduction systems. That's why an additional full-range system or subwoofers are needed to hear the full range of the drums.

(..)

Talking about the NS10s, some say they sound so bad that if your mix sound good on those, it will sound good on anything. You have several different monitors in the recording studio, including those trusted old NS10s. What is important in a studio monitor, and has the answer to that changed after you got the Mantas?

Haha! Yes, and there may still be some truth to that, but now I hardly use the NS10s anymore. I sometimes switch to them to see how it sounds, and it always translates well. (..) As I mentioned it feels like I have more options, and it's easier to experiment and find good choices. It's weird, because in many ways the Mantas is the complete opposite of the NS10.

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. With Manta, everything including the midrange is excellent. 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. Every other monitor sounded colored somehow, and clouded that important midrange. (..)

And there it is, he mentioned why a limited-range speaker can be useful to make sure that everything is heard correctly in the midrange. But he could probably use the full-range speakers in the same matter if he just limit the range making it possible to make sure everything is heard in the translation to frequency limited systems.

It's always good to hear that a mixing engineer has found a pair of monitors that works for him, but that doesn't mean the same speaker will work as great for someone else. That's why there are so many different opinions out there for different studio speakers, and the best choice is always the ones that suit the particular person's taste and/or what works for him to get constantly good results that translate well to other speaker systems.

Merry Christmas again from a sunny Thailand vacation!

 

[amirm]

Does anyone disagree with any of that?

That's not the argument. The arguments are:

1. They had special juju that made mixing easier.

2. They potentially screwed up the final product.

 

[goat76]

That thread seems to be mainly a collection of some photos with the common NS-10 next to some other monitors and again is clear no documentation for some specific recordings that the mix was just done purely on those? Also if the mastering stage wasn't done with them like you claim another question arises, namely if tonal problems from the mixing were (partially) corrected during that? So many open questions and speculations with no clear answers.

If you want to find information on specific records, you have to search for it as I’m on my way to a Christmas party going on a boat in Bangkok.

It shouldn't be that hard to find as the NS-10s where a studio standard for 20 years or so.

 

[goat76]

How to you test the mix results ? The one the radio like?.. the one to dance to? The one that sounds good on reasonable audio gear? Or in the car maybe? Most likely the one the recording company likes best.

It can clearly just be done realizing the tool helps them reaching the goal faster over a long period of time, as the second attempt on the same mix will always be faster by going by memory what was done in the first run. It's sadly just a bullshit attempt at winning the argument for the sake of the argument. Sorry!

 

[goat76]

More guessing and hypothesizing? Here is someone who says he mastered on them (for the sake of vinyl) and says to this day there are people who do so:

I have seen people going to the food store in the morning wearing their pyjamas, there are always wackos out there to be found and I think we can in general ignore them in a discussion like this. Ir’s not a common thing to use the NS-10s for mastering.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

That's not the argument. The arguments are:

1. They had special juju that made mixing easier.

2. They potentially screwed up the final product.

If anyone’s arguing that, it’s not me.

I’ve not said that and I don’t believe that.

Their tonal balance made mixing harder, and we’re better off now without them.

The only point of difference I can see is that some want to argue that it wasn’t just hard to mix on speakers which weren’t flat, but absolutely impossible.

It’s seems clear that there are producers who disagree, and in this I defer to the experts in their field. If they say they could mix on them, and they have tracks to prove it, I’m not going to argue.

 

[Ported]

Having used these beasts to resolve problems in the 80s and 90s its probably the main monitor speakers we all should be complaining about .. they were supposedly room equalised but it was v crude and they were resonant and inconsistent... The ns-10s added consistency both in manufacture and expected response in a portable package... I never heard anyone do a total mix with them .. i would never master with them...
But untill the day you are on day 2 of a 48track mix where every time you adjust a level - something else gets lost so you uncrease those etc and go round and round with the track slowly getting louder but still the mix is not resolved!.. at that point you crave a different perspective.

Then you can comment on the usefulness of the ns-10s .
I'm sure there are better solutions now mind...

 

[goat76]

Having used these beasts to resolve problems in the 80s and 90s its probably the main monitor speakers we all should be complaining about .. they were supposedly room equalised but it was v crude and they were resonant and inconsistent... The ns-10s added consistency both in manufacture and expected response in a portable package... I never heard anyone do a total mix with them .. i would never master with them...
But untill the day you are on day 2 of a 48track mix where every time you adjust a level - something else gets lost so you uncrease those etc and go round and round with the track slowly getting louder but still the mix is not resolved!.. at that point you crave a different perspective.

Then you can comment on the usefulness of the ns-10s .
I'm sure there are better solutions now mind...

That is a fine post that was needed for this thread. You are clearly not defending the Ns-10 for their wacky frequency response and you obviously understand what qualities (so to speak) made the NS-10s useful. It feels great not being the only one understanding the use of that speaker even if I have never used it myself.

Going to the Christmas riding boat, marry Christmas!

 

[sigbergaudio]

The interview is obviously used for promotion of your loudspeakers, but I dig in anyways…

Certainly.

There is not anything unexpected as you clearly can not mix the bass on NS-10s alone as they don't reproduceenough bass. Either you support the NS-10s with subwoofers, or you use full-range speakers when mixing the low end. If you mix the bass on the NS-10s alone, you will end up with anything from bass-thin to muddyness as you simply can't hear what is done.

I must ask, didn't your friend use additional subwoofers when he mixed to bass on the Yamaha speakers?

No, he had other monitors in addition to the NS-10s, with a wider frequency range.

And there it is, he mentioned why a limited-range speaker can be useful to make sure that everything is heard correctly in the midrange. But he could probably use the full-range speakers in the same matter if he just limit the range making it possible to make sure everything is heard in the translation to frequency limited systems.

My understanding is that he doesn't need to limit the range of the full range speakers to be able to understand and succesfully mix the midrange.