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

[ZolaIII]

I am not trying to make up fantasies about you are saying. I am struggling to understand your standpoint, and when I ask for clarification you get aggressive and/or defensive.

So instead of claiming anything about your opinions, I will try to state MY opinion, and ask if you agree.

I am of the opinion that the engineers who says that the NS-10s work great for them to identify problems in the mix in a fast an reliable way are probably correct. They have learned to know and understand it in such a way that it is an effective tool for them.

I am also of the opinion that they would identify problems in the mix in an even faster and even more reliable way if they had better monitors. Do you agree, or disagree?

I disagree. They would have easier time if they could manipulate signal in digital domain but they couldn't. It whose pioneer 8 bit Zilog time and 16 bit only starting to emerge (timeline studio variant started to be popular) and took some more time to audio card's even start to appear. I really don't get how it's so hard to understand that boost about two audible levels in real content or 3 dB in upper high mids and extended to highs where second harmonics for most stuff is (vocals and most of instruments) helps you focus on them bringing them in front. Its crowded area and you really need to do it good so that nothing doesn't jump out to do layers and separation between the stuff. Doing something like that is fatiguing by it self and for the ear's and it will always be to the excessive use of auditory system along with brain. Getting that done right will definitely help the material sound better on pretty much any speaker (represents most of information, most of the work and after all is range every speaker will actually cover relatively good). Of course you remember what it is and after you are done you adjust level's back and listening to something that you would consider as very even balanced and full range or simply on console GEK already knowing what NS10M's does. It whosent great or even good for listening to music obviously but put to back wall and with tone control's +2, -3 it whosent bad at least in the range it covers (bit extended in the bottom). It's not broken or bad when good done DSP processing actually even rivaling some of the best to day near field actuve DSP-ed studio monitors with same additional digital processing with applied technical limitations regarding design.
Did Yamaha do measurements and proper engineering? Yes they did even in those days, NS1000 pretty much stand's as what they were able to achieve. As a matter of fact they where very aware of the room and tried to focus more on that aspect by design. The NS10's are now old and pretty much in garbage condition, there are far better regarding out of box FD and supposed coverage monitor's today even in mid budget category and you pretty much can beat a heck out of signal on modern DAW's that it's in the most cases limited by tone/mixing master imagination and stubbornes and much more able to address the elephant in the room (room modes). So there is absolutely no need for something like those and no better speakers alone don't make the difference it's still; hard work, a bit of talent, motivation and experience does help.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I am of the opinion that the engineers who says that the NS-10s work great for them to identify problems in the mix in a fast an reliable way are probably correct. They have learned to know and understand it in such a way that it is an effective tool for them.

We're maybe down to subtle nuances here, but I'm not sure they say exactly that. I mean yes, but with a whole bunch of caveats.

Context, as ever, is everything. It's clear that there are some things that stand out if you play them on these speakers. But that's not saying they stand out more, or make mixing easier than on flat speakers. And yes, they've had to learn to do this, whilst on flat speakers that learning wouldn't be necessary.

I am also of the opinion that they would identify problems in the mix in an even faster and even more reliable way if they had better monitors. Do you agree, or disagree?

Surely we can all agree on that.

 

[dfuller]

Surely we can all agree on that.

Considering NS10s are way less common than they used to be, yes.

 

[Ported]

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!

Its not bulshit to suggest some mixes are for dance music .. then there is the single .. + the short one for the radio (strangely they are not all intended for well manicured home systems) . They were (are) real world products and the business would argue its the mix that made most money that is clearly the best. You can decide which one you prefer but that's not scientific its just a preference so would demonstrate nothing.
Masters are always a compromise and screw up way more of the original intention than a slightly unusual speaker would (in my experience).
I would argue for access, and would purchase, original mixdowns so as to tailor to my taste and system. The tools required would fit well within a dsp setup. Could save all those arguments over dynamic range etc too ..

 

[Blumlein 88]

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. (..)

Exactly my experience though using two other monitors. The well balanced monitors made everything easier and improved how things "translate".

 

[Blumlein 88]

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.

I don't believe subjective compensation is very effective. That is not calling anyone a liar. It is saying they believe something that they couldn't do very well despite believing they could.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I don't believe subjective compensation is very effective. That is not calling anyone a liar. It is saying they believe something that they couldn't do very well despite believing they could.

Now here’s the thing. If I were to guess, I’d probably come to exactly the same conclusion. But the fact that so many claim they could, and the absence of a shedload of duff mixes suggests otherwise.

 

[amirm]

Now here’s the thing. If I were to guess, I’d probably come to exactly the same conclusion. But the fact that so many claim they could, and the absence of a shedload of duff mixes suggests otherwise.

What absence??? I remember comparing the Blueray video version of Adelle a while back to CD version. The latter sounded horrid. I did the same comparison of my tape masters to CD with same results. The CD version is almost unlistenable in how grungy and poorly done it is. Greatly recorded music in popular music at least, is rare as a rule, and good as an exception.

 

[goat76]

What absence??? I remember comparing the Blueray video version of Adelle a while back to CD version. The latter sounded horrid. I did the same comparison of my tape masters to CD with same results. The CD version is almost unlistenable in how grungy and poorly done it is. Greatly recorded music in popular music at least, is bad as a rule, and good as an exception.

Most of the “bad” likely comes from the clients requirements to the mastering engineer of making the tracks as loud as possible, which will of course kill most of the dynamics in the music.

The clients should instead be educated in the use of the volume knob if they want it louder, you usually just turn the knob clockwise or press the + on the volume control to make it louder. Everyone should be able to learn that.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

What absence??? I remember comparing the Blueray video version of Adelle a while back to CD version. The latter sounded horrid. I did the same comparison of my tape masters to CD with same results. The CD version is almost unlistenable in how grungy and poorly done it is. Greatly recorded music in popular music at least, is rare as a rule, and good as an exception.

So I suppose the question is, do you have any evidence what monitors they were mixed on?

I’d guess that, as they’re relatively recent, they’re more likely to have been mixed on tonally flat speakers than NS-10s.

The other problem with this whole rabbit hole is that you or I may not like a particular mix, but it may nonetheless have been exactly what the producer was aiming for.

You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a video of yourself and someone like Warren Huart discussing this, or possibly even in the studio with him demonstrating what he can and can’t do (if he could track down a pair if these).

It’d certainly be interesting.

 

[boxerfan88]

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.

Nice!!