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

[Ported]

Maybe you do if you evaluated their tonality on NS-10. Regardless, it is a bad analogy as it is an input to the system, not a feedback tool to test what we may be hearing as a speaker is. You could use a cup and wire to record if it sounds fine on a proper speaker.....

And you can treat a mix as an input to a mastering process .. which providing the balance of signals sits best it can .. frequency problems are normally finalised there. On accurate speakers as possible I will agree there.

Although if a mastering engineer gets some hit records on less than perfect speakers they sure as hell will keep using them as long as it works.

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

Let me help you then otherwise you will spin in circles. There is this thing called google. enter "Tannoy Monitor System 215". Let me know what you find, bro.

I did just that before even commenting, and none of them resemble the speakers in the picture. Did you even bother to look it up yourself? Those search results refute your claim, not support it. Go ahead and look yourself. Dean has even shared posts of his Tannoy purchases and they do not look like the same.

Different porting, different dust caps on the woofers, different driver baskets, different cabinet outer material. Nothing points to Tannoy.

Dean states this.

"I have Tannoy 215 monitors and Yamaha NS10s in my main room, and my B room has all Amphions," - so the speakers you claim are in the picture, are not even in that room according to the owner of the room.

 

[Robbo99999]

yes, easy enough to do nowadays. though probably not that particular curve. I would say a steep HP and LP....moving HP up until no bass anymore, LP down until no treble

Well, the beauty is it's totally flexible (if you know what you're doing) and you can create any kind of EQ curves you want to emphasise certain portions during inspection of that area of the track. My thinking on it is would probably be best using two opposed Shelf Filters: Low Shelf on the left reducing the bass or placed higher up if you want, and then a High Shelf Filter on the right reducing the treble or lower if you want - there probably wouldn't be a need to roll off all the bass & treble using High & Low Pass Filters (would probably make it more unnatural to remove elements of the track rather than just reduce some of them).

 

[Hexspa]

Absolutely on point.

Great review, sound reasoning of arguments, shit speaker though.

This is the main part I disagree with actually. Translation is still an issue because ear pods have not totally solved the issue of varying quality of reproduction systems. There are many examples but my gf listens to her phone speaker while showering. Another is that sub bass is less audible at lower levels and masked by road noise so quiet listening in a car emphasizes higher frequencies. Sure, more people have access to full-range systems now but that’s not the point. The point of mixing with ‘translation’ in mind is for worst case scenario, not best.

The other issue is that filtering out bass can help a mixer balance other instruments without masking or information overload. Sure, nowadays we have DSP filters but these legacy technologies may have solved problems in then economic ways; cheaper to just use this speaker than have another set and buy a hardware EQ.

Overall, I don’t have NS10 nor have I used it. Since getting the Mixcube reviewed, I haven’t use it either. My HS50 monitors are loosely based on these NS10s (similar but worse midrange bump, white cone, same brand) and really I wish they were flat like KH 80 DSP. Basically, I’m pretty convinced that modern monitoring is better than the old. That said, unless you are involved with mixing music you can’t say what production goals are or are not relevant based on a skewed representation of end use. Specifically, saying “mixers don’t need to worry about translation anymore because everyone can buy awesome $20 IEMs” is just so biased as to sound ridiculous. Translation issues are real and they matter. Maybe flat speakers help you get there quicker but that doesn’t negate the importance of that particular goal.

Also, these were primarily mixing speakers not mastering speakers. Different points in the chain with different goals.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is the main part I disagree with actually. Translation is still an issue because ear pods have not totally solved the issue of varying quality of reproduction systems. There are many examples but my gf listens to her phone speaker while showering. Another is that sub bass is less audible at lower levels and masked by road noise so quiet listening in a car emphasizes higher frequencies. Sure, more people have access to full-range systems now but that’s not the point. The point of mixing with ‘translation’ in mind is for worst case scenario, not best.

The other issue is that filtering out bass can help a mixer balance other instruments without masking or information overload. Sure, nowadays we have DSP filters but these legacy technologies may have solved problems in then economic ways; cheaper to just use this speaker than have another set and buy a hardware EQ.

Overall, I don’t have NS10 nor have I used it. Since getting the Mixcube reviewed, I haven’t use it either. My HS50 monitors are loosely based on these NS10s (similar but worse midrange bump, white cone, same brand) and really I wish they were flat like KH 80 DSP. Basically, I’m pretty convinced that modern monitoring is better than the old. That said, unless you are involved with mixing music you can’t say what production goals are or are not relevant based on a skewed representation of end use. Specifically, saying “mixers don’t need to worry about translation anymore because everyone can buy awesome $20 IEMs” is just so biased as to sound ridiculous. Translation issues are real and they matter. Maybe flat speakers help you get there quicker but that doesn’t negate the importance of that particular goal.

Also, these were primarily mixing speakers not mastering speakers. Different points in the chain with different goals.

I don't deny translation matters. The idea one or two poorly designed low quality speakers gets you there is what did not make sense back then, and even less so now. No matter how prevalent the practice was.

 

[PeteL]

This is the main part I disagree with actually. Translation is still an issue because ear pods have not totally solved the issue of varying quality of reproduction systems. There are many examples but my gf listens to her phone speaker while showering. Another is that sub bass is less audible at lower levels and masked by road noise so quiet listening in a car emphasizes higher frequencies. Sure, more people have access to full-range systems now but that’s not the point. The point of mixing with ‘translation’ in mind is for worst case scenario, not best.

The other issue is that filtering out bass can help a mixer balance other instruments without masking or information overload. Sure, nowadays we have DSP filters but these legacy technologies may have solved problems in then economic ways; cheaper to just use this speaker than have another set and buy a hardware EQ.

Overall, I don’t have NS10 nor have I used it. Since getting the Mixcube reviewed, I haven’t use it either. My HS50 monitors are loosely based on these NS10s (similar but worse midrange bump, white cone, same brand) and really I wish they were flat like KH 80 DSP. Basically, I’m pretty convinced that modern monitoring is better than the old. That said, unless you are involved with mixing music you can’t say what production goals are or are not relevant based on a skewed representation of end use. Specifically, saying “mixers don’t need to worry about translation anymore because everyone can buy awesome $20 IEMs” is just so biased as to sound ridiculous. Translation issues are real and they matter. Maybe flat speakers help you get there quicker but that doesn’t negate the importance of that particular goal.

Also, these were primarily mixing speakers not mastering speakers. Different points in the chain with different goals.

There has never been a time like now where I'd say more or less one third of the music listening is made with speakers rolled off at around 400-500Hz (phone speakers) I see that literally everywhere. These guys are simply genious to be able to make pop songs that are still recognizable, bass line and all (actually just harmonics of distorted basses) but you still have a bass line even tough the fundamental is simply absent.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Are you prepared to accept the last sentence? You have no data, nothing whatsoever, what role NS-10 played in creating a mix vs another speaker which could have been used. None. As I just noted, it is absurd that we don't know what a speaker is and how it could be used in creating a mix.

As to your list albums, you understand that the list of albums that did NOT use the NS-10M would be in millions, yes? Why do you pull such stunts?

In this forum, we don't just measure. We follow the science. The problem you have is that you have no science. All you have is an appeal to authority of so and so used this speaker and created these mixes. Doesn't it then mean the NS-10M played a critical role there? Answer is, maybe, maybe not. And that a better mix could have been produced without it.

As to me, in multiple jobs I have had the pleasure of dealing with your community as technology provider. Our sister division while I ran engineering at a broadcast video hardware company (Abekas) was SSL. The same console revered by the very people using NS-10M. We acquired Pacific Microsonics so had to deal with major mix engineers use of Model 2 (HDCD) ADC/DAC. We built technology for distribution of music so had to deal with the entire chain in music industry.

To be sure, I don't know how to use LOGIC, SSL, Pro Tools, etc. So if the discussions were about that, I would sit there quietly although I could tell you many stories of working with some of those companies with respect to their offerings using our platforms. Here, we are talking about a speaker -- a "tool" which we know quite well. So don't think for a moment you can pull that rank card on us and say we are not qualified to discuss its role in creation of music. To wit, we tested the CLA-10, a speaker which is said to be good enough approximation of NS-10M only to show that it is not remotely the case. So don't tell me we don't know how to evaluate your tools.

Because you literally said “no one serious” uses NS-10s.

That is a flat out lie amrim.

A flat out lie made up to back up you silly argument.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

The argument that a speaker/monitor is not a tool that a sound ENGINEER would use to perform a TASK to complete a JOB is just a silly and embarrassing one IMO.

I'm willing to bet most engineers would say nearly all the equipment they use are tools necessary to performing the jobs they are paid to do.

Amirm doesn’t know what mixing entails. That’s the root of his misunderstandings.

Like I said. At ASR having no experience mixing is no impediment to being an expert on the matter.

It’s like like taking legal advice from Trump. :lol:

 

[lowkeyoperations]

You repeatedly come back to frequency-related problems, as if those types of problems are the only problems you can think of and relate to when it comes to mixing music. You simply don't understand what a mixing engineer has to solve when trying to put together 20 to 80 different tracks separately recorded to sound good on their own (which will almost never work in the full mix). I can tell you that at that stage of mixing, it's not the overall tonality of the full mix that is of the highest concern.

Amirm can measure frequencies.

He has never once mixed a song. I’d guess he has never even sat in on a mixing session. So he has no idea what the tasks are. He merely imagines them. Then imagines how the frequency response affects those imagined tasks.

The simultaneous lack of knowledge and claims of expertise are simply embarrassing.

Has amirm actually tried comping vocals?
Or does he not know what that even is?

Again. At ASR it seems knowledge of mixing is not a requirement to be an expert at it. :lol:

 

[dasdoing]

remove elements of the track rather than just reduce some of them

it shouldn't. if your kick vanishes, than you should make it audible in the midrange, for example. the only exception would be some extreme sine-wave-ishy deep electronic bass. But with this type of music I don't see why you would use this method anyways.

 

[ZolaIII]

Amirm can measure frequencies. That’s why he can only think that way.

He has never once mixed a song. I’d guess he has never even sat in on a mixing session. So he has no idea what the tasks are. He merely imagines them. Then imagines how the frequency response affects those imagined tasks.

It’s embarrassing.

Has amirm actually tried comping vocals with different monitors to see if the NS10s are good for that task? Or does he not know what that even is?

I think you should breed deeply, take your time and cool it off! Everyone is entitled to have it's own opinion, really no need to insult anyone and politics really don't have a place hire, not even as jokes.

 

[mhardy6647]

Suppose one were a world-class... something. One had a recipe for success. Would one share it, lock, stock, and barrel, with one's competition? With the up-and-coming? Perhaps -- just perhaps -- one would share pieces of the recipe, but leave out a point or two -- or even, perhaps, add in a deliberate red herring?

In my line of work, I know of at least one case of a published sequence of a therapeutic protein (recombinant version of a naturally occurring human enzyme) that has a couple of mistakes in it. Some analytical scientists at a competitor sequenced the actual product (when they were getting some odd data based on the published report in their own studies) and found the discrepancies. It was widely assumed that the minor but nontrivial errors were published deliberately.

"Yamaha NS-10m? Yeah, of course! I use 'em -- all the time! See 'em, right in front of me at the desk!"

 

[amirm]

Because you literally said “no one serious” uses NS-10s.

Nope. You have lost the plot. I said: "And I am told no one serious these days uses them either." "I am told" refers to people posting in this thread, not my position. I specifically posted about people like CLA using them as are a bunch of others posting videos online. But generally they are right: the NS-10 is not remotely as popular as it was when it was in production. If you think otherwise, you go and fight with people posting here saying otherwise.

He has never once mixed a song. I’d guess he has never even sat in on a mixing session. So he has no idea what the tasks are. He merely imagines them. Then imagines how the frequency response affects those imagined tasks.

You mean you were there when all those albums were produced in the list you posted? You weren't right? You have no idea how anything sounded. Or if any real problems were solved or created by use of NS-10. It is all appeal to authority which is what started the whole hype train to begin with.

You complain about me not mixing. What is your excuse for not even bothering to measure the response of these speakers in the studios they were used in? Folks rather work blind than get some data on what their tools really did. This is inexcusable considering that every studio has the gear to measure rooms. But no, they rather live on folklore, mystique and "I am famous so I know it all."

Many of us thought we knew it all as well. But then took the time to read and learn the science, ditched what we thought we knew, and really learned what sound reproduction is about. You seem to think your industry should be shielded from that. That no one should challenge any of their notions. "How dare you? Do you even know how music is mixed?"

Answer is that you are mixing for consumption by us not yourself. You use a speaker to predict what we may be hearing. That we share our dissatisfaction with the proxy you used should be a moment to stand and up and take notice. Search your brain on why a consumer speaker magically became the perfect tool for mixing music where no such thought even entered the designer's mind.

No one is questioning what else you are doing in mixing music although at some point, we need to have a heart to heart about why so much low fidelity music is produced. Major artists like Adele produce almost unlistenable recordings. Watch one of her live concerts produced by video folks and it will be a revelation to the garbage that passed as music on CD. So if I were you, I wouldn't keep bragging that you know what you are doing because you mix music. You are very far away from mastering that art.

 

[amirm]

Specifically, saying “mixers don’t need to worry about translation anymore because everyone can buy awesome $20 IEMs” is just so biased as to sound ridiculous. Translation issues are real and they matter. Maybe flat speakers help you get there quicker but that doesn’t negate the importance of that particular goal.

This is why we need a mix produced for a proper speaker first and foremost. Then different profiles could be standardized for different classes of playback devices and implemented there, in the player. Those variations could then be tested, optimized and made available through metadata. It is trivial to have the player apply an EQ curve to what it is playing. We could create 4 or 5 profiles and be golden. That way a company like Samsung or Apple could pick a profile for their phones and optimize (and certify) for that. Ditto for bookshelf or full range speakers.

Dolby does this with having a 5.1 mix being downmixed to stereo for example that is approved by the content creator. The full stream is provided up to 6 channels but the player is enabled to match it to playback conditions.

The notion of "translation" then would be discarded much like it is for video. Apply to standards and then let the player use its extreme capabilities today to do the right thing. Don't leave it as wild west.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

Nope. You have lost the plot. I said: "And I am told no one serious these days uses them either." "I am told" refers to people posting in this thread, not my position.

So what is your position?

No one serious uses them?
Or actually serious people do use them?

 

[dasdoing]

What is your excuse for not even bothering to measure the response of these speakers in the studios they were used in? Folks rather work blind than get some data on what their tools really did. This is inexcusable considering that every studio has the gear to measure rooms. But no, they rather live on folklore, mystique and "I am famous so I know it all."

than again big studios were build by large media companies with a lot of research....but in practice they didn't work. that's the reason mixing engeniers started to improvise. not because they didn't like the theory, but because the theory didn't work well. a small speaker placed on the console worked better than planned systems with gigantic research budget. you can't claim that people followed a cult, because in 2023 there is not a single engenier that doesn't do most of the work in the nearfield.
there might have been better choices for the task? perhaps yeas, perhaps no. this was asked here in the topic, but nobody replied

 

[lowkeyoperations]

amirm. Can you tell us what comping vocals entails?

 

[amirm]

So what is your position?

No one serious uses them?
Or actually serious people do use them?

My position is that the halo of the thing continues resulting in even worse versions as manifested in speaker tested: the CLA-10. As to serious people, it seems there is a handful which is responsible for continued use of the old NS-10s and new CLA-10s.

 

[Doodski]

amirm. Can you tell us what comping vocals entails?

Anybody can toss buzzwords about and such. It's easy to do. So why bother?

 

[amirm]

than again big studios were build by large media companies with a lot of research....but in practice they didn't work. that's the reason mixing engeniers started to improvise. not because they didn't like the theory, but because the theory didn't work well. a small speaker placed on the console worked better than planned systems with gigantic research budget. you can't claim that people followed a cult, because in 2023 there is not a single engenier that doesn't do most of the work in the nearfield.
there might have been better choices for the task? perhaps yeas, perhaps no. this was asked here in the topic, but nobody replied

I am sorry I don't understand your post or the question you are asking me. I will repeat what I have said before: audio is broken as an end to end delivery system. It refuses to accept that it is producing and approving a sound that we never, ever get to hear. Yet that is not only the dream of audiophiles but likely large portion of people who consume music. What is worse there is not even talk of fixing this let alone attempting to do so. Folks walk around whistling dixie that they know how to create great recordings. How can a recording be great if you came to each one of our homes and heard something different than what you mixed???