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

[Zensō]

I would imagine a company like Apple would pay producers to create such versions for them.

Or make it a requirement to have their work placed on Apple Music’s featured playlists.

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

Please explain.

Jim

Because it's predicated on the idea that unless you're in the same space, same speakers, same head and ear shape, headspace, etc... you're missing out on something. Listen to music, hear all that stuff? Great you're basically hearing the same thing. It's not something people who haven't written and mixed music are going to fully understand, which is the big problem with all the ASR threads related to this sort of topic.

 

[amirm]

Because it's predicated on the idea that unless you're in the same space, same speakers, same head and ear shape, headspace, etc... you're missing out on something. Listen to music, hear all that stuff? Great you're basically hearing the same thing. It's not something people who haven't written and mixed music are going to fully understand, which is the big problem with all the ASR threads related to this sort of topic.

What a defeatist attitude. You can't solve the problem 100% so you are going to shy away from solving 80%? We are sitting here with no target whatsoever for playback. Folks then resort to voodoo of using random failed consumer speaker as to make their mixes "translate" better. Is this what you are defending as your secret sauce? You are going to claim that is better than having standards end to end so you know what to target for, and we know how to build systems to comply with it?

As I keep referencing, video has standards to get colors right. This doesn't mean we get teleported to the set itself. It means we are a major step closer to that reality.

And once again, you are talking to your customers here. You are producing music for us, not you. So don't tell me what you know and do. It is immaterial. You have a broken architecture that doesn't yield itself remotely to an experience you can predict. Yet you sit there for hours screwing around with a mix. I don't know why I have to tell you that standards are needed and great. You should be saying that.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Because it's predicated on the idea that unless you're in the same space, same speakers, same head and ear shape, headspace, etc... you're missing out on something. Listen to music, hear all that stuff? Great you're basically hearing the same thing. It's not something people who haven't written and mixed music are going to fully understand, which is the big problem with all the ASR threads related to this sort of topic.

I could buy into the ".... same space, same speakers ...." idea, but ".... same head and ear shape, headspace, etc." is a little overboard, isn't it? After all, both the engineer and the client (or clients) listen to the final cut, and they all sign off on it. They're totally different people, with different head shapes, ear shapes, etc.

I think that this whole thing can be ultra-radicalized, when it's not meant to be. It's meant instead to be a practical, every-day, real-world solution, and an improvement over what we have now. The industry is, after all, populated with practical, every-day, real-world people ..... right?

Jim

 

[lowkeyoperations]

What a defeatist attitude. You can't solve the problem 100% so you are going to shy away from solving 80%? We are sitting here with no target whatsoever for playback. Folks then resort to voodoo of using random failed consumer speaker as to make their mixes "translate" better. Is this what you are defending as your secret sauce? You are going to claim that is better than having standards end to end so you know what to target for, and we know how to build systems to comply with it?

As I keep referencing, video has standards to get colors right. This doesn't mean we get teleported to the set itself. It means we are a major step closer to that reality.

And once again, you are talking to your customers here. You are producing music for us, not you. So don't tell me what you know and do. It is immaterial. You have a broken architecture that doesn't yield itself remotely to an experience you can predict. Yet you sit there for hours screwing around with a mix. I don't know why I have to tell you that standards are needed and great. You should be saying that.

In my experience the quality of audio production nowadays far outweighs the quality of the content.

In the genres of music I listen to, the number of songs that I don’t like because of the mixing and mastering is minuscule compared to the number of songs I don’t like because of the artistic musical content.

Perhaps that is different across different genres?

However the architecture isn’t broken in the fields of music I listen to. The vast majority of music I like sounds fantastic to me. If the occasional song doesn’t sound tonally correct, I just don’t listen to that song. But that is incredibly rare in my experience. There are still hundreds of great sounding songs being released every month. And thousands on back catalogue.

Does it sound the same as it did in the studio? I neither know, nor care. It sounds good to me and that’s all that is required imo. Does it sound fantastic on my iphone speaker? Of course it doesn’t! My iPhone is not made for dub music reproduction :lol: I would never expect my iPhone to give me an enjoyable experience of dub music!

Realistically, for this to have any chance of happening, there needs to be some sort of proof of concept before the entire industry is going to change. There doesn’t appear to be any demand from consumers for a radical change outside of our little niche that is always looking for the last few percent of improvement.

Is there enough demand for this?
Is the demand coming from people willing to pay for it?
Is there money in it for the whole chain of production to make it a worthwhile investment?
Does the standard actually achieve any audible improvement?

Unfortunately a no to any of those questions probably puts a stop to its development. Without any proof that such a standard leads to any audible improvements I don’t see any incentive for it to happen.

 

[ZolaIII]

In pharmacy, cosmetics even there are strict enforced rule's for pouting a new product in use which require extensive testings on large scale and squishing anomalies (side effects) to 0.01% when it comes to say. This is of course enforced by the law as health and lives of humans is in stake. It's safe to say how study for just one such product is bigger than all studies cumulative ever conducted regarding audio if we discard standard hearing tests that again are medical. Only way to enforce something similar in audio is if you have hard evidence how it's teething helt and wellbeing of humans. Currently series activities are being done by world health organisation to prove the impact of modern listening devices in the first place IEM's is responsible for projected fast growing hearing definitely among very large population and how age border for such shifted to much more younger. So it's entirely possible that such law enforcement will be there for audio reproduction devices in a decade or so. Let's just hope studio will went into right direction not being only about hearing health impact but also perceived audio quality.
@lowkeyoperations you wish...

And try to stay with objective quality's not subjective this sounds better because it's louder which got us into this whole mess in the first place.

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

What a defeatist attitude. You can't solve the problem 100% so you are going to shy away from solving 80%? We are sitting here with no target whatsoever for playback. Folks then resort to voodoo of using random failed consumer speaker as to make their mixes "translate" better. Is this what you are defending as your secret sauce? You are going to claim that is better than having standards end to end so you know what to target for, and we know how to build systems to comply with it?

As I keep referencing, video has standards to get colors right. This doesn't mean we get teleported to the set itself. It means we are a major step closer to that reality.

And once again, you are talking to your customers here. You are producing music for us, not you. So don't tell me what you know and do. It is immaterial. You have a broken architecture that doesn't yield itself remotely to an experience you can predict. Yet you sit there for hours screwing around with a mix. I don't know why I have to tell you that standards are needed and great. You should be saying that.

With all do respect, you are just out of your element on this one Amir. Please share the music you've written and mixed, I'm sure that's not the first time someone has asked and rightfully so. Generally the response to these sort of criticisms is of a "put up or shutup" nature. Your work will speak for itself. I will gladly share mine, and you'd be surprised at what some of the mixes were done on and yielded successful results. I'm not aware of any music you've worked on, so I'd wager you simply lack the creative aspect of the process to make a clear judgement on the matter. I never claimed any sort of secret sauce, just that making good music is far more than just having good monitoring, and many of the things people chase as far as reproducing audio are misguided. Good monitoring certainly helps but my most successful song was written on some crappy gaming headphones on the go. Lots of people are writing hit songs on less than ideal monitoring.

Oh my, I'm producing music for you guys? Not myself? Well that's news to me. I'm pretty sure I do it for myself as a form of self expression and most of it doesn't make it outside of my rooms. I have a broken architecture? My friend you have no architecture. You are speaking of things of which as far as I'm aware, you have no experience with. I think the problem with your assessment here is you're attempting to make a judgement about the entire process, while ignoring basically 70% of it.

"Man who has not made a song tells other musicians how to make a song"

 

[goat76]

Ideally not. We would have a handful of profiles that are device independent and that would be that. Bonus and optional would be per device profiles that are also offered on top of the baseline. I would imagine a company like Apple would pay producers to create such versions for them.

Why do you think there is a need for different mixes for different devices, and what will the differences be for those mixes?

Can you in detail describe the differences of the mixes you think are necessary for three different devices, you can pick any three devices of your choice.

 

[PeteL]

Funny thing is. There are standards in audio. It's unavoidable, If you don't comply to streaming services loudness specifications, It just will be recompressed or turned down and you loose all the great work you done or it will just be turned down. Mastering engineers deal with these standards and AES have clear recommendations as well.
Where standardization don't make any sort of sense is to think that there is some sort of correct tonality to achieve and Amir seams to equate this to a red pixel turning purple. No. It's not. Your playback system don't manipulate your mixes. You give it 1k, it outputs 1k. If it outputs 1.1k, it's broken No there is no correct tonality or EQ curve that would fit some magic profiles that would get the end user to hear exactly the same thing the Mastering engineer heard. It's a complete utopic fantasy in a place we are suppose to believe in science. Where we at least should believe and understand a bit of physics! How many times we have to repeat that Transducers are flawed. Listening rooms are flawed. Use cases are millions. Science tells us that what is input in the system, will measure differently at listening position and there are no 5, 7 or 10 different profiles that standardise what the response will be at listening position, there is infinity of "profiles". Now that's what science tells us. You want to hear close to what the engineer heard. Buy great speakers and tune your room to perfection, you'll have close to that. You prefer the convenience of a portable Bluetooth speaker or you don't have the money or time for better, Well by doing so you accept that you don't get the full experience and it's not any more complicated than that.

https://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=731

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Please share the music you've written and mixed, I'm sure that's not the first time someone has asked and rightfully so.

This is a prime example of an irrelevant conclusion, or Ignoratio elenchi. It's a fallacy frequently used as an emotional defense.

Let's say I'm walking along and see a sawyer at a mill, producing crooked boards. I could note this to him, and he might reply, "How many boards have you sawed? None, huh? You're just out of your element!" That's an irrelevant conclusion. I don't need to be a sawyer to see that boards are crooked.

A faulty product is evidence of a faulty process. And that is true whether the fault is a major fault or a minor fault.

A car with defects is a faulty (and possibly dangerous) product. I don't need to be an automotive engineer to note that.
Medicine that has a 1% fatality rate is faulty medicine. I don't need to be a pharmacologist to see that.
Planes that crash repeatedly are defective. I don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to understand that they are faulty.
If cloth has an errant pattern, there's something amiss in the production cycle. It's not necessary that I be a weaver (or mechanic for the production equipment) to see that something is wrong.

In all these cases, there is a great portion of the product that is NOT faulty. But that is not the focus of end users. The focus of end users is to eliminate the portion that has fault. If the portion that has fault cannot be eliminated, then the focus of the end user is to reduce the fault to the smallest degree possible. That's not physics, it's just human nature. It's how we go about improving things in general.

I lived in Japan long ago. There is a Zen (Chan) principle of the singer and the hearer. It states that the music needs two elements, the singer to sing the song and the hearer to listen to it and appreciate it. Being a young smartass, I told the Zen master that this was not true, that I had an uncle who constantly hummed music to himself as he worked, even when there was no one around. The Zen master replied, "And where did he get those melodies?"

Sometimes the singer is actually the listener. So yes, in principle you are producing music for "us guys", even if most of it doesn't make it out of your room.

Jim

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

This is a prime example of an irrelevant conclusion, or Ignoratio elenchi. It's a fallacy frequently used as an emotional defense.

Let's say I'm walking along and see a sawyer at a mill, producing crooked boards. I could note this to him, and he might reply, "How many boards have you sawed? None, huh? You're just out of your element!" That's an irrelevant conclusion. I don't need to be a sawyer to see that boards are crooked.

A faulty product is evidence of a faulty process. And that is true whether the fault is a major fault or a minor fault.

A car with defects is a faulty (and possibly dangerous) product. I don't need to be an automotive engineer to note that.
Medicine that has a 1% fatality rate is faulty medicine. I don't need to be a pharmacologist to see that.
Planes that crash repeatedly are defective. I don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to understand that they are faulty.
If cloth has an errant pattern, there's something amiss in the production cycle. It's not necessary that I be a weaver (or mechanic for the production equipment) to see that something is wrong.

In all these cases, there is a great portion of the product that is NOT faulty. But that is not the focus of end users. The focus of end users is to eliminate the portion that has fault. If the portion that has fault cannot be eliminated, then the focus of the end user is to reduce the fault to the smallest degree possible. That's not physics, it's just human nature. It's how we go about improving things in general.

I lived in Japan long ago. There is a Zen (Chan) principle of the singer and the hearer. It states that the music needs two elements, the singer to sing the song and the hearer to listen to it and appreciate it. Being a young smartass, I told the Zen master that this was not true, that I had an uncle who constantly hummed music to himself as he worked, even when there was no one around. The Zen master replied, "And where did he get those melodies?"

Sometimes the singer is actually the listener. So yes, in principle you are producing music for "us guys", even if most of it doesn't make it out of your room.

Jim

You're examples focus on the macro, but leave out the micro. Anyone can make sweeping judgements about something, but it takes someone with experience and understanding to fully grasp why the judgement was made.

I think there's an old saying that goes something like "Anyone can push a button, but you don't pay me to push a button, you pay me to know what button to push and when".

 

[lowkeyoperations]

you are talking to your customers here. You are producing music for us, not you. So don't tell me what you know and do. It is immaterial. .

In my polite opinion this sounds rather elitist, entitled and righteous.

Most mix engineers are working for their client, who is either an artist or a label. Or they are artists themselves.

Dismissing an entire industry’s knowledge and experience because you’re not completely happy with the sound of your speakers seems like an over-reaction to me.

Some hifi enthusiasts just never reach their audio nirvana, no matter how much they spend on their reference system.

But I’ve been laying on my couch tonight listening to my Slate VSX headphones in Mike Dean’s 15” Tannoy Farfield Monitor emulation and it’s been sounding freaking amazing.

A big shout out from me to Warmth, Nikosf., Rhauder, Eletun Selona, Alessandro Crimi, Heavenchord and all the other mix engineers and producers making kick ass music that I’m lucky enough to hear on these great headphones! You keep producing for you and I’ll come along for the ride.

And keep doing it on whatever monitors and headphones you’re using because it sounds incredible! There is no broken architecture here. Just superb music.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

A car with defects is a faulty (and possibly dangerous) product. I don't need to be an automotive engineer to note that.
Medicine that has a 1% fatality rate is faulty medicine. I don't need to be a pharmacologist to see that.
Planes that crash repeatedly are defective. I don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to understand that they are faulty.
If cloth has an errant pattern, there's something amiss in the production cycle. It's not necessary that I be a weaver (or mechanic for the production equipment) to see that something is wrong.

You need to be an automotive engineer to understand what the problem was that caused the defect. Then the defect can be rectified.

You need to be a pharmacologist to know what the cause of the fatalities was. Then the medicine can be improved.

You need to be an aeronautical engineer to determine where the fault lay and what caused it. Then the reliability can be improved.

You need to be a weaver or machine mechanic to determine what caused the problem. So the correct part can be replaced.

Perhaps you have identified a fault in a mix you have heard?

But you will need knowledge in that field to understand what may have been the cause. And how to fix it.

The answer may not be to ignore mix engineers and impose a new system of standards determined by slightly disappointed hifi enthusiasts.

Please understand that a 1 percent fatality rate in medicine is a monumentally greater problem for society than a hifi enthusiast being unhappy with 1 percent of the songs he listens to.

A 1 percent fatality rate in medicine may well require government intervention. A 1 percent dissatisfaction rate with the quality of a mix probably doesn’t require the full restructuring of an entire industry.

 

[Ported]

I have already asked how do we define | measure a good mix? Surely until we know that how can we create a standard? A very much different thing to a differing audience.
Most of the industry .. if it sells it's a great mix full stop.

 

[badspeakerdesigner]

I have already asked how do we define | measure a good mix? Surely until we know that how can we create a standard? A very much different thing to a differing audience.
Most of the industry .. if it sells it's a great mix full stop.

Shakira - Hips Don't Lie would like to have a word with you

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Circle of Confusion continues...................

Reminds me of barn building. An in-law relative had a small farm two barns. I was by there and going to engineering school. He had a sagging barn waiting for a high wind to knock it down. I asked if he would build it the same way. "Yes, build them all the same way". He had spaced framing at 4 ft intervals and rafters and joists at 3 ft though one size smaller than made sense. I suggested moving framing to 2 ft intervals as well as for rafters and joists while going up one size on those. "How many barns have you ever built? I've built 5 barns. How the heck do you know what spacing is needed on barns?" I told him I had helped build one barn and span tables from lumber organizations were made to guide in construction of such things. "Well barns ain't built like no house. Barn's going to sag and blow down every 10 or 15 years. Just the nature of barns. If I was a farmer who built barns I'd know this."

Of course had someone helped him build his first barn as I suggested he too would only have worked on one barn. The one I helped my Grandfather build some 35+ years ago.....still in use today. My Grandfather also built houses and you had to satisfy building inspectors. So his framing was up to snuff, and still is. But I guess the old fellow was right about his barn building. A huge tornado came right across his property blowing down both barns and his house. Fortunately for him he had passed 2 years previously. Proof I didn't know what I was talking about not being a barn builder. Life is funny. Especially funny when you try and help people out sometimes.

 

[Robbo99999]

With all do respect, you are just out of your element on this one Amir. Please share the music you've written and mixed, I'm sure that's not the first time someone has asked and rightfully so. Generally the response to these sort of criticisms is of a "put up or shutup" nature. Your work will speak for itself. I will gladly share mine, and you'd be surprised at what some of the mixes were done on and yielded successful results. I'm not aware of any music you've worked on, so I'd wager you simply lack the creative aspect of the process to make a clear judgement on the matter. I never claimed any sort of secret sauce, just that making good music is far more than just having good monitoring, and many of the things people chase as far as reproducing audio are misguided. Good monitoring certainly helps but my most successful song was written on some crappy gaming headphones on the go. Lots of people are writing hit songs on less than ideal monitoring.

Oh my, I'm producing music for you guys? Not myself? Well that's news to me. I'm pretty sure I do it for myself as a form of self expression and most of it doesn't make it outside of my rooms. I have a broken architecture? My friend you have no architecture. You are speaking of things of which as far as I'm aware, you have no experience with. I think the problem with your assessment here is you're attempting to make a judgement about the entire process, while ignoring basically 70% of it.

"Man who has not made a song tells other musicians how to make a song"

It's a theoretical discussion, and the points Amir is making do make sense. What is less clear is how best it would be implemented in practice & how easy or likely that it could be done successfully with enough uptake & made a commercial success. I don't see any argument with the theory, but I'm not sure if in practice the various hurdles can be overcome.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I have already asked how do we define | measure a good mix? Surely until we know that how can we create a standard? A very much different thing to a differing audience.
Most of the industry .. if it sells it's a great mix full stop.

The issue here is not whether a mix is a good mix or a bad mix. It has nothing to do with the quality of the end product per se, although indirectly one could say that it does. This issue is actually about the tools that are used. There are already standards in audio ...... bit rates are standardized, input levels are standardized ........ and these things are relevant to tools, not the things that the tools are used to make. People make good mixes on digital gear everyday, and people make bad mixes on digital gear everyday. That's the human side, not the equipment side. But a better tool will allow an improved (or more consistent) end product ..... for those capable of appreciating it.

Look at it this way: nail guns make roofing faster. However, the air delivery pressure is standardized (regulated). Otherwise, the staple or nail would go right through the shingles. That doesn't mean that someone using a nail gun will punch a perfect row. Not at all. The person using the nail gun still has to be capable at a level commensurate with taking advantage of the improved tool.

In the case of audio, one way an improved tool would come about is through standardization, just as standardization has improved tools in many industries for many, many years. No, it's not magic, and no, it's not perfect. It's also not a conspiracy to burden artists. It's really just one thing, and one thing only ..... it's an incremental improvement in the tools of the industry, and that's an industry that already has taken advantage of many standards.

It's a theoretical discussion, and the points Amir is making do make sense. What is less clear is how best it would be implemented in practice & how easy or likely that it could be done successfully with enough uptake & made a commercial success. I don't see any argument with the theory, but I'm not sure if in practice the various hurdles can be overcome.

I was around for pre-digital recording, albeit only as an observer. When digital was implemented, the reaction of several people I knew is mirrored in the comments you have just made. Everyone was wondering about implementation. Everyone was wondering whether it would be successful. Everyone said that there were so many hurdles to be overcome, and they weren't sure it was all possible. There was a great deal of trepidation.

But look around you; time has given us the answers. People in the recording industry today use digital equipment that is so far removed from what their forefathers used, that the difference is difficult to fathom ..... and they do it easily.

Ultimately, time will tell.

Jim

 

[Robbo99999]

I was around for pre-digital recording, albeit only as an observer. When digital was implemented, the reaction of several people I knew is mirrored in the comments you have just made. Everyone was wondering about implementation. Everyone was wondering whether it would be successful. Everyone said that there were so many hurdles to be overcome, and they weren't sure it was all possible. There was a great deal of trepidation.

But look around you; time has given us the answers. People in the recording industry today use digital equipment that is so far removed from what their forefathers used, that the difference is difficult to fathom ..... and they do it easily.

Ultimately, time will tell.

Jim

Well I do indeed hope that the industry can move forward along the lines of the standards we've been talking about in this thread! As you say, we'll see, hopefully while I've still got good enough hearing to appreciate it!

 

[Deleted member 21219]

..... we'll see, hopefully while I've still got good enough hearing to appreciate it!

Too late for me! There are, however, others who will benefit.

Jim