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

[goat76]

Total nonsense. He can do that if he wants to be his own audience. The moment he wants to make money selling it to us, then our opinion matters. We are the customer damn it. He didn't give away his art.

This is like saying no one should review a restaurant either. And that the chef only needs to cook food that he likes to eat. As I noted at the outset, you all think we the customers don't matter. As long as the talent, label and mix/mastering engineer are happy, the job is done. Well, it is not. As a minimum as I keep saying, they should conduct formal tests to better understand the importance of fidelity and how to best get there. Constantly claiming it is art so they get to decide is absurd.

Alternatively, declare that quality production doesn't matter and we can go our ow separate ways and find artists and engineers who care about our opinion.

Everything is his choice when it comes to his art, he owes you nothing and you are not forced to buy his music. He doesn’t have to explain or declare anything to anyone of us about his art, his intentions, or his views on the matter. And we have no right to demand anything from him.

 

[amirm]

Everything is his choice when it comes to his art, he owes you nothing and you are not forced to buy his music. He doesn’t have to explain or declare anything to anyone of us about his art, his intentions, or his views on the matter. And we have no right to demand anything from him.

We have every right to demand what we want. Nothing in the world would change if people were not critical like you and just rolled over and played dead. We can't force him to listen. That is all you can say. But it is critical to voice our concerns and in a unified manner as to at least provide motivation for change if not the change itself.

Besides, how do you know what choices were in front of him? Where you there when someone said "he, this thing sounds pretty distorted, how about this version without that?" Two possibilities: that wasn't told to him in which case, he was not given a superior choice that would have both served his needs and ours. Second, that none of the people involved can tell what is quality execution and what is not.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

I'm gonna go out on a but of a limb here and state that popularity has little to no connection with technical or artistic merit...

However, that popularity would have a connection to what people want to hear.

We have every right to demand what we want. Nothing in the world would change if people were not critical like you and just rolled over and played dead. We can't force him to listen. That is all you can say. But it is critical to voice our concerns and in a unified manner as to at least provide motivation for change if not the change itself.

Besides, how do you know what choices were in front of him? Where you there when someone said "he, this thing sounds pretty distorted, how about this version without that?" Two possibilities: that wasn't told to him in which case, he was not given a superior choice that would have both served his needs and ours. Second, that none of the people involved can tell what is quality execution and what is not.

This post is not to make drama. It is just a response to your post.

Unfortunately none of us were there at the mixing sessions. There is a third option to what you wrote, which is that the song sounds exactly how he likes it to sound. That cannot be discounted as an option.

As you pointed out, his drummer has a mixture of acoustic and digitally sampled sounds. If the artist wanted that song to have all acoustic drums he could have chosen that, but for some reason he didn’t.

I’m not sure I see why this artist needs to change what he is doing. He is extremely successful. He doesn’t really need to be on an audiophiles playlist as he is on the playlists of millions of people on Spotify already.

Don’t get me wrong here. The Weeknd is not on any of my playlists either! It’s not the type of music I like listening to. It’s not the sound I prefer.

But where we have a difference of opinion is that I’m not going to demand that he start making dub techno mixes of all his songs because that’s what I prefer to hear.

If you prefer the aesthetic decisions made by Madonna for example, whose drums you prefer the sound of, wouldn’t the answer be to listen to that instead of trying to make The Weeknd sound more like them?

I prefer the drums in productions by Warmth, Nikosf. Rhauder and similar artists. So that’s what I listen to and that’s what goes into my reference playlists.

 

[amirm]

I’m not sure I see why this artist needs to change what he is doing. He is extremely successful. He doesn’t really need to be on an audiophiles playlist as he is on the playlists of millions of people on Spotify already.

By that logic, I should stop testing audio gear. After all, many of the companies producing products that don't perform are successful as well. But we test, find issues, voices unite and some companies respond by producing better products.

In this forum, interest of consumer is put ahead of hardware companies. And by the same token, "software" (music) companies. If they produce great products, they will get our praise and if they don't, we take our collective business elsewhere. Some won't care, some will. What they can't do is to claim that their product is great because it sells a lot.

But where we have a difference of opinion is that I’m not going to demand that he start making dub techno mixes of all his songs because that’s what I prefer to hear.

Once again, nothing to do with preference. We are talking about production fidelity. If I buy a brand new car, I don't want it to come with scratches. Tell me that it is none of my business to complain and I tell you that you are acting like the PR person for the company as opposed to an advocate of consumer.

Really, this whole argument had no business starting let alone going for this many pages. Standards of fidelity and portability are great for both consumers and producers. We must reduce the variability of playback devices in both pro and consumer spaces. This is the single biggest thing we can do to improve the fidelity of our total system (hardware+software).

Not one argument has been put forward as to why less standardization is good for anyone. Instead, the back and forth has been along the lines of don't tell us what to do. Well, you are biting your nose despite your face. Let's create a standard and then rally around it to make the audio world a better place. We are doing that in playback space, amplifying decades of research into what makes a great speaker/headphone. As that standard starts to become more ubiquitous, people involved in production of music need to step up to conform and even advocate. I can't expect a singer or band to get any of this. But sure hope the technical person behind the console can.

Don't defend the current situation. It is not defensible. It is the wild west. It is not good for anyone other than hardware companies that want to build poor performing transducers and still get sales.

 

[Travis]

See? Not that hard? Let's just train these engineers to see sounds in colors and we're set, video already have all these great standards. Copy-Paste. Done.

Well you can’t train someone to have it. It’s a brain anomaly, verifiable on MRI, where information from hearing not only goes to the part of the brain for music, it also goes In significantly higher amounts to the area of the brain for vision/color and compared to a control group that doesn’t have it.

These individuals are also know to have significantly more white matter which is associated with faster processing.

I quoted one A-list engineer who has said that, beyond the basics, mixing cannot be taught, you either have it or you don’t. Sort of like international soloists in the classical symphony/concert realm. You can be a superb musician, but the majority hit a wall and the 1%, probably less, are the Yo Yo Ma’s or Van Cliburn’s of the world.

 

[Travis]

Not trying to make a point, just ran across this pic and thought it might be of interest. That’s Larrabee Studio 2 in Hollywood.

The house that Manny built. Custom George Augspruger mains, Neumann NF and NS-10s.

For his dedicated 5.1 (and Amos?) mixing room he put in a new Meyer Sound Bule Horn system.

 

[Zensō]

The house that Manny built. Custom George Augspruger mains, Neumann NF and NS-10s.

For his dedicated 5.1 (and Amos?) mixing room he put in a new Meyer Sound Bule Horn system.

A recent interview in SonicScoop about his signature Audeze headphones…

News Flash! Manny Marroquin Mixes on Headphones

Grammy-winning mixer Manny Marroquin is breaking the rules by mixing in headphones, and designing the new MM-500 made just for mixers.

sonicscoop.com

 

[PeteL]

We have every right to demand what we want. Nothing in the world would change if people were not critical like you and just rolled over and played dead. We can't force him to listen. That is all you can say. But it is critical to voice our concerns and in a unified manner as to at least provide motivation for change if not the change itself.

Besides, how do you know what choices were in front of him? Where you there when someone said "he, this thing sounds pretty distorted, how about this version without that?" Two possibilities: that wasn't told to him in which case, he was not given a superior choice that would have both served his needs and ours. Second, that none of the people involved can tell what is quality execution and what is not.

Nothing wrong with being critical of the production quality of an album or song. I do that all the time with friends. And I'll give you point for that, yes, If you actually know the production process, we as audio professionals may have some recommendations.

Once one of my artist friend (Indie, assume lo-fi) decided that he would mix his album himself. The result was so so, and it did not achieve the success of some of his previous work, we are still talking very modest success here. But. He came to decision after sending the stems of a track to a few established mixing Engineers. I also made a mix for him although it's not my main line of work. He didn't like any of them. Some of them where way better than what he had the chops to achieve, but still. That's not what he wanted, his vision did not translate. If you ask me, yes this was a mistake. But he is the artist. Not me.

Sure enough, like you, after seeing him struggling with his mixes, yes I even, like you, suggested. "Hey I think you should really get monitors with better bass. It's a mess down there" He was mixing on cheap Yamaha HS5 which i some way follows the tradition of NS10.
But thing is. I had insight on the process. It is a close friend.

You have zero insight on the production process of the Weeknd, and you have zero experience on producing an album. Yes you have all rights to know what you like to hear, no problem there but you are not an authority on that. And you certainly cannot know that these production decisions where made simply because he couldn't hear the truth due to a poor reproduction system. Sorry this is nonsense.

Do these production critics with your friends, that's not why we come here. That's not your expertise, and if you really think your opinion matter on this. Well, take appointment in these studios, and teach them how to produce an album, but don't tell us, your community that you built based on your expertise in hifi reproduction and measurement, that you know better. That is extremely condescending.

 

[amirm]

You have zero insight on the production process of the Weeknd, and you have zero experience on producing an album. Yes you have all rights to know what you like to hear, no problem there but you are not an authority on that. And you certainly cannot know that these production decision where made simply because he couldn't hear the truth due to a poor reproduction system. Sorry this is nonsense.

I don't need to have any insight into production process as I have not said how any of it has to be done with one exception: the monitor used to approve the final mix/release. That, I am an authority on and far more than these "professionals." I know the science. I know the research. I have measured 300 speakers including large number of monitors they use. I am also a trained listener in hearing small impairments and tonality errors. All of this makes me highly qualified to comment on this one aspect of production. As it has for Dr. Olive and Toole.

Do these production critics with your friends, that's not why we come here. That's not your expertise, and if you really think your opinion matter on this. Well, take appointment in these studios, and teach them how to produce an album, but don't tell us, your community that you built based on your expertise in hifi reproduction and measurement, that you know better. That is extremely condescending.

It is not my business to teach anyone "how to produce an album." There is a ton they do that is their business that I treat as a black box. To be sure, they could use more science to better figure out what they are doing there but I am not qualified to get into that. What I am qualified, per above, is opine on what is delivered to us to consume. There, it is trivially proven that lack of standards means that none of us will ever know what something sounds like. Research in headphones/speakers and room EQ is hamstrung by never having a reference to compare anything to. Their processes heavily impact our hobby and profession. So they better listen to our grievances.

As i have repeatedly said, we do not have this problem in video. That crew created standards from start and strongly advocate it. Video professional are disgusted when their art is viewed on uncalibrated displays. Their "arrogance" in this regard is a great thing. The apathy of music industry to the same shows how little value they put on their art being heard as they intended.

The only thing that makes all worse is members here selling us short saying we have no business talking about the final step in the production of music which we by definition we share as a common element. Instead of paying attention to what is said, you all constantly expand the proposal ("to teach them how to make music") and then shoot it down as "it is not your business." Learn to do something other than making false arguments.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

I don't need to have any insight into production process as I have not said how any of it has to be done with one exception: the monitor used to approve the final mix/release. That, I am an authority on and far more than these "professionals." I know the science. I know the research. I have measured 300 speakers including large number of monitors they use. I am also a trained listener in hearing small impairments and tonality errors. All of this makes me highly qualified to comment on this one aspect of production. As it has for Dr. Olive and Toole.


It is not my business to teach anyone "how to produce an album." There is a ton they do that is their business that I treat as a black box. To be sure, they could use more science to better figure out what they are doing there but I am not qualified to get into that. What I am qualified, per above, is opine on what is delivered to us to consume. There, it is trivially proven that lack of standards means that none of us will ever know what something sounds like. Research in headphones/speakers and room EQ is hamstrung by never having a reference to compare anything to. Their processes heavily impact our hobby and profession. So they better listen to our grievances.

As i have repeatedly said, we do not have this problem in video. That crew created standards from start and strongly advocate it. Video professional are disgusted when their art is viewed on uncalibrated displays. Their "arrogance" in this regard is a great thing. The apathy of music industry to the same shows how little value they put on their art being heard as they intended.

The only thing that makes all worse is members here selling us short saying we have no business talking about the final step in the production of music which we by definition we share as a common element. Instead of paying attention to what is said, you all constantly expand the proposal ("to teach them how to make music") and then shoot it down as "it is not your business." Learn to do something other than making false arguments.

By that logic, I should stop testing audio gear. After all, many of the companies producing products that don't perform are successful as well. But we test, find issues, voices unite and some companies respond by producing better products.

In this forum, interest of consumer is put ahead of hardware companies. And by the same token, "software" (music) companies. If they produce great products, they will get our praise and if they don't, we take our collective business elsewhere. Some won't care, some will. What they can't do is to claim that their product is great because it sells a lot.


Once again, nothing to do with preference. We are talking about production fidelity. If I buy a brand new car, I don't want it to come with scratches. Tell me that it is none of my business to complain and I tell you that you are acting like the PR person for the company as opposed to an advocate of consumer.

Really, this whole argument had no business starting let alone going for this many pages. Standards of fidelity and portability are great for both consumers and producers. We must reduce the variability of playback devices in both pro and consumer spaces. This is the single biggest thing we can do to improve the fidelity of our total system (hardware+software).

Not one argument has been put forward as to why less standardization is good for anyone. Instead, the back and forth has been along the lines of don't tell us what to do. Well, you are biting your nose despite your face. Let's create a standard and then rally around it to make the audio world a better place. We are doing that in playback space, amplifying decades of research into what makes a great speaker/headphone. As that standard starts to become more ubiquitous, people involved in production of music need to step up to conform and even advocate. I can't expect a singer or band to get any of this. But sure hope the technical person behind the console can.

Don't defend the current situation. It is not defensible. It is the wild west. It is not good for anyone other than hardware companies that want to build poor performing transducers and still get sales.

There appears to be 2 different subjects being thrown into one here.

One is the standardisation on the speakers and room that music is made in. To me that’s understandable.

The second, which is not defensible is to force notions of hi-fidelity onto artists work. There are numerous genres where low fidelity is the preference. We can’t standardise fidelity in the music.

I don’t think you agree with me on this, but that Is aesthetics, it’s not technical.

A low fidelity drum loop is not “scratches on a new car”, it’s just a particular colour of paint that you don’t like.

The standardisation of the speakers, room treatment and room correction is a good target! But making artist use high fidelity sounds because you have hi fidelity speakers is not going to happen.

I’m sorry if I’ve I’ve misunderstood the second part that you are pushing for.

 

[Joshua Cadmium]

I don't need to have any insight into production process as I have not said how any of it has to be done with one exception: the monitor used to approve the final mix/release.

But how exactly do you meet the target? That's the hard part. A perfect monitor doesn't exist. A perfect room doesn't exist.

-----

One more point about listening to multiple speakers to see if music translates well: taking multiple measurements in order to average out error is very much a valid scientific approach.

In the current absence of any one perfect standard or any one perfect speaker or any one perfect room, it does make the most sense to listen to music on as many speakers in as many environments as possible in order to make sure nothing erroneous is heard across multiple listening combinations.

As i have repeatedly said, we do not have this problem in video. That crew created standards from start and strongly advocate it. Video professional are disgusted when their art is viewed on uncalibrated displays. Their "arrogance" in this regard is a great thing. The apathy of music industry to the same shows how little value they put on their art being heard as they intended.

Audio standards and video standards are just not in the same league, though, for all the reasons I've brought up before. Just because an adjacent industry has virtually perfect end to end standards, does not mean that those standards are translatable, especially when the mode of perception is entirely different.

The only consistent disgust that I have heard from video professionals is the use of motion smoothing on TVs. Even the crappiest TVs look pretty good nowadays and most phones are using OLED.

Video standards are so much easier and cheaper to meet because physics makes it that way. With a little money, you can basically "DSP" any contemporary TV and get full range Rec. 709 under perceptual errors (or very close).

In audio, DSP-ing the room does not solve all room modes, and there is no way I could just DSP any contemporary speaker to get full range audio out of it - let alone something like ±0.5db across the full range.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

.

-----

One more point about listening to multiple speakers to see if music translates well: taking multiple measurements in order to average out error is very much a valid scientific approach.

In the current absence of any one perfect standard or any one perfect speaker or any one perfect room, it does make the most sense to listen to music on as many speakers in as many environments as possible in order to make sure nothing erroneous is heard across multiple listening combinations.
.

it was a question I asked about 20 pages ago. In the absence of a standard, how should we best work tomorrow?

Of course more than one speaker is beneficial. That’s why most studios have near, mid and farfields plus headphones.

 

[amirm]

But how exactly do you meet the target? That's the hard part. A perfect monitor doesn't exist. A perfect room doesn't exist.

A perfect ruler doesn't exist either. That doesn't stop us from having and using one.

Audio standards and video standards are just not in the same league, though, for all the reasons I've brought up before. Just because an adjacent industry has virtually perfect end to end standards, does not mean that those standards are translatable, especially when the mode of perception is entirely different.

Oh they have a lot in common: they both include art and production. No one is asking that we use color charts for audio. We have parallel yardsticks to use.

In audio, DSP-ing the room does not solve all room modes, and there is no way I could just DSP any contemporary speaker to get full range audio out of it - let alone something like ±0.5db across the full range.

Once again the argument of "we can't do it all so better to do none." Above transition frequencies, speakers dominate the sound we hear. Ergo, getting proper, neutral speakers with flat on axis and smooth directivity will get us really far. Then we need metrics for peaks in low frequencies. Dips, especially if they are narrow, don't need correction. Do these two this, as we do day in and day out in consumer audio, and we get very close to our ideals. We need the same strategy in the production chain.

You are also incorrect about your assertion on video. Delta-E of 3.0 and below is considered good enough. We don't need to get to "perfect" in order to have massive value in consistency.

 

[amirm]

In the absence of a standard, how should we best work tomorrow?

You do two things:

1. Demand to see proper CEA-2034 measurements of your monitoring speaker. If it doesn't have flat on axis and smooth directivity, you take a serious look at why you have gone that way. And if such measurements don't exist, then worry, really worry.

2. Measure your room and either learn what the results mean, or ask for help much like consumers do here. If you have room modes, then you better deal with them and now.

Get to a provable neutral sound production and we will achieve a ton.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

You do two things:

1. Demand to see proper CEA-2034 measurements of your monitoring speaker. If it doesn't have flat on axis and smooth directivity, you take a serious look at why you have gone that way. And if such measurements don't exist, then worry, really worry.

2. Measure your room and either learn what the results mean, or ask for help much like consumers do here. If you have room modes, then you better deal with them and now.

Get to a provable neutral sound production and we will achieve a ton.

Which is exactly why I bought Dirac live and a measuring mic. Dirac live has been a great improvement. I highly recommend it to everyone!

I also highly recommend Slate VSX headphones. But I’ll save that for another thread. Hopefully they get tested here one day.

 

[goat76]

You do two things:

1. Demand to see proper CEA-2034 measurements of your monitoring speaker. If it doesn't have flat on axis and smooth directivity, you take a serious look at why you have gone that way. And if such measurements don't exist, then worry, really worry.

2. Measure your room and either learn what the results mean, or ask for help much like consumers do here. If you have room modes, then you better deal with them and now.

Get to a provable neutral sound production and we will achieve a ton.

The thing is that it's not that often I hear a record with a noticeable strange tonality, and in most cases solved after the record has gone through all the steps like recording, editing, mixing, and mastering where a lot of different speakers have been used in different rooms. After all those steps, there is a very slim chance that no one has noticed that something is off in the tonality of the record, especially at this time of age when it’s very common that well-regarded reference tracks are used as a target during production.

I would say that the theoretical problem you bring up is a non-issue nowadays when monitors, in general, are better than before, measurements are easy to do, and the ease of use of reference tracks, thanks to the digital technique of today.

Do you find that a lot of modern audio production has a really “out of the ballpark” strange tonality?

As mentioned before, I find it way more problematic that the dynamics are killed in the mastering stage for many records, records that otherwise would have sounded much better with the dynamics intact that they had after the mixing stage of the production.

 

[Joshua Cadmium]

Once again the argument of "we can't do it all so better to do none." Above transition frequencies, speakers dominate the sound we hear. Ergo, getting proper, neutral speakers with flat on axis and smooth directivity will get us really far. Then we need metrics for peaks in low frequencies. Dips, especially if they are narrow, don't need correction. Do these two this, as we do day in and day out in consumer audio, and we get very close to our ideals. We need the same strategy in the production chain.

I feel like this argument has ended up at more of a tautology: "better standards are better". Of course they are, the argument is if they are actually needed and how to go about it.

Do professionals audio engineers really not know that the ideal environment is a neutral speaker and room? I will grant you that not all may know, but at the higher end I expect that it is not any kind of unknown.

I thought the argument was to a more precise level of perfect neutrality, not neutrality itself.

You are also incorrect about your assertion on video. Delta-E of 3.0 and below is considered good enough. We don't need to get to "perfect" in order to have massive value in consistency.

Again, your argument seemed to be about perfect neutrality, not good enough.

Delta-E of 3.0 is not actually good enough on the video creation / colorist end. A Delta-E of 1.0 is probably good enough, but even Delta-E is an inaccurate ruler: https://www.lightillusion.com/chasing_delta-e.html .

 

[PeteL]

I don't need to have any insight into production process as I have not said how any of it has to be done with one exception: the monitor used to approve the final mix/release. That, I am an authority on.

Here you Go. After Hours was Mastered at The Mastering palace By Dave Kutch. And Kevin Peterson. Here is their Monitor list, You can criticize that, that's where the final release was approved.:

Overall, the biggest workhorse are our speakers. From Stereo to 360VR, and ATMOS, The Mastering Palace uses Focal Pro audio monitors: Focal Electra Be, Focal SM9, Focal Shape 65 (ATMOS + 360VR), Focal Shape 40, Focal Solo 6.

B

Edit. Side note: While The Weeknd may not be a staple at audio shows. Eilish Happier than Ever certainly is. Actually over played to the point of indigestion. Same room, Same guy.

 

[amirm]

Do professionals audio engineers really not know that the ideal environment is a neutral speaker and room?

They don't or we would all be seeing the frequency response of their rooms. As it is, they are using ATC speakers that measure like this:

ATC doesn't even publish sweeps like above yet they are one of the favorite brands of monitors.

If they all deployed speakers like this one (and believe in its merits), then I would sleep a lot better:

 

[amirm]

Here you Go. After Hours was Mastered at The Mastering palace By Dave Kutch. And Kevin Peterson. Here is their Monitor list, You can criticize that, that's where the final release was approved.:

I can't critique what I don't have: the frequency response of that room. Does it exist? If not, it proves how valuable standards are because we can create compliance/branding programs on them. Without it, folks just show pretty pictures of rooms as to impress folks like you that listen with their eyes instead of ears.

That room could have a superb frequency response or one from hell. Or something in the middle. The problem is not necessarily that it is any one of those but that we don't know. And that it varies from one room to another.

And to the extent the response and hence the tonality varies from where the mix was made, it creates yet another problem.

The fact that he has two sets of speakers once again shows the issues with lack of standardization. He is taking two random shots at the sound being good. One on his monitor and another with the smaller one. He has picked those two samples whereas his other peers have picked others. It it a total gamble, relying on luck than sound science and engineering.

Reading between the lines, it seems you are saying, "it is the mastering guy that is responsible so go after him." That is a technicality that is orthogonal to the discussion. We look at mix and mastering as a package that produces a piece of music for us to listen to. Decisions are made in both phases that are monitor dependent and new problems created due to two chefs in the kitchen which at times have disdain for each other. A standard in production (both phases) and consumption would massively simplify this problem. But they won't go there and we have apologists like you throwing rock at what should be a dunk shot as far as desirability.