Avantone Pro MixCube Monitor Review

[Hexspa]

They exist because of legacy (historical reasons) and reputation (people don’t have time to get wise, it’s easier to be safe and go with what the established colleagues are doing)
Yes when the Auratones were around stock car stereos were horrible; with their 4.5”drivers with tiny magnets, no sub-bass in the doors of cars with their whizzer cones. For shit and giggles @amirm should measure things like this; you know, from a 1973 Ford Escort, to see how far we’ve come.

The modern recording studio should be equipped with EarPods ( those white Apple earphones are probably the most popular earphone in C21), UE Boom (probably the most popular Bluetooth speaker), and a laptop or LCD TV. Because my bet is that cumulatively. These 3 devices account for a majority of how people are enjoying their music.

Are these the best audio devices? No, but if you can get it to sound nice on these devices they probably sound good enough for the consumer market.

As for the recording tech; (s)he ain’t a god(dess). It’s a job. Not everyone is Bob Katz who says tuck it; I will only do amazing recordings on my full frequency, full dynamic range 5’ floor standers and multi subs EQed in an acoustically treated room for audiophiles with disposal incomes.

Most people have to earn a living, do recordings for tv ads, jingles. Many musicians have second or third jobs.

It’s not just that people are dumb and dominated by time constraints. Part of it is lack of data and awareness thereof. Until now, where was the spinorama for this speaker and ones like it? Nowhere which is why I sent it. Additionally, people do not know what they do not know much less how to find the knowledge they lack. Spinorama is largely unknown in the pro audio world. I think I’ve mentioned that I’ve been involved in recording to some degree since the 90’s and only heard of it in the past five years. This site receives a lot of traffic (1.5MM unique users per month?) so the idea will grow.

One thing remains undefined: what, if any, of the objective qualities of the Mixcube and similar speakers, ATC monitors, the NS-10 and similar cause mix engineers to produce work they deem superior?

Saying, “yuck, bad, TV set” etc is again lopsided assessment. One thing is clear: there is a disconnect between highly popular “pro” monitoring and loudspeakers which approach “objective perfection”.

I acknowledge that it may be entirely due to marketing, autohypnosis, herd mentality, and other similar factors. Or, it might not. After all, the ‘Harman metrics’ are not based on nearfield usage. It could be that metrics are entirely adequate to deduce the answer but we are not measuring properly. Yes, I think everything a loudspeaker can physically do can be measured. What we might not have refined as well is our ability to interpret the data as usefully for nearfield applications.

One idea I have is related to critical bands in our hearing. Sure, this speaker has massive resonances but - maybe - the forward presentation of these bands facilitates mix decisions. After all, the NS-10 and the Yamaha HS5 both have midrange peaking (though different in location and Q). The other is equal loudness contours. This speaker seems to have greatest emphasis in ranges where our ears peak: namely 2.7kHz (ear canal resonance) and around 1kHz. I’m not looking at the graph right now, just throwing out ideas. Basically, before we decapitate it for good and moo along like a bunch of instantly-convinced cattle to our next squiggly fix, let’s give a little thought as to what actual, concrete merit this tool offers or doesn’t.

 

[dfuller]

PS. Have you considered why NS-10 is conspicuous by their absence in classical music recording & mixing? Or, why you don’t see them at mastering rooms?

You don't see them in mastering rooms because mastering is not where that kind of translation check is done. If it doesn't translate at mastering, it's too late. As for not being a thing in classical mix rooms, when was the last time you saw someone blasting Beethoven's 5th from a phone speaker?

 

[Hexspa]

...as if one can accurately interpret the levels through these

You’d be surprised. Until now I’ve used them for levels and EQing and the midrange of my mixes since acquiring them has seemed to translate pretty well. Levels and transients are my #1 use for these and EQ second. I think the EQ works mainly because of the crowding in mono that’s less obvious in stereo. I’m not saying these are the best tool for the job but they have been, until now, the best tool at my personal disposal.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Weird device but I guess it has its use case.

 

[Hexspa]

I think it was all just coincidence. first they had no near-field speakers and only used the mains. that would then cause translation problems because of the room distorsion. someone put a NS-10 on the console and could mix better cause he heard more direct sound. I don't think speakers of the size to be able to put on the console existed that had bass. so they got used to mix the midrange on the nearfield. Auratones were probably made to take this concept to the next level (exclusion of crossover distorsion/phase errors)

Good point, there’s no crossover issue and directivity is pretty smooth if not highly directional. The extra wide directivity at 100Hz is no problem assuming you listen to just one; on here, I’ve read criticism of this quality negatively affecting stereo imaging of low mids.

 

[Hexspa]

Thanks for sending it in for testing, Michael! I've owned one of these since I read Mike Senior's book "mixing secrets for the small studio" years back - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mixing-Secrets-Small-Studio-Presents/dp/0240815807 where he theorized why the use of a mono, single driver speaker might be useful for those mixing at home in less than ideal spaces.

I don't use the Avantone as much these days, but I've always kept it around for the occasional check. The measurements don't surprise me one bit to be honest, but neither will I be losing much sleep over them

Best wishes with your mixing!

You mix without a reference like this? Even if I decide to sell this speaker (haven’t thought much about it), I’ll definitely keep summing my mix not just to mono but also to just one loudspeaker. I think the Toole observation that a single loudspeaker enhances (doesn’t impede) critical listening ability in listeners applies here. Maybe this speaker is, in part, a $259 way to force that.

 

[thewas]

Floyd Toole has written several times about the Yamaha NS-10 and Auratone, here is one of his posts:

I don't wish to argue about "why" the NS10M became popular - I have heard and read several versions, including the one you refer to - and one more from someone who said he was in a position to know, saying that many were given away free to recording engineers. Personally I have no insight except that I have measured and heard the products, and spent time with the designers, who also went through a double-blind evaluation of their own products. They took notes. The products are what they are and the chips will fall where they may.

According to the designer, the NS10M was designed to be used by consumers in relatively reflective rooms, placed close to a wall for bass reinforcement and auditioned at a large distance at which the radiated sound power was assumed to be the dominant factor. It was not designed to be a near-field monitor, placed on the meter bridge in the open (no bass reinforcement) and auditioned at a distance of about 3 ft where the direct sound (on-axis response modified by a console reflection) would be the dominant factor. These are almost diametrically opposite uses.

At the time the Auratone 5C was in widespread use as a loudspeaker representing what many consumers were listening to - mixing for the audience was the notion. It was a simple small cone speaker in widespread use in TVs and elsewhere installed in a small box - absolutely nothing special. Whatever other arguments are put forward, it is hard to ignore the fact that the professional version of the NS10M measured and sounded remarkably like the Auratone, but with more extended bass and much better production quality control. The Auratones were highly variable. See the attached curves, which include a curve of a more recent Yamaha monitor (Figure 12.11 from the 3rd edition - there are more to be seen there). Yamaha clearly walked away from a market for their NS10M Pro and its seeming ability to reveal audible secrets. So, equalize the new one to have the frequency response of the old one when needed - too logical?

There is another school of thought, supported by work and writings of Philip Newell, that claims the advantage to be uncommonly "tight" bass. To all of these perspectives I would add one thought - why not use equalization? In fact, these days does anyone NOT equalize a monitor loudspeaker? Simply start with a broadband, neutral monitor and if one wishes to focus on specific bands of frequencies during a mix dial/switch in the appropriate equalization. Loudspeaker transducers are minimum phase devices so the time-domain performance follows the amplitude-domain (anechoic frequency response) curve. At bass frequencies there is not even a consideration of directivity to be concerned about - EQ is king. Tight bass, loose bass, fat bass, thin bass, all are possible with EQ. In my discussions of such things with several pros I got the kinds of responses typical of many consumers - they really didn't understand how loudspeakers work, but they know what they hear and they have "ideas".

 

[Hexspa]

Reading through Newwell and Holland’s book “Loudspeakers for Music Recording and Reproduction” they demonstrate a similar reason for the existence and usage of speakers like the 5C and NS10…namely time-responce. The excellent decay behavior of these speakers allowed for much better ability to balance the levels of lower frequency instruments like the bass guitar and bass drum. Errors here were not able to be corrected in mastering.

There are low decay times in the $8k3 ATC SCM25A also. Many reports point at this being a valuable metric for music creation loudspeakers. If we take that parameter in isolation, the mixcube is a better value; though I wonder how it has HF resonances but also superlative step response. However, the ATC is linear to 60Hz; 0.5-1octave lower than these.

 

[Zensō]

I don’t see the point of these today. We can now simulate just about any type of crappy speaker in software without the need for an extra speaker on the desk.

 

[sarumbear]

You don't see them in mastering rooms because mastering is not where that kind of translation check is done. If it doesn't translate at mastering, it's too late. As for not being a thing in classical mix rooms, when was the last time you saw someone blasting Beethoven's 5th from a phone speaker?

Should I read your answer as you use those speakers so that your mixes sound good on a phone? If so, thats why most current mixes sound horrible on an objectively correct (I.E. Hi-Fi) audio set-up.

Maybe you can listen mixes from the 70s which are still streamed in large numbers and find out why they sound good on any playback system.

 

[uwotm8]

So they are made to look

So you completely missed the point

 

[Hexspa]

Auratones are called "Awfultones" and "Horrortones" for a reason. Don't mistake them as good, they're not.

No, the point of these (and NS10s, among others) is that they intentionally sound bad, as a reference point for something not dissimilar to what consumers listen on. Crappy TV speakers, phone speakers, crappy car speakers, you get the idea. Most people listen on speakers around this quality, very few have capable stereo systems.

And no, nobody mixes their entire record on these. The idea is to see if the mix "holds together" vs a more full-range system. It's not an unrealistic thing to have KH420s or 8351s or what have you and also a pair of these as a counterpoint.

I agree that these are meant to be used with wideband, linear loudspeakers. What I nitpick is the use of “good” and “bad”; subjective terms. My main inquiry, like I mentioned in my now suppressed gearspace posts, is what does and doesn’t make these useful? So far we have:

1. Smooth, if narrow, directivity
2. Low distortion at levels 86dB and under
3. Definitive step response
4. Limited but centered band limiting
5. No crossover
5. Balanced connections and ground lift (noise mitigation)
6. Phase coherence? I don’t fully ‘get’ this
7. Midrange boost (maybe)
…anything else?

I’m trying to find common ground among these and the NS-10 and especially the much-lauded SCM25A. Ultimately, I’d like to see a manufacturer produce a monitor that focuses on the most useful of these qualities and minimizes the least useful. In other words, I want an affordable monitor that produces the ultimate in translation. Maybe it is a Genelec 83X1 or a KH 150(+) but, anecdotally, that might not be the case. Maybe we can fuse objectivity with producing subjectively ideal translation since that doesn’t seem to have been done in a way that’s at least affordable.

 

[Hexspa]

The same can be said for the comments an audiophool receives about their music system. You expect them to socialise as well.

Until proper tests done you can never know if your mixes are positively effected by your objectively bad monitors.

PS. Have you considered why NS-10 is conspicuous by their absence in classical music recording & mixing? Or, why you don’t see them at mastering rooms?

Please spare me the use of term “audiophool”. That’s a term of ridicule that I don’t wish to be associated with.

“Objective” and “bad” are words that don’t belong together, imo. Objective is “meets criteria or doesn’t. Pass/fail.” Subjective is your opinion which includes “bad and good”. These speakers exhibit qualities - some are useful and some are not. That said, there are so many “studio monitors” with little in the way of unifying their cost-to-performance qualities.

I’m getting tired and maybe my logic isn’t as clear as it could be. In the end, there’s not enough spinorama for nearfields and there’s even less consensus as to how much spin data applies to how a loudspeaker enables mix translation. By all means, for a complete account of this perspective, review the gearspace thread to which I linked in my first reply on page 2 or 3 in this review.

In many ways, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here. At the end of the day, I want to spend my money on the monitors that help me achieve the best result. Is that a KH 420 with its exceptional amplitude linearity? The SCM25A with its unique 5dB dip at 7kHz? The Mixcube with its egregious resonances yet impeccable step response? Is it all really just subjective and Olive/Toole’s findings have zero bearing on near/midfield monitoring? Are Genelecs really “for broadcast” and Neumanns “for music”?

The debate is not settled! Let’s please avoid ridicule and jumping to conclusions. Yes, I’m guilty of these tendencies - Amir can attest - but, regardless, it’s antithetical to productive inquiry.

 

[Dave Tremblay]

I have absolutely no problem with the bass response or the lack of baffle step compensation here. That is a sound I can adjust to if trying to listen critically in the midrange, but those resonant peaks are truly nasty. I don’t think my brain could ignore those no matter how hard I tried.

 

[Hexspa]

You don't see them in mastering rooms because mastering is not where that kind of translation check is done. If it doesn't translate at mastering, it's too late. As for not being a thing in classical mix rooms, when was the last time you saw someone blasting Beethoven's 5th from a phone speaker?

Right. And, anecdotally, Streaky the mastering engineer has NS-10s and KH 420/KH750. We don’t have the numbers of what make and model every mastering house uses. Even if we did, due to living in a scientific dark age for loudspeaker selection, we wouldn’t be able to determine why those speakers are there.

 

[dfuller]

Should I read your answer as you use those speakers so that your mixes sound good on a phone? If so, thats why most current mixes sound horrible on an objectively correct (I.E. Hi-Fi) audio set-up.

Maybe you can listen mixes from the 70s which are still streamed in large numbers and find out why they sound good on any playback system.

The point is that the mix should sound good everywhere. Big sub-bass sounds real impressive on a full range system but if those bass elements don't come through on a much more bass limited system they better not be that important.

Also - these were in widespread use in the 70s, so I'm really not sure quite what you're getting at.

Right. And, anecdotally, Streaky the mastering engineer has NS-10s and KH 420/KH750. We don’t have the numbers of what make and model every mastering house uses. Even if we did, due to living in a scientific dark age for loudspeaker selection, we wouldn’t be able to determine why those speakers are there.

Streaky is kind of a joke as MEs go, but most mastering houses that do good work that I've found tend to be using soffited ATC SCM110s or similar.

 

[Hexspa]

Floyd Toole has written several times about the Yamaha NS-10 and Auratone, here is one of his posts:

Yes, I’m sure Floyd is out there munching popcorn laughing as I expose my ignorant “ideas”. No matter because he did not irrefutably define the schism between the “pro music mixer” market and his findings for far field listening. His contributions are doubtlessly illustrious but not absolutely comprehensive. He is also just shooting out “ideas” here. Why would a speaker designed for room-gained far field listening become useful as a subjectively offensive nearfield reference? If it’s time response then why aren’t more monitors designed like this?

Some of the response is correctable with EQ but not all of it. Amir suspects edge diffraction for some of the amplitude anomalies and EQ won’t help there. Besides, how can this speaker have severe ringing but good transience? The minimum phase concept is limited, at least when countering room acoustics as Ethan Winer argues here but also seems not to unify the performance of the mixcube.

 

[Hexspa]

I don’t see the point of these today. We can now simulate just about any type of crappy speaker in software without the need for an extra speaker on the desk.

View attachment 270920

You can simulate the axial amplitude response but many other metrics you cannot. Especially with regard to this use case, amplitude response is arguably overrated.

 

[Hexspa]

Should I read your answer as you use those speakers so that your mixes sound good on a phone? If so, thats why most current mixes sound horrible on an objectively correct (I.E. Hi-Fi) audio set-up.

Maybe you can listen mixes from the 70s which are still streamed in large numbers and find out why they sound good on any playback system.

Part of that is the increased limiting of dynamic range. Acoustic music is perceived as louder, see Bob Katz “acoustic advantage” concept, and the corollary is that less compressed music sounds “better” since it’s perceived as “louder” but not constantly loud like modern limited and clipped masters. Yes, the dynamic range capability of mobile device speakers is poor but more widespread. It’s also taste, i’ve heard that the “kids” prefer distorted mixes.

 

[Hexspa]

Ok, I've crystalized my question:

We have a 'preference score' which is based on the objective assessment of a pool of listeners' preferences and their verifiable abilities (trained listeners listening to a single loudspeaker are more consistent in their subjective appraisal of a loudspeaker's quality than untrained listeners who are listening in stereo while knowing the brand, for example).
What I want to see is a 'translation score' which identifies the elements of loudspeaker performance which contribute most to this seemingly elusive quality of 'translation' when used in the near, mid and far field (NS-10-style, SCM25A-style, and soffit-mounted mains-style respectively).

If something as nebulous as 'preference' can be dialed down to a score (however flawed) then it must also be possible to do this for 'translation'. If it were so, and actually happened, we'd be able to make better selections when purchasing studio monitors and that would drive the market to create products which focus on these characteristics while allowing for cost-savings on non-essential aspects.

I tried explaining this to my Uber driver but she didn't seem that interested. Hopefully someone who can do something about it hears my pleas.

Thank you to everyone who's contributed so far. Say what they want on gearspace about the ASR community, I've received no personal attacks here (yet) which is more than I can say about what happened over there. It goes to show that the one pointing the finger is pointing at themselves four times as much.