Really Expensive Speakers: Overrated For Mixing And Mastering

[Dialectic]

Would you chose a wife on how she measured before experiencing her?

Gotta try speakers and women before ya buy.

 

[blackstrat]

So would you recommend me get an 8030c compared to NS10?

There are people on the forum who are much more experienced than me, but I think I've figured out a few things after having owned in my home-studio and listened to several speakers in the stores.
The NS10s (I listened to the active HS7 version; they're essentially the same speaker with a built-in Class D amplifier) are excellent for mixing, and they show in detail what's happening in the mids and upper-mids. For this reason they're "analitycal" speakers; they're not pleasant to listen to, but they're excellent for mixing. Those who say they're horrible speakers are right, they sound boxy, but they are also a great training ground because if you can get your mixes to sound good on a pair of HS7s/NS10s, they'll sound good on other speakers too.

However, I would never use them alone in my home studio, but rather paired with another monitor for a slightly more natural sound. If you've seen photos of professional studios, you'll have noticed that they have AT LEAST two pairs of monitors, often three. In addition to the main speakers built into the walls.
In addition to the Genelecs you were recommended, I'd also like to mention Adam, especially the A series (A7, A7x, A5, etc.) and the Focals (Focal Alpha EVO, Focal Solo, etc.). I had the Alpha EVO 65, they are quite balanced with a added brightness in the 3KHz region, very revealing, they bring out all the details in the treble and upper-mid range very well. Definitely more pleasant to listen to than the Yamaha NS10/HS7/HS5 (skip them if you mix rock and metal, they sound harsh on electric guitars due to that 3KHz brightness). If you also like the NS10s, you can get them, but as a second monitor.
I forgot: whatever speakers you buy, remember to calibrate them (I use SoundID Reference) because otherwise it will be like driving a car blind.

 

[kyuu]

if you can get your mixes to sound good on a pair of HS7s/NS10s, they'll sound good on other speakers too.

This honestly just does not make sense. How does mixing on bad speakers somehow result in something that sounds good on everything? If you need to be shown "in detail what's happening in the mids and upper-mids" seems like you could just have an EQ profile that emphasizes those frequencies.

 

[blackstrat]

This honestly just does not make sense. How does mixing on bad speakers somehow result in something that sounds good on everything? If you need to be shown "in detail what's happening in the mids and upper-mids" seems like you could just have an EQ profile that emphasizes those frequencies.

Replace "bad" with "non pleasant sounding", and boom...it makes sense.

 

[tmtomh]

Replace "bad" with "non pleasant sounding", and boom...it makes sense.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that doesn't address @kyuu 's point. The point is that if one mixes on the NS10s because their unpleasant-sounding lower-treble peak ensures your mixes will sound "good" on any speaker or headphone, the result is liable to be a mix that is excessively attenuated in that same frequency region, because it was mixed to sound unobjectionable on the NS10s. And a mix with attenuation in that region can potentially sound dull, lacking presence, or even boxy or boomy when played on more neutral speakers.

Now, I get the idea that one might want to use the NS10s to really hear clearly the spatial qualities of a mix at those 3kHz and nearby frequencies, or maybe to hear how, say, an electric guitar and certain vocal harmonics that are "competing for the listener's ear" at those frequencies are balanced in the mix.

But this is a very limited aspect of mixing and I presume it's why you quite wisely have said that one should not rely only on the NS10s - you have to sanity-check them with a speaker with proper linear response.

And once we've agreed on that, then kyuu's point about just popping in an NS10-style EQ profile as needed during mixing makes a lot of sense.

To put it another way, I would venture that if he had more data or better alternatives available at the time, Bob Clearmountain wouldn't have resorted to putting kleenexes over the NS10s' tweeters. Instead he would've used a different speaker. These hardware-based hacks or kludges are ingenious, but there's no reason they should become best practices.

 

[SigbergAudio]

This honestly just does not make sense. How does mixing on bad speakers somehow result in something that sounds good on everything? If you need to be shown "in detail what's happening in the mids and upper-mids" seems like you could just have an EQ profile that emphasizes those frequencies.

It doesn't make sense because it isn't true. It's a long held myth. A better, more linear speaker would be preferrable all day long.

 

[blackstrat]

It doesn't make sense because it isn't true. It's a long held myth. A better, more linear speaker would be preferrable all day long.

Yes, I've heard this over and over again, but as tmtomh also said, it's not entirely true.
Besides, I've never owned the NS10s so I don't pretend to tell the absolute truth about them, I've only listened to the HS7s in the store and I didn't like them: too flat and analytical, annoyingly boxy, so I moved on. Despite their limitations, we have to admit they are a standard in recording studios around the world. You see these little boxes with white woofers almost everywhere, so there must be a reason, either intrinsic qualities (midrange detail) or the habit of working with them, or both.
By the way I'd love to have pair of HS3s as a secondary monitor, I didn't do it just for space reasons and settle with my Mixcube made by Behringer.

 

[SigbergAudio]

Yes, I've heard this over and over again, but as tmtomh said, it's not entirely true.

I haven't seen him say that.

Besides, I've never owned the NS10s so I don't pretend to tell the absolute truth about them, I've only listened to the HS7s in the store and I didn't like them: too flat and analytical, annoyingly boxy, so I moved on. Despite their limitations, we have to admit they are a standard in recording studios around the world. You see these little boxes with white woofers almost everywhere, so there must be a reason, either intrinsic qualities (midrange detail) or the habit of working with them, or both.
By the way I'd love to have pair of HS3s as a secondary monitor, I didn't do it just for space reasons and settle with my Mixcube made by Behringer.

Not sure if they're the standard in recording studios over the world, but they're present (typically along with other monitors) in many studios.

"There must be a reason" - I'm afraid a lot of things aren't how they are due to logic and reason.

 

[kemmler3D]

So would you recommend me get an 8030c compared to NS10?

Not that I've actually used NS10s, but if you want my opinion, yes. If you keep a close eye on the used market you can get Genelecs for less than half of retail. They are really built like tanks. In my opinion that makes them a pretty good value. Not many people will argue that you can't do a decent mix with them, as far as small nearfields go.

 

[Palmer]

It doesn't make sense because it isn't true. It's a long held myth. A better, more linear speaker would be preferrable all day long.

I have to agree, as the older folks in the business, who sort of grew up with the NS 10M setup (Auratone ) start to fade into retirement, or what have you - the near-field monitors available today are finally kicking the NS 10M to the proverbial curb. I have stated before that I never liked them - in my day, in the studio, and would have been glad to have had something, anything, better than that.

A big problem with "the myth" is that the actual time was, well, a different time. All together, and quite some time ago, if you know what I mean...

Cheers

Edit: current choice of monitors ...

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I've never owned the NS10s so I don't pretend to tell the absolute truth about them,

I've worked in studios with NS10s they were terrible. People didn't mix on them. That was a myth that won't go away.

 

[Palmer]

I've worked in studios with NS10s they were terrible. People didn't mix on them. That was a myth that won't go away.

Yes and no, when the labels started sending borderline morose "producers" in, the NS 10's were part of the mix, but we also started to turn knobs that did absolutely nothing - and when the subject seemed to not buy it, we said, too much? Let me dial it back, just a little... there. Worked every time

 

[goat76]

I would look at ‘measurement led’ designs, Genelec, Neumann etc rather than marketing/myth based.
Keith

Where are all the superior music mixes done using Genelec and Neumann monitors compared to the monitors you think are bad? Do you see a general trend, of any kind, indicating that better music productions are being achieved using the loudspeakers you suggest?

The problem here is that your suggestions are based on pure theories, but I'm quite sure you can't come up with any facts as to why those monitors you are suggesting are any better in practice.

 

[EasyC]

Where are all the superior music mixes done using Genelec and Neumann monitors compared to the monitors you think are bad? Do you see a general trend, of any kind, pointing to better music productions using the loudspeakers you suggest?

That's impossible to answer. In the end monitors are a tool. Of course they'll influence the job, but a star guitarist will play a better tune on a toy guitar than me on a classic Gibson or whatever. And then there's the band you mix - it all starts with that.

 

[chelgrian]

Yes and no, when the labels started sending borderline morose "producers" in, the NS 10's were part of the mix, but we also started to turn knobs that did absolutely nothing - and when the subject seemed to not buy it, we said, too much? Let me dial it back, just a little... there. Worked every time

Also known in the live sound world as the ‘DFA’ fader or knob, much easier these days with digital desks where you can literally map a control to do nothing other than provide confirmation bias to the talent or the director.

On the recording side consider why you find B&W products in most studios doing classical work, it’s not because they were the best it’s because they were good enough and a canny advertising person realised giving units away free or at stonking discounts to studios would drive retail sales at full price.

 

[Palmer]

Also known in the live sound world as the ‘DFA’ fader or knob, much easier these days with digital desks where you can literally map a control to do nothing other than provide confirmation bias to the talent or the director.

On the recording side consider why you find B&W products in most studios doing classical work, it’s not because they were the best it’s because they were good enough and a canny advertising person realised giving units away free or at stonking discounts to studios would drive retail sales at full price.

Did. Not. Know that. Awesome... But, I do, cough, Classical work - all the time I want those B&W, I must have fallen off the list.. Darned.

 

[goat76]

That's impossible to answer. In the end monitors are a tool. Of course they'll influence the job, but a star guitarist will play a better tune on a toy guitar than me on a classic Gibson or whatever. And then there's the band you mix - it all starts with that.

Why would that question be "impossible to answer" for someone who seems so sure a certain tool is better than another one for mixing music? That should be an easy answer for him, but if it's not, it's clearly just a presumptive idea made by someone who has no clue at all what may or may not be important when it comes to mixing music. Whether a music mix is good or badly done has nothing to do with the quality of the musicians. You seem to have a hard time separating musical excellence from engineering excellence.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I've only listened to the HS7s in the store and I didn't like them: too flat and analytical,

they aren't flat, though. you just have it in your head that they are for some reason.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

we have to admit they are a standard in recording studios around the world

A few pages back I linked the article explaining how this came to be. Either way, the popularity of a thing is unequivocally not an argument for the thing's quality or value.

 

[goat76]

Acoustic measurements of speakers correlate to sound.
For example, resonances color the sound speakers make, microphones measure them even when our ears can't and the sound is masked, we see the resulting measurements on the screen of our computers. Thanks.
Most people can't even pick out their personal speakers among other different speakers in a blind test. Ears are that poor as measurement devices.

That makes me wonder sometimes how much weight we really should put on measurements. I mean, if our ears are really that poor measuring devices, why should we even bother in the first place to ensure we are hearing things correctly, as long as we enjoy the sound we are hearing?
Is the confirmation of correctness really that important?