Really Expensive Speakers: Overrated For Mixing And Mastering

[AA63]

What a funny thread. NS10s are reference monitors in the true sense of the word - engineers use them to reference smaller playback systems, check how frequencies translated there - no need to go into details about cars, boomboxes, or aunt-Matilda's Sanyo system. Engineers use those, Aurotones, or now iLoud MTMs, KRKs etc. - they are simply a reference point. Some engineers preferred them for balancing instruments rather than using the larger soffit mount behemoths that were in most studios to save their ears from the silly spl levels that usually accompanied sessions with artists/producers.

Would I ever mix for hours on them or chose them as my only pair of sub 1000 boxes - especially as a home-hobby? Hell no, they are not pleasant sounding, and are fatiguing as hell. Much better choices around that won't take the joy out of sound shaping/mixing. As for the translation argument, no, a decent engineer can get used to and compensate for (most) any setup and get good results - you just have to know your gear. I've heard mixes primarily done on AirPods that sounded great, and equally horror-show sonics coming from rich boys 150k Quested rig.

However - overrated expensive <insert your favorite whatever here> - this can be argued about almost anything - Tesla's are faster than Lambo's - plug-ins sound remarkably like Neve consoles and a well cut Zircon will fool 99% of the population. It's all relative.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

What a funny thread. NS10s are reference monitors in the true sense of the word - engineers use them to reference smaller playback systems, check how frequencies translated there - no need to go into details about cars, boomboxes, or aunt-Matilda's Sanyo system. Engineers use those, Aurotones, or now iLoud MTMs, KRKs etc. - they are simply a reference point. Some engineers preferred them for balancing instruments rather than using the larger soffit mount behemoths that were in most studios to save their ears from the silly spl levels that usually accompanied sessions with artists/producers.

I think what this thread is pointing out is that this perspective is an older perspective. NS10's are remarkably inaccurate but engineers did learn to use them in a certain way. However, NS10's are totally unnecessary now that we have Genelecs and Neumanns. This thread, to me, is pointing out that new technology helps us know that we can get accurate monitoring and have much less of a need to "learn our system" because we have a better grasp on the science.

Would I ever mix for hours on them or chose them as my only pair of sub 1000 boxes - especially as a home-hobby? Hell no, they are not pleasant sounding, and are fatiguing as hell. Much better choices around that won't take the joy out of sound shaping/mixing. As for the translation argument, no, a decent engineer can get used to and compensate for (most) any setup and get good results - you just have to know your gear. I've heard mixes primarily done on AirPods that sounded great, and equally horror-show sonics coming from rich boys 150k Quested rig.

But why compensate when accurate monitoring is affordable and obtainable? I used to mix on NS10's for reference also, but now that I can mix into a flat, low distortion setup I would never use them.

However - overrated expensive <insert your favorite whatever here> - this can be argued about almost anything - Tesla's are faster than Lambo's - plug-ins sound remarkably like Neve consoles and a well cut Zircon will fool 99% of the population. It's all relative.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Totally agree with this take! It really comes down to knowing your gear and how your mixes translate, not the price tag on your monitors. I've heard amazing mixes done on modest setups because the engineer knew exactly how their speakers "lie" and how to compensate. Expensive monitors can make the process more comfortable, sure, but they won't magically improve your ears or decisions. For most home producers, something reliable and neutral (like iLouds or Adams) paired with good room treatment and reference checks will go way further than dropping five figures on high-end speakers.

What if we could take the guess work out of "knowing your gear"? That's what we're saying here. For years we mixed on systems and had to get to know them, but now we can use the science to get a much more accurate monitoring situation. We can even do this with monitors that aren't crazy expensive. I don't think people are advocating for five figure speakers. Neumann's are about as good as it gets. They really minimize the need to get to know your system, especially if you use some carefully placed room treatment. I can't see a reason to use NS10's after that. Yes, maybe some auratones or something else to accompany them, but NS10's are just a thing of the past now that we have bette information.

 

[AA63]

But why compensate when accurate monitoring is affordable and obtainable? I used to mix on NS10's for reference also, but now that I can mix into a flat, low distortion setup I would never use them.

No argument here - however - as any engineer will tell you (and you probably know) - your brain will always need to compensate/adjust. Point being is that we agree that there is no need to torture yourself unnecessarily (unless of course you are up against deadlines) - I've found that it takes (at least) a few months to get used to any change in monitors/speakers just as it would with any new tool replacing a familiar way of working - and from my experience, some people have a very hard time making that switch.

But for first time, non-production-house setups? Totally agree as stated - there is no "magic" in NS10s and I would definitely not recommend spending nostalgia/lore money on them.

Winding it all back to the beginning though - I don't agree with the OP's p.o.v. - "overrated" or "no need to spend" or "waste" is 100% subjective and relative - the argument is really about should speakers really cost 5k and up - and I'll I can say about that is why the fk does a good steak cost $50+ at the butcher - LOL

 

[Krusty09]

Take it from someone who knows mixing music and is a friend of mine for a really long time and just use Neumann. Dont waste your money on yammies. Wait and save .

Legendary Audio Engineer John Harris Talks Remote Recording and Mixing With Neumann Monitoring Array

An esteemed broadcast and mix engineer with multiple Grammy, Emmy and Peabody awards under his belt, John Harris built his career by anticipating the ...

www.sportsvideo.org

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

No argument here - however - as any engineer will tell you (and you probably know) - your brain will always need to compensate/adjust. Point being is that we agree that there is no need to torture yourself unnecessarily (unless of course you are up against deadlines) - I've found that it takes (at least) a few months to get used to any change in monitors/speakers just as it would with any new tool replacing a familiar way of working - and from my experience, some people have a very hard time making that switch.

Yes, the switch is really the thing here. Many people come from all of these studios that had NS-10's. They were everywhere and it was often a sign that the engineer knew what he/she was doing. So for many people, the switch is moving slowly and can be intimidating. It does take some time to get used to a room and speakers even if they are more accurate, but it's easier if we follow the science with it. I think we're on the same page here.

But for first time, non-production-house setups? Totally agree as stated - there is no "magic" in NS10s and I would definitely not recommend spending nostalgia/lore money on them.

Winding it all back to the beginning though - I don't agree with the OP's p.o.v. - "overrated" or "no need to spend" or "waste" is 100% subjective and relative - the argument is really about should speakers really cost 5k and up - and I'll I can say about that is why the fk does a good steak cost $50+ at the butcher - LOL

 

[Cbdb2]

And the best part, is countless of (edit, no mixes where won) grammies were won mixing with the NS10s.

This always kills me. The number one priority for winning a grammy is record sales. It can be a garbage song, sound terrible but if it sold 10M records it will win a grammy.
And if your studio produced a grammy winner the musicians will flock there thinking there lousy songs and mediocre talent will still record a grammy winner. Which they might.

 

[AA63]

This always kills me. The number one priority for winning a grammy is record sales. It can be a garbage song, sound terrible but if it sold 10M records it will win a grammy.
And if your studio produced a grammy winner the musicians will flock there thinking there lousy songs and mediocre talent will still record a grammy winner. Which they might.

Hold up. Is that why I can't shoot 3's like Steph even though I wear the same UnderAmour shoes?

 

[Cbdb2]

Hold up. Is that why I can't shoot 3's like Steph even though I wear the same UnderAmour shoes?

Yea musicians are almost as superstitious as athletes. My buddy plays beer league hockey and when he joined a new team a guy told him they were "a put your left skate on first team". I would have said I was looking for a "learn to play first team."

 

[sigbergaudio]

This always kills me. The number one priority for winning a grammy is record sales. It can be a garbage song, sound terrible but if it sold 10M records it will win a grammy.
And if your studio produced a grammy winner the musicians will flock there thinking there lousy songs and mediocre talent will still record a grammy winner. Which they might.

This sounds a bit elitist. If a song sells 10M records, how can it be a garbage song? By which definition?

 

[goat76]

This sounds a bit elitist. If a song sells 10M records, how can it be a garbage song? By which definition?

If a speaker (Yamaha NS-10) becomes so popular in music studios and sells in large quantities, how can it be considered a garbage speaker? By which definition?

 

[Palmer]

If a speaker (Yamaha NS-10) becomes so popular in music studios and sells in large quantities, how can it be considered a garbage speaker? By which definition?

It has to be something's (or somebody's ) fault, starting with the gear - moving on from there...

Cheers

 

[tmtomh]

If a speaker (Yamaha NS-10) becomes so popular in music studios and sells in large quantities, how can it be considered a garbage speaker? By which definition?

There are objective measures for speaker quality; they’re reproduction devices. Songs are the creative productions that speakers are supposed to reproduce.

It’s interesting that so many folks who think they’re clever fall into this same conflation of production and reproduction, music and hi-fi gear, and thereby demonstrate that they’re not.

 

[sigbergaudio]

If a speaker (Yamaha NS-10) becomes so popular in music studios and sells in large quantities, how can it be considered a garbage speaker? By which definition?

Haha, touché!

 

[BlueTunes]

Um, (I have no clue what i am talking about so...)

Who, or what is the customer here?

Mixing isn't quality related is it? That is the mastering.
The mixing just takes whatever quality is in the master and applies it so?
The mixing defines the output, so you want to be able to mix with regards to the output, ie a known reference.
You wouldn't mix a track using Tandy specials as your reference because it would sound horrendous on anything remotely decent,
Likewise you wouldn't mix using PSAudio-esque pinicle speakers because it would sound equally shite on normal systems
etc, etc.

So, you should mix a track using a speaker system which (i would guess) is reasonable. Perhaps something that is starting to hit the point of diminishing returns. Something well made but not Bijoi. a good average if you will.

The mastering should then allow this mix to be scalable about this sonic anchor point.


Of course the above assumes you are mixing for all.
If you are mixing for a specific target (ie audiophiles) then use pinicle gear.

I hear the effects of mismatching the mix source to the mix output all the time.
Old 45's sound horrendous on modern systems.
Modern mixes of old records sound horrendous for the same reasons.


Synergery used to be a thing IIRC.

 

[Palmer]

Haha, touché!

Boy, if one of your products ever becomes the new NS 10 - you will never hear the end of it.

 

[DVDdoug]

Yea musicians are almost as superstitious as athletes.

I call it 'mythology" and it's not just musicians. It's also the producers and engineers. With the "big record companies" the artist isn't making the decisions.

There's a lot of mythology around microphones too. Whatever Frank Sinatra used must be great! Then it gets perpetuated as new artists are successful with these now-expensive vintage microphones. Or, vintage tube preamps, or the compressors The Beatles were using, etc.

Oh... People used to flock to Sun Studios, or Motown even though they had lousy acoustics. They made hit records! Abbey Road had "questionable acoustics" (including the control/mixing room) but The Beatles recorded there!!! People still go there to get "that sound". But I assume the acoustics have been fixed-up in the following decades. And a lot of that "Beatles sound" came from experimenting with different methods/technics, mostly constantly pushing the engineer to create something new and different.

Here's a quote from Ethan Winer's book:

Many aspiring recording engineers today appreciate some of the great recordings from the mid-twentieth century. But when they are unable to make their own amateur efforts sound as good, they wrongly assume they need the same gear that was used back then. Of course, the real reason so many old recordings sound wonderful is because they were made by very good engineers in great (often very large) studios having excellent acoustics.

It looks like nobody has mentioned Floyd Tool's Circle Of Confusion which addresses the lack of standards and this whole topic of producing on different "random" monitors (and in different rooms) and then played-back on different unknown speakers in different rooms.

BUT, Dr. Toole does NOT advocate mixing/mastering on lousy speakers in rooms with poor acoustics!

Back to musicians - I read a story about a guitar player who met Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton played a little the other guy's guitar and amp, and he was amazed how good his rig sounded... It sounded exactly like Eric Clapton!

Old 45's sound horrendous on modern systems.
Modern mixes of old records sound horrendous for the same reasons.

45's sounded horrendous in the 60's & 70's. The LPs sounded better and generally the CDs sound MUCH better. The studio recordings were better than anything we had at home. At some point, I stopped buying singles.

I assume 45's were "worse" victims of the analog loudness wars than the albums and I read somewhere that they used "regrind" vinyl (recycled unsold or reject records) although I don't know why vinyl can't be re-melted. Theoretically, higher playback speed should be better.

 

[Cbdb2]

This sounds a bit elitist. If a song sells 10M records, how can it be a garbage song? By which definition?

Popularity does not equal greatness. But "Dont Worry, Be Happy"

 

[kyuu]

This sounds a bit elitist. If a song sells 10M records, how can it be a garbage song? By which definition?

The definition of the person calling it garbage, plainly.

This is totally orthogonal to speakers, of course. A song is art/entertainment, whether it's "good" or not is almost entirely subjective. A speaker, on the other hand, is a piece of equipment with specific design goals.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Popularity does not equal greatness. But "Dont Worry, Be Happy"

No, but if tons of people enjoy something, who are we to cast judgement of the inherent quality of whatever it may be? This is a bit off topic probably.