Yamaha HS5 Powered Monitor Review

[JustIntonation]

I mean really, am I going crazy here?
Are you absolutely sure the posted plots are not normal HD plots? (no matter the way of obtaining them)
I've looked at maybe over a thousand loudspeaker driver harmonic distortion plots. And this just looks like a normal HD plot. And just doesn't look like a rescaled plot where the harmonic distortion products are actually projected upon the frequencies they (the individual harmonic products) fall on.
So again, it just really reaaaally looks like that 1.5kHz HD bump shows that the H2 of that bump falls on 3kHz and the H3 of that bump falls on 4.5kHz, etc.
And like a normal HD plot, the THD part of it follows the H2 and H3 normally.
This is really really a normal HD plot. Please look again Amir!
Either I'm going crazy here or you've misinterpreted the HD plot (or I've somehow misinterpreted your posts where I get the impression you're saying these are not normal HD plots, and misunderstand the label in the plot saying the HD is low where our hearing is most sensitive etc.)

 

[HammerSandwich]

Thanks to everybody for confirming how Klippel plots distortion.

And I also don't understand why there cannot be any harmonic above 10kHz for the second and above 6.667kHz for the third.

Yes, there can be harmonics way up there, but... If a harmonic falls above the audible range & nobody can hear it, does it make a sound?

So, when are IM plots coming? ASR will need those before reviewing a Purifi speaker!

 

[MZKM]

Oops. Somehow I missed that. The system software relies on a callback from Paypal saying payment was made. Well, occasionally Paypal would produce these obscure messages saying it couldn't provide the notifications. After a bit, it stopped answering altogether. So now I have to catch the emails and manually upgrade titles. Sometimes I miss one or the other. Sorry about that. Fixed. Much appreciate the donation.

Thanks.

While I have you, and after going almost crazy trying to figure out the 1/2 octave discrepancy, I think I may ( or may not) have it.
In the patent/AES paper, this is stated:

NBD: Average Narrow Band Deviation (dB) in each ½-octave band from 100 Hz- 12 kHz

But for the calculation, this is stated:

½ octave bands between 100 Hz-12 kHz

These both were confusing as nothing worked out nicely. Then, @bobbooo pointed out that Sean may be talking about center Hz for the band, which he has done before.
I then found this paper, which has Olive in 3 of their references, and it has a formula and states that it:

represents the number of third octave bands within the frequency range of interest.

Adjusting it two 1/2 octave and using the formula to generate the 1/2 octave frequencies gives me this:

I fiddled with it till is started and stopped roughly where it should, so it now (with 1/20 data) it goes from 1st cell below 100Hz and 1st cell above 12kHz, with 10 measurements per band as stated in the paper (my original had only 9 for that last band, and ended past 12kHz).

This lowered the score for the NHT by ~0.1.

However, I may totally be off base. It also doesn't help that not only isn't it clear, Olive doesn't even state the number of bands (14), he just states:

N is the total number of ½ octave bands between 100 Hz-12 kHz.

 

[amirm]

Are you absolutely sure the posted plots are not normal HD plots? (no matter the way of obtaining them)

The way it is done is everything. I quoted the graphs from Wolfgang Klippel's own paper on distortion using this very technique. I don't know how else to explain it. The harmonics have no energy when they are out of band. I don't know why this makes you think it is something else.

Can you point me to an explanation that says it works the way you say?

 

[amirm]

So, when are IM plots coming?

It is coming for heaven's sake. I still have to review a bunch of electronics between these speaker measurements. And did I say it is darn cold in the garage? I think I did.

 

[maxxevv]

And did I say it is darn cold in the garage? I think I did.

Its when those mega tube amps come in handy .......

 

[Hayabusa]

The way it is done is everything. I quoted the graphs from Wolfgang Klippel's own paper on distortion using this very technique. I don't know how else to explain it. The harmonics have no energy when they are out of band. I don't know why this makes you think it is something else.

Can you point me to an explanation that says it works the way you say?

Hi Amir, maybe this helps:
Below are two distortion plots generated with REW.
The first one is a 'normal' distortion plot. Harmonics graphs stop early.
The second one the option "plot harmonics at harmonic frequency" is set. Harmonics extend to the end.

Version 1:

Version 2:

So I think you gave us version1 and confusing it for version2.. Correct?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hi Amir, may be this helps:
Below are two distortion plots generated with REW.
The first one is a 'normal' distortion plot. Harmonics graphs stop early.
The second one the option "plot harmonics at harmonic frequency" is set. Harmonics extend to the end.

Version 1:

View attachment 46608

Version 2:
View attachment 46609

So I think you gave us version1 and confusing it for version2.. Correct?

Yes he is definitely giving us version one. I don't really get the confusion. It does appear the THD line is using only 2nd and 3rd, but stops when it doesn't have both to show. So it doesn't go past a little below 7 khz where the 3rd harmonic will end as it would lie above 20 khz.

 

[JustIntonation]

The way it is done is everything. I quoted the graphs from Wolfgang Klippel's own paper on distortion using this very technique. I don't know how else to explain it. The harmonics have no energy when they are out of band. I don't know why this makes you think it is something else.

Can you point me to an explanation that says it works the way you say?

I'll try to be very clear just to not have a misunderstanding (maybe that is what was still somehow happening?).

In a normal HD plot we plot the frequency and the HD it generates (H2, H3 and THD in this case). If we then look at for instance 1kHz we then see at 1kHz H2 is for instance 1% and H3 is for instance 2% and THD is slightly over 2%. This then means that a 1kHz tone will generate a harmonic distortion product at about 1% amplitude (-40dB) at 2kHz (the H2) and another harmonic distortion product at about 2% amplitude at 3kHz (the H3).

This then means that if we look at the HD graph in % you posted in the measurements of the Yamaha HS5 that while the 2kHz to 5kHz region doesn't produce much distortion itself (which you put in the graph itself as "Hearing most sensitive here"), this is not relevant as what's relevant is what harmonic distortion products fall on the most sensitive region of our hearing (2-5kHz) which is 2-5kHz divided by 2 for the second harmonic and 2-5kHz divided by 3 for the 3rd harmonic (667Hz to 1.667kHz) and these frequency regions have quite a bit H2 and H3. Yet you wrote below the HD graph: "Thankfully the distortion is low where our hearing is astonishingly more sensitive (2 to 5 kHz). "
I and someone else pointed this out and your reply gave the impression that you stand behind what you wrote and this is not a normal HD graph but a special one where the HD products are not plotted against the frequency that generates them (like 1kHz generating H2 at 2kHz and H3 at 3kHz) but instead the HD products at plotted at the frequency at which they actually fall on. So for 1kHz generating a H2 at 2kHz the H2 is actually plotted at 2kHz and for H3 generated by 1kHz and falling on 3kHz it is actually plotted at 3kHz. This was my understanding of what was meant? Is this correct?

If so, then I look at the HD graphs and I see that they are not the "special" kind described above but normal HD graphs. At least, it very very much appears to be so by all the signs.
1 - The woofer generates higher HD than the tweeter and neatly drops around the crossover as one would expect in a normal HD graph, this would look very different if it were a HD graph of the "special" kind.
2 - Just as one expects in a normal HD graph, the H2 is plotted till 10kHz and the H3 is plotted till 6.667kHz. This looks clearly to be from a 20kHz measurement limit. If it were a HD graph of the "special" kind the H2 and H3 should run till 20kHz as they'd be plotted at the frequency on which they actually fall.
3 - It just look like one would expect the graph to look like in a normal HD graph. Like how at certain frequencies it generates more H2 and H3. This is consistent with how HD is created usually in drivers. Look at for instance 1.5kHz. In order for harmonic distortion products to show an equal peak there in the "special" graph way that would mean there would be a mechanism at that frequency that amplifies harmonic distortion products falling on that frequency. This happens with strong resonances due to cone breakup. Though that would show in the fr plot and it's not there. Would be way too low too for that size driver. So what it points to instead is that something in the driver is generating more HD products at 1.5kHz, something which would be much more likely. And again pointing at this being a normal HD graph.

 

[JustIntonation]

Hi Amir, may be this helps:
Below are two distortion plots generated with REW.
The first one is a 'normal' distortion plot. Harmonics graphs stop early.
The second one the option "plot harmonics at harmonic frequency" is set. Harmonics extend to the end.

Version 1:

View attachment 46608

Version 2:
View attachment 46609

So I think you gave us version1 and confusing it for version2.. Correct?

Yes this is exactly what I meant!
Maybe more clear than my long story in my post above

 

[Juhazi]

I read through this HD discussion, theories and calculations and options of how to show results... Yes there always seems to be confusion.

To me Amir's plot looks like "REW default" where frequency is fixed to fundamental - so H2 plotted at 1kHz rings actually at 2kHz etc. Like said, that's also why H2 and H3 lines stop at 10/6.6kHz.

REW has also another specific distortion measurement system. Help file of REW tells a lot about how distortion is measured and plotted.

This is easy to verify with a test. Take a cheap speaker with some distortion peaks. Then use sound generator and play sine of that frequency and listen! Then slowly manually glide the frequency up/down and you will hear the distortion products change. I have done this test hundreds of times, it is also good to find the cause and location of mechanical noises (wire flapping to cabinet, loose window pane resonating etc. funny things)

The pictures/clips from NFS manual that Amir showed are about room reflections (room distortion) which are delayed in relation to original signal! The NFS has special algorithm to eq the effect of those out, that's one of the unique features of the system.

 

[b1daly]

I suggest not listening to enthusiastic online reviews (by real world users) of studio monitors.

What most novice mixer/producer/home recording type will be biased towards are monitors that make their own work sound better.

I worked on NS-10s a lot for a while. My opinion as to why they caught on is that they are relatively “flattering” speakers. It’s easy to make your music sound good on them, especially rock.

One reason for this is that the NS-10 had very little bass response, was down, then rolled off very quickly below 80hz or so.

It turns out that the instrumentation used in pop and rock for 50 odd years has issues with too much and inconsistent bass.

Then NS-10s cleaned this up totally. I remember recording musicians in a studio that had NS-10, Genelecs (the earliest era) and big B&Ws. I’d be struggling to get a sound, get some takes. I would be working on the NS-10s and switch to the monitors and be horrified by stew of undefined mud in the low end. Even though I new I shouldn’t, I would tend to listen to the NS-10s, especially for artist playback, just to keep spirits up Figuring I could sort it out later.

NS-10s were useful for getting “balances” which is the gross relatIve levels of the main instruments/voice. Sometimes nicer monitors are hard to balance on, in a “dead” room, because the perceptual dynamic range is much greater than “real world” conditions.

To this day, I feel like most studio monitors are “too bright.” It’s confusing.

 

[Juhazi]

If the mix/master sounds good with NS10 (or any other coffee-cup size speaker) - for sure it will sound muddy and bass-heavy with hifi speakers going flat down to 30Hz! Seriously, variance in bass realtive level and clarity between pop music recordings is huge and annoying. Jazz and classic are much better and consistent.

I believe that many pops are optimized to headphones and noisy environment like cars. That requires heavy bass to mask noise. On the other hand portable players and phones have eq unlike most hifi systems nowdays. Hifi paradox...

 

[restorer-john]

If the mix sounds good with NS10 (or any other coffee-cup size speaker) - for sure it will sound muddy and bass-heavy with hifi speakers going flat down to 30Hz!

NS-10s are not used to mix, they are used to listen to the mix as a sanity check for "typical" consumer systems. They are consistent, ubiquitous, relatively inexpensive, and don't do anything terribly wrong. They are a massively better "monitor" than the Auratones (horror-tones).

Here's a pic showing both:

 

[b1daly]

NS-10s are not used to mix, they are used to listen to the mix as a sanity check for "typical" consumer systems. They are consistent, ubiquitous, relatively inexpensive, and don't do anything terribly wrong. They are a massively better "monitor" than the Auratones (horror-tones).

View attachment 46630

Here's a pic showing both:

View attachment 46631

Many top mixers mixed on NS-10s exclusively.

There were a number of reasons. In addition to being a “flattering” speaker (they “sound good” and are “easy to please) they were among the first, if not the first, commercially available nearfield. They were also affordable.

They became virtually ubiquitous, no commercial studio lacked a pair. So everyone got used to them. The monitor systems of the time were things like bigger JBL boxes or soffit mounted designs with horns.

The top engineers moved around from project to project, and every studio sounded “different” so NS-10s gave a consistent reference.

They were part of the mass change to relying on small nearfields which was driven, for better or worse, by the desire to maximize direct sound and minimize idiosyncratic room sound.

I think Genelecs and KRKs were the first viable competition. Genelec pioneers the biamped self powered designs, and this approach completely took over. You can’t find many passive monitor designs for sale these days.

The thing that enabled engineers to work around the NS-10 deficiencies was the universal practice of “ checking the mix” on other systems.

They have long since been surpassed, and there are so many competing models that no one has emerged as a similar standard.

Auratones were indeed the de facto standard for checking a mix in mono on a crappy speaker.

 

[thewas]

As said for most the NS-10 was a crossreference when traveling to different studios and a final compatibility check for car radios of that time due to its mid-centric sound helping the spread of this back then commonly known phrase "if it sounds good on NS-10s, it'll sound good anywhere".

 

[b1daly]

As said for most the NS-10 was a crossreference when traveling to different studios and a final compatibility check for car radios of that time due to its mid-centric sound helping the spread of this back then commonly known phrase "if it sounds good on NS-10s, it'll sound good anywhere".

This was said a lot, but I believe it to be false (from bitter experience.)

On the contrary, the NS-10 is basically a high pass filter, and you simply cannot hear if critical low frequencies are present and what they are doing. This causes playback to be very inconsistent across different systems.

 

[thewas]

Its not just high pass but mid peaked, so it sounded a bit like many one-way car or kitchen loudspeakers of that time.
https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.ne...ns10fig4-klKHHQedUqWbtvLEx1fB9JPGeqOzfeiB.jpg

 

[b1daly]

The NS-10 is mid-peaked, which also made it useful for hearing detail in the mix as you are working.

I'm not sure how mid-peaked it really is, and how much is some other issue of tonality. It certainly sounds mid-range heavy.

As an aside, my personal battle right now is trying to understand why I hate listening to music on most studio near-field monitors. I don't have this issue with the NS-10, I quite enjoy them for casual listening. It might be the midrange focus, which is most important to me.

 

[thewas]

I have posted a link to its on axis measurement on my previous post, except the mid peak it is otherwise similar to other 2-way loudspeakers of that time with non smooth directivity due to the lack of waveguides at the tweeter.

The problem with some accentuated regions is that you hear more details in that region but at the expense of details in other regions will be drawn more to background, similar to a magnifying glass which lets you lose the overview.

Most people I know including myself don't like the NS-10 voicing at all, it only sounds impressive at some instruments at that region like guitars but the rest sounds coloured.