...Without EQ, I cannot recommend the Yamaha HS7. But with EQ, I would...
If they reproduce the music accurately then theoretically they should be the most enjoyable equipment you can get your hands on, assuming that you don't habitually sprinkle lashings of table salt on your food when it arrives on the table regardless of what it is & who's cooked it.Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable? I thought they were for recording work, finding flaws in the audio, etc (used as a tool, not home listening).
Along with what @Robbo99999 mentioned, historicalky there is great desire for the audio industry to have 2 markets.Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable? I thought they were for recording work, finding flaws in the audio, etc (used as a tool, not home listening).
Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable? I thought they were for recording work, finding flaws in the audio, etc (used as a tool, not home listening).
For me, most definitely. Mind you, they don't attenuation treble like some hi-fi speakers do (in off-axis) but still, I find them super good when well done.Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable?
For the Auratones certainly, they were - and still are - sold for purpose. The NS-10M, well that is a bit murky. It isn't as if Yamaha deliberately designed and marketed them as a known cruddy speaker, one expected to be as bad as all the competition. Nor do they market a speaker now as being representative of their mediocre competition.Wasn't the point of AB-ing to speakers like the Auratones & NS-10M to simulate the response of low-fi consumer equipment or PA equipment?
The problem of the NS-10 was that it was voiced back then for linear sound power instead of linear on-axis/direct soundWasn't the point of AB-ing to speakers like the Auratones & NS-10M to simulate the response of low-fi consumer equipment or PA equipment?
Well, for this reason all need to be "mastered".For the Auratones certainly, there were - and still are - sold for purpose. The NS-10M, well that is a bit murky. It isn't as if Yamaha deliberately designed and marketed them as a known cruddy speaker, one expected to be as bad as all the competition. Nor do they market a speaker now as being representative of their mediocre competition.
The flaw in the whole argument is that producers didn't just do a final mixdown check, but would deliberately mix the sound for these speakers, and favour that over a mix that sounded good on proper monitors. The lie was that a good mix sounded good on everything.
Indeed. Back then there was no separate mastering process. Nowadays it is the opposite problem. It is the mastering engineer who is tasked with wrecking the sound.Well, for this reason all need to be "mastered".
Indeed. Back then there was no separate mastering process. Nowadays it is the opposite problem. It is the mastering engineer who is tasked with wrecking the sound.![]()
One of the more interesting insights I've heard from some of my mentors is that those giant soffit mounted Augspurgers or what have you were almost never used for mixing - rather, whatever nearfield speakers were much more common. The giant mains were for the talent and the A&R reps. NS10s just happen to be the ones that got particularly famous courtesy of Bob Clearmountain bringing them with him to different studios. For the time, they made perfect sense as they were pretty typical and indicative of home audio bookshelf speakers. And, set on the meter bridge of a console (they're small enough for that), the low end filled out some because the cabinets aren't particularly rigid and the frame of the console would resonate sympathetically. The HS7s sorta-kinda fill that same role, but with considerably more low end extension... Admittedly, with a port you lose some of the immediacy and tightness of a sealed box like an NS10, but the idea is the same.The usefulness of the ubiquitous original Yamaha NS10 arose from this characteristic: Once the mix sounded good on the NS10, it sounded good on just about anything - car radio/tape player, cheap stereo, expensive stereo. In industry parlance, a mix done in the NS10 would "translate well".
Eyeballing the curve of the HS7 through this lens, its zigs and zags make sense to me, even moreso than the curve of the original NS10. So I think the frequency response curve of the HS7 is deliberate. My guess is that the HS7 is a very useful tool, and that mixes which sound good on it also "translate well". But I highly doubt that it would be the only tool a recording engineer would use; he would also use at least one accurate monitor.
Mm, no, there was a separate mastering process. It wasn't quite the same role as it's had since roughly the 1980s, but it did exist. It was more about making sure that the lacquer for production was good.Indeed. Back then there was no separate mastering process. Nowadays it is the opposite problem. It is the mastering engineer who is tasked with wrecking the sound.![]()
Quite true. But in general this was the province of the pressing process and not the production team for a given recording. Nowadays the mastering process seems to have become an artist rather than a pure engineering process.Mm, no, there was a separate mastering process. It wasn't quite the same role as it's had since roughly the 1980s, but it did exist. It was more about making sure that the lacquer for production was good.
Quite true. But in general this was the province of the pressing process and not the production team for a given recording. Nowadays the mastering process seems to have become an artist rather than a pure engineering process.
It's the question of controlling final record on all reproduction systems expected by producer.A track can sound great over a set of TOTL JBL 4350s but if 95% of your potential market is listening over cheap 6.5" coaxials in their car, a 3.5" squawker in their portable AM/FM set, or as background music in a store then what you hear in the studio is likely not what most people will hear.
It depends on exact role of those monitors in engineering process.Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable? I thought they were for recording work, finding flaws in the audio, etc (used as a tool, not home listening).
Isn't it that a typical studio usually has 2-3 pairs of different monitors at once, all matched & calibrated at once to switch whenever needed?There is kind of small diversity based on those roles. One setup might be used for creative process (still flat, but more relaxed, cogesive and enjoyable), and another one for brutal surgery and final polishing (boring, forward, fatiguing, blood-from-ears-sound).
If you own mastering studio, creative chain might be omitted, but I'm not sure that most revealing monitors are well suited for creative sessions for 12+ hours.
I do enjoy all my active monitors (K&H O300D in the main system, Genelec 8020a on the desktop and in wifes room, Mackie HR824 currently on loan) and have no intentions at all to go back to passive consumer speakers (came from Magnepan 1.6). The quality/price relation is unbeatable in my view.Are studio monitors supposed to be enjoyable? I thought they were for recording work, finding flaws in the audio, etc (used as a tool, not home listening).