-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Yamaha HS7 Review (studio monitor)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Run of the mill speaker, and too expensive. There's worse out there though, not a disaster!
Many thanks acoustic review and all the work behind facade, about use of EQ it looks for tested Yamaha's so far they could benefit EQ in relation to ideals, or could we say they "always look at the bright side of life"
..
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.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Along with what @Robbo99999 mentioned, historicalky there is great desire for the audio industry to have 2 markets.
Lots of extra sales $$$$$$ by having a divided standard. Even lots of folks used to using pro gear still beleive they need hifi gear at home.
Consolodation of the two markets has now begun in ernest, so plan to see some wonderful changes. (Along with one heck of a snake oil fight as the snake charmers fight for survival in a smater/informed audio world)
More Dynamics Please
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Try reading the Audioholics review of the Kali LP-8 studio monitor in which they explain why it's superior for home audio use to most home audio speakers in its price range:
https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/kali-audio-lp-8
OP
- Thread Starter
- #48
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,895
- Likes
- 16,891
The problem of the NS-10 was that it was voiced back then for linear sound power instead of linear on-axis/direct sound
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...wered-monitor-review.10967/page-2#post-308443
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.
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.
Not all
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.
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.
With all the differences between one production to another, reach "standards" is tricky, if not after listen a record would be necessary a totally different setup to listen the next.
And this review shows in part why mastering is needed.
Last edited:
It's the question of controlling final record on all reproduction systems expected by producer.
Currently it's a big PITA for many sound engineers, because if you make pop tracks, you have to keep in mind that a lot of teenager pairs use single pair of earphones for them both, so you are very limited in stereo effects. For example. It's very fun complaint, but it's reality and everyday business.
One sound engineer said he went to Amphions partially due to used materials because paper and silk domes are not so often used now. So, probably, engineered timbres will translate better.
I don't know really, because it's kind of solutions done by producer with known target audience and its equipment.
So, gangsta rap and authentic baroque chamber orchestra might require different sound engineering and control gear.
It depends on exact role of those monitors in engineering process.
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.
Feelas
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2020
- Messages
- 390
- Likes
- 316
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?
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.
Similar threads
- Poll