NS10s and tissue paper???
Mike Hunter
Mike Hunter
Jay Rose
Hunter) wrote:
|: What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
It's ba-a-ack!
This hack first surfaced around 1984, when somebody reported that a couple
of hits had been mixed that way. For a while there was even a mystique
about what _brand_ of tissue paper worked best.
The idea is to blur the hf by some tissue-paper-predetermined amount.
Eventually, people realized that NS-10s where lousy speakers and the
tissue paper belonged in your ears. IMHO.
-----------------Jay Rose's Digital Playroom--------------------
Clio/Emmy Winning Sound Design for Broadcast, Multimedia
617/277-0041 fax/232-8869
www.tiac.net/users/jcrose
Mark Garvin
>What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
From my post?
It is (or was) fairly common to see the NS10's high frequency output
adjusted by putting tissue over the tweeters.
There was a producer who had apparently claimed that the studio's
NS10's didn't sound right cause they had use the wrong type of tissue
paper. I guess it started in jest, but RE-P magazine ran an article
on the correct type of tissue to use. Unfortunately, the authors
claimed to have turned up differences not only between various brands,
but between different colors of the same brand.
I still think that toilet paper is entirely appropriate for NS10's,
but they should be completely wrapped up, and subsequently flushed.
There are lots of better monitors out there.
Mark Garvin
Pete
>It is (or was) fairly common to see the NS10's high frequency output
>adjusted by putting tissue over the tweeters.
>
>There was a producer who had apparently claimed that the studio's
>NS10's didn't sound right cause they had use the wrong type of tissue
>paper. I guess it started in jest, but RE-P magazine ran an article
>on the correct type of tissue to use. Unfortunately, the authors
>claimed to have turned up differences not only between various brands,
>but between different colors of the same brand.
since it's pre-gummed, and there are usually lots of them around
in recording studios. :-)
Pete Dunn
Scott Dorsey
>What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
It kind of works, but taping a few layers of T-shirt material over the
tweeter is more effective. Still doesn't make them anything close to
flat, but they're somewhat less painful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
LEKTRODE
My clock radio sounded better!
Flavor of the 80's!
Now be a good boy and go buy some Genelecs!
Breeze
Rose) wrote:
> In article <4jmoan$m...@newsreader.wustl.edu>, mi...@yakima.wustl.edu (Mike
> Hunter) wrote:
>
> |: What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>
> It's ba-a-ack!
>
> This hack first surfaced around 1984, when somebody reported that a couple
> of hits had been mixed that way. For a while there was even a mystique
> about what _brand_ of tissue paper worked best.
>
Actually, I use my 10m's this way, and the tissue paper's made a
difference. It takes
that harsh edge off of the sound, and my ears don't get quite so tired
when I'm working.
Also, I'm able to be a *little* more trusting about upper frequency
balances. I still use my
KRK's to mix, but when I'm writing, the 10m's are working out OK.
I know a few other folks who also do the tissue paper thing on 10m's.
Don't know which brand of tissue paper works the best....
jb
Nick Colleran
>What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>Mike Hunter
There was an extensive artice on this in Recording Engineer/Producer
in the late eighties. It wrecks the frequency response but seems to do
something useful to creating hit records, in particular R&B. The RE/P
story tested amny different types of tissue. It's a fun read if you
can find it.
Nick Colleran coll...@richmond.infi.net
Richard D Pierce
Nick Colleran <ncol...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>mi...@yakima.wustl.edu (Mike Hunter) wrote:
>
>>What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
Yes, it converts the frequency response from a disaster to a catastrophe.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Eleven Shadows
>
> Don't know which brand of tissue paper works the best....
Whatever brand of tissue paper that comes attached to 2" foam with a
roll of duct tape included...
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
Warren Harris
>
> What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>
While you'll find lots of people who hate the NS-10s and the entire
concept of trying to 'fix' the excessive high end with tissue paper,
there are still some of us who find we can mix on them just fine, flat
or not, as we've adjusted to their anomalies. I've used them a lot and
the addition of a single sheet of double-thickness TP does seem to make
the high end more palatable. Yes, there seems to be a difference in
tissue, so you just work with what's available until you hear what you
like - or don't hear what you don't like 8-). While they are anything
but flat, and I'd prefer better speakers, I've always been able to
establish a reference point on them and have used them for many mixes.
BTW: If anyone's got a good working pair that they absolutely *hate*,
I'd be interested in a good price on a pair.
--Warren
--
HARRIS CREATIVE GROUP - http://www.voiceone.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just the FAQs! PC-Based Digital Recording - the Video FAQ
3 hours VHS - on Audio Recording for the PC
===============================================
VOICE-OVER work / samples / distribution Via our Website!
===============================================
DIGITAL AUDIO WORKSTATIONS! - SAW, DAL, Sek'd, Sound Forge...
Mike Hunter
: adjusted by putting tissue over the tweeters.
Are we talking about NS10 or NS10m?
Mike
David Hough
>
>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>> What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>>
>> Mike Hunter
The main point in the R E/P article was that the TYPE of tissue
makes no differenc at all, but that the DISTANCE between the tweeter
to the tissue makes a significant difference in the sound since that
determines the frequency at which the Notch occurs as the
reflection back into the tweeter cancels that wavelength !
So everyone go out and try this experiment for yourself.
While playing pink noise, move the tissue back and forth in front of the tweeter,
and listen to the flanging as it's moved in and out. COOL ! ;)
David Hough
Audio Director
Austin City Limits
PBS
ho...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Mike Rivers
> There was a producer who had apparently claimed that the studio's
> NS10's didn't sound right cause they had use the wrong type of tissue
> paper. I guess it started in jest, but RE-P magazine ran an article
> on the correct type of tissue to use. Unfortunately, the authors
> claimed to have turned up differences not only between various brands,
> but between different colors of the same brand.
I'm glad to see that urban folklore is still alive. I think I was the
one who introduced the concept (bogus, of course) about a particular
brand of toilet papoer that was best, but went off the market. I was
hoarding one roll, which I figured in a few years I could sell sheets
off off for about $10 a piece. <G>
The R-E/P study, as I recall, concluded that the tissue added a bit of
path length and helped with a phase problem rather than simply
subduing the high frequency response.
------------
I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) On the road.
Somewhere east of Lost Angeles and west of the moon
Mark Garvin
>> There was a producer who had apparently claimed that the studio's
>> NS10's didn't sound right cause they had use the wrong type of tissue
In <znr828418613k@trad> mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
>The R-E/P study, as I recall, concluded that the tissue added a bit of
>path length and helped with a phase problem rather than simply
>subduing the high frequency response.
Hi, Mike. I don't remember them mentioning 'phase correction'.
Geez, that would be tough. The part that has stayed with me is
the response charts for various colors. I never took NS10's
too seriously, so the 'serious' aspects of the article are long
forgotten.
I've seen Genelex mentioned here often...
How about B&W's? I've always liked them. 801's sound great
for rock as well as classical, and 805's fit nicely on a console.
Mark Garvin
Scott Dorsey
>
>In <znr828418613k@trad> mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
>>The R-E/P study, as I recall, concluded that the tissue added a bit of
>>path length and helped with a phase problem rather than simply
>>subduing the high frequency response.
You need to add a lot more path length to reduce the phasing problems. I
recommend putting the NS10s several miles away from your listening position,
or, if possible, in another state altogether.
>I've seen Genelex mentioned here often...
>How about B&W's? I've always liked them. 801's sound great
>for rock as well as classical, and 805's fit nicely on a console.
The 801s are pretty much the standard monitors for folks doing classical
work, although I have recently seen a few folks popping up with the Dynaudio
monitors and the cheapie Paradigm Mini Mk III. The problem with the 801s is
that they have to be floor-mounted for reasonable response, and they need a
lot of room, which is a problem in many control rooms. Hang them from the
ceiling in a closet-sized booth and they will sound godawful, but if you
have the room for them, they do a great job.
Don't know the 805s, but again, as with the Paradigms, there is a difference
between small speakers and speakers intended for nearfield monitoring;
depending on the room, the dispersion characteristics could be a problem.
As for me, I use a set of planar speakers for monitoring, but then again
I have a very large control room.
John McDaniel
>
> mi...@yakima.wustl.edu (Mike Hunter) wrote:
>
> >What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>
> >Mike Hunter
> in the late eighties. It wrecks the frequency response but seems to do
>
> something useful to creating hit records, in particular R&B. The RE/P
> story tested amny different types of tissue. It's a fun read if you
> can find it.
>
> Nick Colleran coll...@richmond.infi.net
Seems toilet paper works well if you have the artist(e) wipe his/her ass
with it first. In one of the few violations of the nature's law about
opposites attracting, any shit from the recorded performance will adhere
to the shit on the TP and, viola!, a less shitty mix!! Problems arise
though when shit still comes out of any other set of speakers lacking
the benefit of such science.
Is it still Monday?
--
------------------------------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John McDaniel, joh...@iac.net * You too, can have a signature! *
Sonic Arts Digital Audio Services * Insert pithy remark here *
Location Sound/Audio Post for Film * <--insert shameless plug there *
------------------------------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Garvin
>>I've seen Genelex mentioned here often...
>>How about B&W's? I've always liked them. 801's sound great
>>for rock as well as classical, and 805's fit nicely on a console.
In <kludgeDp...@netcom.com> klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>The 801s are pretty much the standard monitors for folks doing classical
>work, although I have recently seen a few folks popping up with the Dynaudio
>monitors and the cheapie Paradigm Mini Mk III.
Hi Scott,
I'm not familiar with the Dynaudio's. However I did have a chance to
compare several larger Paradigms with some of the larger B&W's. I've
never been a big fan of Paradigms, but this nailed it down for me.
The (larger) Paradigms by comparison sounded very boxy, with woody
resonances popping in at various midrange points. This may not be
true of all Paradigms. B&W's, as you'd suspect are relatively solid
in sound and image.
I'll admit that I haven't given the Paradigm Mini's a serious audition,
as I haven't expected much from them (should I?).
> The problem with the 801s is
>that they have to be floor-mounted for reasonable response, and they need a
>lot of room, which is a problem in many control rooms. Hang them from the
>ceiling in a closet-sized booth and they will sound godawful, but if you
>have the room for them, they do a great job.
An alternative is the 802's, which have the same mid and tweeters. They
seem to provide a tighter response in smaller rooms. Less standing wave
problems I suppose.
I believe that Abbey Road is still using the 801's, but I'm not sure how
they are mounted. I'm pretty sure that they are suspended.
>Don't know the 805s, but again, as with the Paradigms, there is a difference
>between small speakers and speakers intended for nearfield monitoring;
>depending on the room, the dispersion characteristics could be a problem.
I was thinking about 'transportability' as well as sonic character. Very
sweet speaker for such a little cabinet. Not as transportable as NS10's,
of course, but...
By the way, I'd take little, light Tannoy's over NS10's any day. I've
always wondered why Yamaha hit the monitor lotery with the NS10.
>As for me, I use a set of planar speakers for monitoring, but then again
>I have a very large control room.
>--scott
And a very unusual setup, I suspect. Seems like planars would be
ideal if you don't have to handle high dynamic range. In fact, one of
the reasons that I mentioned B&W 801's are that they are one of the
closest 'sounds' to Quads (or Stax phones) that I have heard, without
the dynamic constraints. No, they don't have the seamless sweet
midrange of the Quads, but surprisingly close for a dynamic speaker.
Mark Garvin
Brad McIlvaine
of Grammy Nominated Engineers and their monitors of choice... (pg. 28,
April 1996 Mix Magazine). The NS10's are well represented. Not because
they sound sexy, not because they sound beautiful, but because they
relate to situations outside of the control room. I've got a pair, use
'em some, mated to a crown D-75 (for that mushy high end (grin!)), and
can honestly say I use them 20% of the time to check mixes, check eq's
on V/O's, and various other assundry uses (business card stand (grin))
Of course, I've been know to mix spots on the cue speaker of a Studer
1/4" machine... Least common denominator, you know?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brad McIlvaine is an Audio Editor/Sound Designer for KLM Video in
Bethesda, Maryland.
<mcil...@clark.net> ---- ClarkNet Address
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bob Olhsson
>>>> I've
>always wondered why Yamaha hit the monitor lotery with the NS10.
Their consumer NS-4 was the largest selling bookshelf speaker making it
the successor to the JBL L-100 which was the successor to the Advent and
the KLH model 6.
Major studios used to use a combination of three monitors for reference.
1. The big, loud, cost-no-object, built-in "big" speaker.
2. The largest selling consumer bookshelf speaker.
3. Something 4" in diameter to emulate car and table radio speakers. (The
Auratone fit here.)
The idea was that if a mix sounded great on all three, it would probably
"translate."
When the Yamahas took over slot #2, a lot of engineers found that the
speaker translated exceptionally well. When Yamaha decided to discontinue
both the speaker and its replacement drivers, a lot of studios switched to
the closest model Yamaha still made, the NS-10. The NS-10 had less bass
and more treble but still let you know if you had balance problems the way
the older Yamahas had.
This was during the heyday of the Power Station and its most famous
engineer Bob Clearmountain. A magazine interview showed Clearmountain
mixing with a pair of NS-10s with their tweeters covered with tissue.
Since they were by many orders of magnitude the most affordable piece of
gear mentioned, there was a run on the hi-fi stores of studios seeking
conformance.
Bob Olhsson
--
Bob Olhsson Audio | O tongue, thou art a treasure without end.
Box 555,Novato CA 94948 | And, O tongue, thou art also a disease
415.457.2620 | without remedy. == Jelal'uddin Rumi ==
415.456.1496 FAX |
Scott Dorsey
>Check out this month's mix magazine and the article about the opinions
>of Grammy Nominated Engineers and their monitors of choice... (pg. 28,
>April 1996 Mix Magazine). The NS10's are well represented. Not because
>they sound sexy, not because they sound beautiful, but because they
>relate to situations outside of the control room. I've got a pair, use
>'em some, mated to a crown D-75 (for that mushy high end (grin!)), and
>can honestly say I use them 20% of the time to check mixes, check eq's
>on V/O's, and various other assundry uses (business card stand (grin))
However, there's also a fellow there who is using the Martin-Logans as
his main reference monitors (which is much closer to my style). It takes
all kinds, but I still think having a flat pair of monitors is important.
>Of course, I've been know to mix spots on the cue speaker of a Studer
>1/4" machine... Least common denominator, you know?
Fine idea, so long as you use something else that's a bit flatter as well.
Probably a lot less fatiguing than the NS-10 over the long haul, even.
The NS-10 is kind of a handy thing to have around, but it's kind of
expensive for what it is, and it's certainly not very useful as a primary
monitor in my opinion.
The Genelec units also got quite a bit of mention in the article, I
might add.
--scott
(who flatly refuses to mix to least common denominator systems, and
probably loses business as a result, but doesn't care so much as long
as his recordings sound good to people who care enough to get decent
playback equipment. It depends on your audience, I suppose.)
Scott Dorsey
>In <kludgeDp...@netcom.com> klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>The 801s are pretty much the standard monitors for folks doing classical
>>work, although I have recently seen a few folks popping up with the Dynaudio
>>monitors and the cheapie Paradigm Mini Mk III.
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>I'm not familiar with the Dynaudio's. However I did have a chance to
>compare several larger Paradigms with some of the larger B&W's. I've
>never been a big fan of Paradigms, but this nailed it down for me.
>The (larger) Paradigms by comparison sounded very boxy, with woody
>resonances popping in at various midrange points. This may not be
>true of all Paradigms. B&W's, as you'd suspect are relatively solid
>in sound and image.
>
>I'll admit that I haven't given the Paradigm Mini's a serious audition,
>as I haven't expected much from them (should I?).
Dunno. The Minis sounded much better than the larger units, and a lot
better than the Titans which Stereophile reviewed so favorably. The
Titans sounded like they had very harsh and rattly treble, which is just
too annoying for me.
I am currently looking at a pair of portable monitors for classical work,
and one of the primary issues is that I have to be able to carry them around
easily. I have been looking pretty seriously at the Mini Mk III, but haven't
actually taken a pair home to try out in various environments.
>>Don't know the 805s, but again, as with the Paradigms, there is a difference
>>between small speakers and speakers intended for nearfield monitoring;
>>depending on the room, the dispersion characteristics could be a problem.
>
>I was thinking about 'transportability' as well as sonic character. Very
>sweet speaker for such a little cabinet. Not as transportable as NS10's,
>of course, but...
Right.... one of the problems when you are working in makeshift control
booths, though, is that the room acoustics are often godawful. Broom
closets, bathrooms, and the like aren't designed for good acoustics. That
is why the whole nearfield listening concept buys you so much in my
case.
>By the way, I'd take little, light Tannoy's over NS10's any day. I've
>always wondered why Yamaha hit the monitor lotery with the NS10.
Because they gave them away free to big studios when they were new, and
people got used to them. It was a true marketing breakthrough. I was
at Master Sound in Atlanta and we got a pair of the things foisted upon
us by the local Yamaha dealer, and nobody turns down a gift horse...
>>As for me, I use a set of planar speakers for monitoring, but then again
>>I have a very large control room.
>
>And a very unusual setup, I suspect. Seems like planars would be
>ideal if you don't have to handle high dynamic range. In fact, one of
>the reasons that I mentioned B&W 801's are that they are one of the
>closest 'sounds' to Quads (or Stax phones) that I have heard, without
>the dynamic constraints. No, they don't have the seamless sweet
>midrange of the Quads, but surprisingly close for a dynamic speaker.
I am using the Magnepans, which have much better dynamics than the
Quads, and I think much more accurate bass as well. I have a thing for
very clean, undistorted bass, and the Maggies do an excellent job of
reproducing the low end, unlike any other planars (except maybe hybrids
like the Martin-Logans, which I have also seen used for classical
monitoring work).
I still haven't hear Gabe's Wilson X-1s, but the WATT/Puppies didn't
really impress me all that much. They were accurate sounding and they
imaged reasonably well, without much real midrange coloration, but geeze
that's a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't give you religious
enlightenment...
--scott
Le Chat
>
As I've already said in a previous article, just throw those shitty
speakers by the window.
I believe we are in a professional area so I think you should be able
to recalculate the crossover network in a better way instead of trying
such a stupid using of paper!!
Le Chat.
s94...@student.ulg.ac.be
Le Chat
Le Chat
rob...@one.net
>What's this about putting tissue paper over the NS10 tweeters????
>Mike Hunter
If my memory serves correctly there was an interview in the old
Recording Engineer/Producer magazine with Bob Clearmountain in the mid
80's who had become very prominent mixing many hit records. He stated
that he mixed on Yamaha NS-10M's using Kimwipes brand tissue paper
covering the tweeters. As far as I can tell that interview led to the
the whole tissue paper fad and the subsequent article in RE/P (by Bob
Hodas I believe) about the effect of tissue paper on NS-10M HF and
phase response. Eventually the whole thing got so blown out of
proportion that Bob Clearmountain responded in a letter published in
RE/P basically saying that everyone should lighten up. (sorry I'm too
lazy to get out the old issues of RE/P to give exact dates.)
There certainly are better quality near-field monitors than NS-10Ms.
But in the mid 80's they became something of a studio standard.
Bob
Adam Dransfield
>
> In article <4jmoan$m...@newsreader.wustl.edu> mi...@yakima.wustl.edu (Mike Hunter) writes:
>
> tweeter is more effective. Still doesn't make them anything close to
> flat, but they're somewhat less painful.
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I can make the radio in my workshop sound like NS10s by putting
a box infront of each speaker
Adam Dransfield
--
Actrix Networks Limited Internet Service Providers.
Mark Garvin
>
>I am using the Magnepans, which have much better dynamics than the
>Quads, and I think much more accurate bass as well. I have a thing for
>very clean, undistorted bass, and the Maggies do an excellent job of
I've been meaning to give Magnepans another chance. I auditioned
some when they were getting rave reviews and I thought they sounded
a bit wooley. Thinking back, it may have been a problem with the
amp's inability to drive them. Or maybe just defective speakers.
I've met people who swear by Apogee's also.
I personally see nothing wrong with monitoring on planars. The
'single-point image' thing is probably overblown. Especially
considering real-world listening environments.
In the same light, someone played a pair of omni's for me once.
I think they may have been Mirage's. I really really did NOT want
to like them. I expected all kinds of wierd phasing, etc. But
they sounded very ...er...pleasant. I could see using them 'at home'.
>I still haven't hear Gabe's Wilson X-1s, but the WATT/Puppies didn't
>really impress me all that much. They were accurate sounding and they
>imaged reasonably well, without much real midrange coloration, but geeze
>that's a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't give you religious
>enlightenment...
Really. But it's impressive just looking up at the X-1's. Given
the raves about Wilsons in general, it DOES raise expectations of
being transported, which they do NOT do, of course. In fact, I
spent a while comparing WATT/Puppies to B&W 801's, and though the
W/P's sounded profoundly neutral, I didn't feel any compulsion to
buy them immediately.
They really should make for a great monitor speaker, though.
I could imagine getting very attached to the W/P's after a while.
MGarvin
Brad McIlvaine
> >Of course, I've been know to mix spots on the cue speaker of a Studer
> >1/4" machine... Least common denominator, you know?
>
> Fine idea, so long as you use something else that's a bit flatter as well.
> Probably a lot less fatiguing than the NS-10 over the long haul, even.
> The NS-10 is kind of a handy thing to have around, but it's kind of
> expensive for what it is, and it's certainly not very useful as a primary
> monitor in my opinion.
>
Actually, Monitor wise I have a Pair od Urei 809's, a pair of Tannoy NFM
6's, a pair or Auratones, a pair of NS10's, and a pair of 1/4" cue
speakers.
> The Genelec units also got quite a bit of mention in the article, I
> might add.
Yes they did, and Genelec has done a fine job in creating a wonderful
sounding set of speakers. I've never worked on them, though, so I can't
comment on their effectiveness as an arbitrary listening tool.
> --scott
> (who flatly refuses to mix to least common denominator systems, and
> probably loses business as a result, but doesn't care so much as long
> as his recordings sound good to people who care enough to get decent
> playback equipment. It depends on your audience, I suppose.)
True,... and the majority of my mixes play through a set of $0.59
television speakers. It's not the goal, however, to shun more accurate
monitoring systems for a 1/4" cue speaker... Instead, utilize all of the
tools available to you... Set your eq's on what you trust, and your
levels on what reflects real world playback... A mix sounds different
on each of my speakers, with the most notable differences being how far
out in front of the M&E tracks the V/O sits.
I'll not put down the purists of this group, such as yourself, Scott,
who refuse to compromise their mixes due to the inadequacies of the
consumer or target user, however I believe that it's more important to
provide my clients with a clean, tight mix that plays back well on all
systems.
--Brad
(who doesn't intend this message to sound nasty, and would love to
have the opportunity to play with the all the fun toys he could get his
hands on, if only he could win the lottery (grin)!)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dorsey
>In <kludgeDp...@netcom.com> klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>I've been meaning to give Magnepans another chance. I auditioned
>some when they were getting rave reviews and I thought they sounded
>a bit wooley. Thinking back, it may have been a problem with the
>amp's inability to drive them. Or maybe just defective speakers.
I like them a lot, and I would never give them up, but I have to agree that
they require a lot of room to work properly and unless they are very well
set-up they can have really bizarre imaging. What would be a minor standing
wave problem in the booth gets blown all out of proportion.
>I've met people who swear by Apogee's also.
Again really nice units that require a vast amount of room, but I worry
about the things because they don't really have the kind of bass response
that I like, and they are very bizarre loads that require high-current
amplifiers. The Maggies are nice and easy loads and can be driven by
just about anything without too much trouble.
>I personally see nothing wrong with monitoring on planars. The
>'single-point image' thing is probably overblown. Especially
>considering real-world listening environments.
Dunno. I have to agree that the work done on the Maggies translates well
to the real world, overall, though maybe not to cheap boom boxes. But the
difficulty of setting them up properly is what makes them difficult as
control room monitors.
From my perspective, I think that imaging is important, but if your monitors
don't have accurate tonal balance, you're in real trouble. A lack of
coloration in the monitors is very important to me, and the reason that I
really like the Maggies and the Genelecs.
>>I still haven't hear Gabe's Wilson X-1s, but the WATT/Puppies didn't
>>really impress me all that much. They were accurate sounding and they
>>imaged reasonably well, without much real midrange coloration, but geeze
>>that's a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't give you religious
>>enlightenment...
>
>Really. But it's impressive just looking up at the X-1's. Given
>the raves about Wilsons in general, it DOES raise expectations of
>being transported, which they do NOT do, of course. In fact, I
>spent a while comparing WATT/Puppies to B&W 801's, and though the
>W/P's sounded profoundly neutral, I didn't feel any compulsion to
>buy them immediately.
>
>They really should make for a great monitor speaker, though.
>I could imagine getting very attached to the W/P's after a while.
I think they do, although I will let Gabe go on about them because he
has much more experience than I do. If the W/P combination cost $1,000,
I would rave about them and tell everyone to go out and get a pair for
monitors immediately. I'd probably get a pair myself for field work,
rather than looking at the Paradigm stuff. But I just can't see them as
being that much more neutral than what I am using already, certainly not
neutral enough that I would be willing to buy them for more than I paid
for my house...
Harvey Nyien
Classic Stereo 50 guitar amp.
James Heddle
without tissue paper over the tweeters - both are pretty bad and the
tissue paper actually makes things worse.
Why these have speakers have been so successful reflects more on the
fashions in the music business than any desire for a neutral, reliable
and mobile monitoring system.(This is not to say that some people may be
able to mix with them and achieve good results.)
James Heddle
James Heddle Acoustical Consultants
Brisbane Australia
Voice: +61 7 3822 1020
Fax: +61 7 3822 3200
Email: jh...@gil.com.au
Mike Hunter
looks at a crucial range of sound in detail. Nobody walks around with
magnifying glasses all day, but a jeweler needs them for certain work.
Mike Hunter
Scott Dorsey
>If you must keep the NS10's, try driving them with a Peavey
>Classic Stereo 50 guitar amp.
Okay, I give up. Why?
Richard D Pierce
About as useful as a stone ax for fixing eyeglasses.
> Consider it a magnifying glass that
>looks at a crucial range of sound in detail.
Spare us, please. Detail is NOT one of the attributes one could
honestly attach to an NS-10. As a magnifying glass, it's less useful then
the bottom of a mayonaisse jar. Auratones ar far more honest to their
purpose than NS-10's could ever hope to be.
>Nobody walks around with
>magnifying glasses all day, but a jeweler needs them for certain work.
No one would be walking around with piece-of-shit speakers unless than
manufacturer was willing to whore themselves to sell them.
Let's face it, NS-10's are pieces of shit. As long as everybody recognizes
that fact, fine. But enabling one to critically listen to a "crucial range
of sound in detail?" Puhlease, give us all a bloody break!
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> --scott
>> (who flatly refuses to mix to least common denominator systems, and
>> probably loses business as a result, but doesn't care so much as long
>> as his recordings sound good to people who care enough to get decent
>> playback equipment. It depends on your audience, I suppose.)
>
>True,... and the majority of my mixes play through a set of $0.59
>television speakers. It's not the goal, however, to shun more accurate
>monitoring systems for a 1/4" cue speaker... Instead, utilize all of the
>tools available to you... Set your eq's on what you trust, and your
>levels on what reflects real world playback... A mix sounds different
>on each of my speakers, with the most notable differences being how far
>out in front of the M&E tracks the V/O sits.
Precisely... I am able to take the attitude that I do, because I figure
most of the people listening to the recordings I issue take some care in
playback. Unfortunately you can't do that if you're doing mixes for TV.
Out of curiosity, what monitor do you think translates best to the average
TV set? I used to use the Auratones for a secondary reference when I was
doing film sound work in a previous life, and they really did seem to give
me an idea what stuff would sound like on TV.
>I'll not put down the purists of this group, such as yourself, Scott,
>who refuse to compromise their mixes due to the inadequacies of the
>consumer or target user, however I believe that it's more important to
>provide my clients with a clean, tight mix that plays back well on all
>systems.
Yeah, I really like the market I am working in. It's not too profitable,
but it's fun as hell, and I wouldn't give it up for all the money in the
world.
--scott
(who keeps his day job still)
Brad McIlvaine
>
> Let's face it, NS-10's are pieces of shit. As long as everybody recognizes
> that fact, fine. But enabling one to critically listen to a "crucial range
> of sound in detail?" Puhlease, give us all a bloody break!
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
> | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
> | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
So, with this opinion I guess NS-10's aren't on your consulting sheet?
(Very Big Grin)
I would have to agree that the "crucial range of sound stuff" is silly. But I
still have to argue that they translate well... that is, as long as you understand
or have reference to how the "sh*t" should sound pumped through them.
Monitoring in general is so subjective, there really isn't any one "true" perfect
reference. Best sounding room I ever heard had a pair of the BIG Urei's (model #
forgotten), and that room has done ALOT of major film work, ALOT of label music
work, and ALOT of advertising.... mmm, they must REALLY translate well for the
producers to like what they hear in the suite, the engineer to get the quality mix
and sound the facility is known for, and the product to sound good everywhere! And
I haven't seen a reference to these speakers on anyone's "wish" list.
Go figure!?!
Rudy Sanchez
wound up being used for most of the mixing, even though I'd never
worked with them before. It turned out to be one of the best sounding
mixes I'd worked on.
The monitor? Yamaha NS-10. Go figure.
**********************************************************************
Rudy Sanchez <<<<>>>>
rsan...@bridge.net <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
Sound Design <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1943 NE 148 Street <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
N. Miami, FL 33181-1136 <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
USA <<<<>>>>
Tel: 305-945-1728
**********************************************************************
Eleven Shadows
> all kinds, but I still think having a flat pair of monitors is
> important.
So there IS such a thing? ;)
Ken/Eleven Shadows
GRAHAM NEWTON
-=> Quoting Richard D Pierce to All <=-
RDP> N я@SUBJECT:Re: NS10s and tissue paper???
RDP> Mike Hunter <mi...@yakima.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Face it, the NS10M is a useful tool.
Then Mr. Pierce, who claims to be a consultant, ranted:-
RDP> About as useful as a stone ax for fixing eyeglasses.
and further, he continued to froth at the mouth...
RDP> No one would be walking around with piece-of-shit speakers unless than
RDP> manufacturer was willing to whore themselves to sell them.
Yamaha is hardly a "whore" in the audio industry... they are clearly widely
accepted, and that stacks up a lot of evidence against Mr. Pierce, who
continued, adding more of his carefully thought-out reasoning:-
RDP> Let's face it, NS-10's are pieces of shit.
And then he signed his credentials to prove he knows what he is talking
about:-
RDP> | Dick Pierce |
RDP> | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
RDP> | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
RDP> | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Which brings me to a few critical questions:-
Would you want this person doing consulting for your business?
Would you want to deal with a company who had used a consultant as
thoughtful and open-minded as Mr. Pierce?
... Help you out? Certainly. Which way did you come in?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Mark Hensley
> RDP> Mike Hunter <mi...@yakima.wustl.edu> wrote:
> >Face it, the NS10M is a useful tool.
>
> Then Mr. Pierce, who claims to be a consultant, ranted:-
> RDP> About as useful as a stone ax for fixing eyeglasses.
>
>
>
> Which brings me to a few critical questions:-
>
> Would you want this person doing consulting for your business?
>
> Would you want to deal with a company who had used a consultant as
> thoughtful and open-minded as Mr. Pierce?
To answer your question, probably not. But I do agree that NS-10's are
outdated speakers. Maybe they were usefull when vinyl, with it's limited
frequency response, was still being used. But whith todays digital technology
there is no reason to use speakers to mix on that are worse than the average
boombox.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Hensley, Producer/Engineer
http://haven.uniserve.com/~mhensley/marks.htm
mhen...@uniserve.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Randall Bradley
with a Peavy guitar amp, yes you do! It's to make it sound "right."
In fact I prefer a nice Marshall turned up to 11. The sound of
tweeter shred is sooooo soooothing!
The thing about the NS 10 that I like the best is the awful tipped
up, peaky harsh highs! Yeah, it sounds just like MOST cheezy home
rack system speakers. Even like a few choice "high-end" speakers!
See, if it sounds good on an NS-10, ur sure that it sounds good on
a typical home system, therefore - you have no idea what it really
sounds like.
BTW, B&W 801 have significant problems too. I see them as sort of
"refined" NS-10s!! A bit hard and bright on the top, and odd and
strange in the bottom, nice mids tho' IF you can hear them through the
tweeters. Which, probably accounts for the reason that they gained
acceptance w/ the classical set - not all that much hf energy compared
to compressed close miked drum kits and the like....
My opinions are just plain stupid, so ignore them...
...yeah, right.
_-_randy_-_
BEAR Labs
"BEARs love to mix with NS-10s, ... mix honey and cornflakes."
Randall Bradley
Jerk.
Dick's a hardnosed, take no prisoners type for sure.
But, if there is anyone around this group who actually
knows for sure what's going on inside the mysterious
black art & science of speaker design, it's Dick.
Not that he needs me to defend him.
Dick, you can consult for free for me, ANY TIME YOU
WANT!! (heh, heh) :}
NS 10s are rotten, awful speakers. They thing that they have
going FOR them is that they are rotten and awful in the just
about the same way that most other rotten and awful speakers
are rotten and awful. That means that they sound rotten and
awful like MOST of the rotten and awful and CHEAP speakers in
the real world, which is most of them. Ok?
_-_randy_-_
BEAR Labs
"BEAR's noses are not particularly hard, but they know noses..."
Calix Lewis Reneau
<SNIP!)
> But whith todays digital technology
>there is no reason to use speakers to mix on that are worse than the average
>boombox.
Unless, of course, one is mixing music which is still heard on the
crappy speakers which comprise 90% of how the real world listens --
including the average boom box, the average car radio, the average
television...
Cordially,
Calix
Mark Hensley
I meant that the average listener does have speakers that sound better than
NS10's.
MArk
Monte P McGuire
Calix Lewis Reneau <cal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>mhen...@uniserve.com (Mark Hensley) wrote:
>> But whith todays digital technology
>>there is no reason to use speakers to mix on that are worse than the average
>>boombox.
>
>Unless, of course, one is mixing music which is still heard on the
>crappy speakers which comprise 90% of how the real world listens --
>including the average boom box, the average car radio, the average
>television...
I'll disagree with that assertion... The reason is that the person
listening through those nasty speakers hears everything through them
and thus the colorations of the speaker get 'dialed out' partially by
the listener's brain. Suppose your mix, custom made for XYZ Boombox,
comes along and sounds flat at the other end; won't that surely sound
odd to the listener? They've never heard flat through those speakers,
so the mix will obviously sound like it has the inverse curve of their
boombox added onto it and the mix will stick out like a sore thumb.
The target to shoot for is that great 'house curve' of the industry at
the particular moment, basically the weighted mean of what every
mastering house shoots for with that genre of music. If you mix so
that your recording sounds like those recordings do on a flat system,
then you'll be fine whatever you play it on.
There are still some small 'gotchas', such as what to do with
extremely low bass frequencies, but as time goes on, the number and
magnitude of these pitfalls is decreasing and I think it's reasonable
to target a good system. Remember when you couldn't have out of phase
information in the bass because of vinyl?? CD and tape put an end to
that one. Remember how crappy TV audio used to sound 15 years ago
when people mixed for a 3" speaker? I contend that the collective
'house curve' is getting flatter and flatter every day and you might
as well enjoy the freedom it offers.
Regards,
Monte McGuire - N1TBL
mcg...@world.std.com
Teleologist
>
> Ah c'mon Scott! You know why you want to drive those fine NS-10s
> with a Peavy guitar amp, yes you do! It's to make it sound "right."
> In fact I prefer a nice Marshall turned up to 11. The sound of
> tweeter shred is sooooo soooothing!
>
directly into the AC wall socket! :-)
Nick Batzdorf
like a lot of things I never liked before) sound clear through a telephone while
on hold. Surely it wasn't mixed on a telephone!
calix: >>Unless, of course, one is mixing music which is still heard on the
>>crappy speakers which comprise 90% of how the real world listens --
>>including the average boom box, the average car radio, the average
>>television...
>
Enrique Londaits
<Teleo...@sorry.noEmail> wrote:
The only problem I see with that, looking at my AC wall socket is that it
is mono, not stereo.
Shall I have another one installed on my wall close to the first one?
Which wiring would sound better: in parallel or in series?
Do you think that, living in Argentina, where power is 220 volts, only one
would do? I know you got 110 volts in the USA.
Shall I spray flame-retardant on the paper cones of the NS-10s
Any advice welcome
--
Enrique Londaits
Soluciones Digitales
Digital Audio Mastering
elon...@century.com.ar
GRAHAM NEWTON
-=> Quoting Mark Hensley to All <=-
MH> Subject: Re: NS10s and tissue pape
MH> ... But I do agree that NS-10's are
MH> outdated speakers. Maybe they were usefull when vinyl, with it's
MH> limited frequency response, was still being used. But whith todays
MH> digital technology there is no reason to use speakers to mix on that
MH> are worse than the average boombox.
This may be beating a dead horse, (and I'm sure I'm repeating myself, eh
Scott!) but here goes:-
I bought a pair of NS10M's that I'm using in my audio restoration suite.
They are no Genelec, but then they aren't the same price either... (on that
point, I wonder how NS10M's would sound if bi-amped like the Genelec 1030A?)
A lot of people obviously liked the NS10M... AND continue to use them,
with the result that they have become a defacto standard for near field
monitoring speakers.
The woofer has a ceramic magnet of about 5/8" x 3-1/2" which isn't shabby by
most standards and on the teeter it's 13/16" x 3-1/8"... the box is high
density chip board. It weighs in at 6.3 kg where the Gelelec 1030A is 7 kg
and that is WITH the Bi Amplifier, and interestingly, Spirit's Absolute II is
also 7 kg and that is with no amplifier.
Genelec quotes +/- 2.5 db which is a spread of 5db over the quoted range of
55 Hz to 18 kHz. If I read the Yamaha catalog right, the NS10M has a spread
of 7 db, or to put it the way Genelec does, +/- 3.5 db over a range of 60 Hz
to 20 kHz... not bad for a non bi-amped speaker. Spirit quotes 45 Hz to
20 kHz with a spread of 5db. How far off axis? For near field monitors, I
would think +/- 15 degrees should be OK, wouldn't you agree?
In looking at speaker literature (near field) the only one I've seen publish
a 1db response chart is Yamaha, although I've not looked at that many
recently. Interesting, but they also publish an impedance chart against
frequency.
As a matter of fact, I just finished a CD master of classical piano, and it
sounded pretty good on my NS10M's... particularly Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu
in C-Sharp Minor, which I'd think is a pretty good test for a piano sounding
like a piano. If it sounds good, I'd expect, without doing much other
testing, that everything else will sound pretty good also.
Perhaps I'll take a CD or two and listen to a bunch of near fields again.
I did that once, before I bought the NS10M's, and heard a few that definitely
sounded worse, and the rest sounded not enough different to make me want to
choose ONE out of the bunch over what I've got. (excepting those little
Genelec's which were really impressive!)
... "C'est un Nagra? Mais, c'est analogique!... Merde! Quel dommage!"
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Joe Ciarcia
have gone off on a tangent and I'm not exactly sure what people are
arguing for or against but I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone
agrees that the NS10Ms sound pretty bad (at least I hope :-). I often
wonder how this little speaker made it's way on to the meter bridge in so
many studios (if anyone knows the history of how this infamous speaker
became so "popular" I'd love to hear about it) but you can go into many
commercial studios and there they are. Go figure!
I do think that that is the NS10M's strong feature. They are everywhere
and for engineers who know the speaker in addition to it's quirks it can
sometimes be a nice point of reference when you are going to do a mix in a
room you have never mixed in before, with other monitors you are
unfamiliar with. When I mix I usually use the speakers that I find to be
the most forgiving and throughout the mix I "ask" the other monitors what
they "think". I then try to find a balance that sounds good on all the
different monitors. If I can clearly hear all the instruments on three
different pairs of monitors I know I'm on the right track. Regardless of
how good or bad they sound they do provide very useful information
throughout the course of a mix session (as do auratones, heck... I think
that any pair of speakers you can use during a mix is going to provide
useful information umm... unless of course they are blown).
What disturbs me is that many people with home or project studios have
only NS10M's to mix on. I personally feel that NS10's are an extremely bad
choice for a pair of monitors if they are going to be your sole pair of
monitoring speakers, or the monitors that you spend the most time
listening to. If you're only going to spend your money on one pair of
monitors there are much better choices than the the NS10M's. Of course if
your mix sounds fantastic and you used NS10M's for the entire mix (and
your ears didn't tire out in the process) then it's a moot point.
As for tissue paper over the tweeters, I was watching some Bruce
Springsteen special the other night and they were in The Hit Factory...
guess what I saw? Tissue paper over the tweeters <hehe>. I got a little
chuckle out of that, I think it's pretty silly myself (I'll also add that
I'm not one to critique what they do at The Hit Factory). I personally
think NS10M's sound much better with big thick blankets over them (and
under the console... okay just kidding) ;-). Whatever floats your boat I
guess.
Have fun mixin', Joe
--
When the only tool you have is a hammer,
everything begins to look like a nail.
-Lotfi Zadeh
Calix Lewis Reneau
Funny, we've both been listening to Medusa recently (I've been
referencing it for a project I'm working on.) I think from my
experience what makes that work for you via cheap phone speakers is
the terrific sparsity in the production (same thing I noticed first on
"Ten Sumners Tales" by Stingalingadingdong.) -- a factor I'm now
trying to emulate, but boy, is it tough!
Also funny how you should mention "listening by phone." <nudge,nudge>
Cordially,
Calix
Gordon Gunn
Enrique Londaits, elon...@century.com.ar writes:
>The only problem I see with that, looking at my AC wall socket is that it
>is mono, not stereo.
Wire 'em into two different wall sockets that are on different
legs of the 220 supply. ;^)
Gordon in Austin
DISCLAIMER:
All of the above is solely and totally my own opinion and does
not necessarily reflect that of my employer, my associates, or
any other being, human or otherwise, living or dead, on or off
this planet or any other, anywhere in this or any other
universe.
Dusk Bennett
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's face it, NS-10's are pieces of shit. As long as everybody recognizes
>> that fact, fine. But enabling one to critically listen to a "crucial range
>> of sound in detail?" Puhlease, give us all a bloody break!
>>
>> --
>> | Dick Pierce |
>> | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
Well the last guy I want to flame is a consultant even if his ideas are
left field however in my experience if a mix sounds good on those funky
white speakers then you can be sure that they will sound good every
where. I used to love mixing on our Genelecs but the mixes sound too
weird when I mix only on them. It's a moree intelleeegent idea to mix on
three sets of speeakers (forgive all the double "e"'s but if you read my
post on "Is this coincidence or a nighmare" it will make sense) . I have
found the greatest sets would be
1- NS10M-so you can use magic markers on the speakers and make eem look
cool. (green and red smiley faces look cool in there try it...)
2- Genelecs-so you can impress the hell out of you clients.
3-Augspurgers-So you can impress the hell out of yourself.
With that in mind I don't think it's a good idea to discount "shit"
unless you have something that sounds worse than it. Which I admit is
getting more and more possible every day... At any rate don't take this
as a flameee just an idea.
>Dusk
PS read my post on my nightmare you might be able to help me out of it.
Dayo
>In article <elondait-090...@ppp05.century.com.ar>
>Enrique Londaits, elon...@century.com.ar writes:
>>The only problem I see with that, looking at my AC wall socket is that it
>>is mono, not stereo.
>
>Wire 'em into two different wall sockets that are on different
>legs of the 220 supply. ;^)
>
Ahh, this reminds me of an accidental discovery I made while tracking in a studio
in Ibadan, Nigeria. Because of the spotty electrical supply (frequent blackouts)
we had two-phase mains supplies from two separate NEPA electrical networks, plus
a Solel Bonneh electrical generator. We discovered that we could get a three-D
effect by leaving all phases open. The generator helped in creating a centered
image. The external mains helped create unique scoundscapes through a
super-saturation effect when the current load was overloaded. Of course, this was
only with the Obeche or Iroko wood-enclosed, elliptically centered AV drives.
Interestingly, during the rainy season, we were able to get a more vibrant, airy
sound. This of course had to do with the atmospheric neutralising effect of the
water-laden nimbus and cumulo-nimbus clouds, coming after the NE Harmattan Monsoon
winds.
I noticed also that if one cut tracks around midday, the tolerance of the digital
media for transient peaks became subtly improved. When mixed down to a 1964
analog two track from Adigun-Akerele ( a B & O affiliate), the sonic palate became
delicately fuller and sonicaaly exquisite.
I'd like to hear from others who have been able to benefit from the inherent
phase benefits of recording in equitorial tropical locales. Drat that seawater
though.
Dayo Ogunyemi
Native Sounds
GRAHAM NEWTON
-=> Quoting Joe Ciarcia to All <=-
JC> I think it's pretty safe to say that
JC> everyone agrees that the NS10Ms sound pretty bad (at least I hope :-).
No... that's the problem... there doesn't seem to be any agreement, just a
lot of flaming and posturing without much solid fact being given.
JC> You can go into many commercial studios and there they are. Go figure!
My point exactly.
JC> What disturbs me is that many people with home or project studios have
JC> only NS10M's to mix on. I personally feel that NS10's are an extremely
JC> bad choice for a pair of monitors if they are going to be your sole
JC> pair of monitoring speakers, or the monitors that you spend the most
JC> time listening to.
OK... lets get into exactly WHY you personally feel that way... I'm using a
pair and I'm fairly satisfied with them, until my budget will allow a pair of
Genelec's. I'd like to see some solid tabulated comparisons and testing, not
people roaming from room to room and thinking one or the other sounded
better. There's just to damn much empiracle opinion being spread around... I
want to see some hard facts and some A/B comparison.
<and please don't bother flaming me for this either, you know this is the only
rational way to handle this kind of problem>
JC> If you're only going to spend your money on one pair
JC> of monitors there are much better choices than the the NS10M's.
All right... Which ones and exactly why? Let's get really specific...
compare specs, price, components, sizes, weights etc. and no bi-amping
either. Lets say suggested list or street prices within +/- 20%
... When you only have a nail, everything looks like a hammer!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Steve Holiman
: > It takes
: > all kinds, but I still think having a flat pair of monitors is
: > important.
: So there IS such a thing? ;)
Of course, Ken. You must _always_ buy flat monitors or nothing will stay
on top of them ...
____________________________________________________________________________
Steve Holiman / stev...@cloverleaf.com | The rogue opinions which just
HACK / Holiman Audio/Computer Kibitzing | escaped do not necessarily reflect
Los Angeles CA (310) 942-0314 voice/fax | my moments of clear perception ...
Eleven Shadows
>
> Eleven Shadows (bur...@primenet.com) wrote:
>
> : > It takes
> : > all kinds, but I still think having a flat pair of monitors is
> : > important.
> : So there IS such a thing? ;)
> Of course, Ken. You must _always_ buy flat monitors or nothing will stay
> on top of them ...
:) Okay, Steve, I guess I'll stop using those geodesic Bose speakers.
-Ken/Eleven Shadows
Gendelta
closest thing to a geodesic speaker in my recollection is the Design
Acoustics DA-12 (?). It was a twelve sided thing which allegedly tried
to achieve a pulsating sphere means of propagating sound. Stereo
everywhere, to coin a phrase. -glenn
Eleven Shadows
> Silly boy, Bose doesn't make geodesic speakers , they make junk.
Oh, wow...uh, would tissue paper help, then? ;)
-Ken/Eleven Shadows, guessing now that Bose don't make flat monitors for
more than one reason...
Joe Ciarcia
graham...@westonia.com (GRAHAM NEWTON) wrote:
> -=> Quoting Joe Ciarcia to All <=-
>
> JC> I think it's pretty safe to say that
> JC> everyone agrees that the NS10Ms sound pretty bad (at least I hope :-).
> No... that's the problem... there doesn't seem to be any agreement, just a
> lot of flaming and posturing without much solid fact being given.
>
All the people I've worked with seem to unanimously agree that the NS10M's
don't sound that great but neither do Auratones and I find them very
useful. I would agree that there is no unanimous agreement as to what low
cost studio monitors sound the best.
If you're working with the NS10Ms and you're mixing tunes that come out
sounding great no matter what you play them back on then there's nothing
wrong with that. I miced a guitar smack dab in the center of the cone
about 1" away... with a Peavey microphone and it sounded fantastic, not a
conventional spot to mic a guitar, and the mic I used wasn't incredibly
versatile (can't remember the model) but for this application it worked
GREAT!!! So if it works go for it.
> JC> You can go into many commercial studios and there they are. Go figure!
> My point exactly.
>
> JC> What disturbs me is that many people with home or project studios have
> JC> only NS10M's to mix on. I personally feel that NS10's are an extremely
> JC> bad choice for a pair of monitors if they are going to be your sole
> JC> pair of monitoring speakers, or the monitors that you spend the most
> JC> time listening to.
> OK... lets get into exactly WHY you personally feel that way... I'm using a
> pair and I'm fairly satisfied with them, until my budget will allow a pair of
> Genelec's.
I personally feel this way because I have heard (and mixed with) Tannoy
System 15's, Tannoy System 12's, KRK 703's, Yamaha NS10M's, Fostex (can't
remember the model... they're these enormous speakers where the mid range
driver has the wooden horn... never mind), KRK 9000's, Studer (don't know
the model but I LOVE these monitors, I can mix on them for hours on end
without getting tired), Alesis Monitor One's, Yamaha NS40M's, KRK 7000B,
Genelec's (don't know the model, I do believe they have a power amp built
in), RUS NF25's ( I think these were manufactured by someone else for
Roland, I've seen the identical monitor under a different name ), and I
think that's it. With the excpetion of the Alesis monitors everything I've
listed is much more expensive than the NS10M's (they are cheap) but the
Alesis monitors are very decent for the money. I find them to be much more
pleasant to work with over long periods of time. I've listed a few
monitors manufacturers below but in order to give you an honest opinion on
them I would have to actually mix a project on each of them.
I'm not suggesting that people go out and buy Genlec monitors but there
are other monitors out there that I think are a better choice than NS10Ms,
even some consumer bookshelf speakers are affordable, sound good, and are
useful for mixing (in addition to benefitting from a few more years of
R&D). Snell Acoustics ( http://www.primenet.com/mainpage/ ), B&W (
http://mcnaur.com/bwprod.html ), Tannoy ( http://www.tannoy.com/ ) and JBL
make some good sounding (and affordable) monitors to name a few.
>I'd like to see some solid tabulated comparisons and testing, not
> people roaming from room to room and thinking one or the other sounded
> better. There's just to damn much empiracle opinion being spread around... I
> want to see some hard facts and some A/B comparison.
> <and please don't bother flaming me for this either, you know this is the only
> rational way to handle this kind of problem>
It's hard to do A/B tests but I do think that if it is done properly you
can arrive at a decision where everyone is in agreement. With something as
subjective as speaker performance there will always be a certain amount of
personal opinion. I remember a little demo that a teacher did in a class I
took a few years ago. The entire class was blind folded and our teacher
setup four different speakers. He then proceeded to play different kinds
of music (classical, jazz, rock, and pop/dance) through all of the
speakers. Each style of music definitely "preferred" one or two of the
speakers of the others. Everyone (from what I remember) was more or less
able to agree on which style of music sounded best through which speaker.
Those differences would have made it very hard to narrow in on one speaker
that sounded the best for all styles of music but given the time I think
we could have done it (note that we judged only a single model of a
speaker and not a pair so that listen test was extremely simplified).
There is a big difference here, we were doing A/B tests (okay.... A B C D)
on speakers to determine which one sounded the best. Mixing is a different
story and to properly judge a pair of monitors you can't really A/B
between one and the other. There other factors which contribute to what
makes a good monitor. You actually have to spend time doing a real mix on
one set of monitors.
> JC> If you're only going to spend your money on one pair
> JC> of monitors there are much better choices than the the NS10M's.
> All right... Which ones and exactly why? Let's get really specific...
> compare specs, price, components, sizes, weights etc. and no bi-amping
> either. Lets say suggested list or street prices within +/- 20%
>
Which ones exactly, I don't have an answer for you there. I have however
heard several consumer bookshelf speakers, and budget studio monitors that
I find quite pleasant, and would prefer to have if I was only going to buy
one pair of monitors. I think the Alesis Monitor One's are in the same
price range as the NS10M's, I would prefer them to the NS10M's if I was to
only have one pair of monitors.
I'd be interested in a comparison too however I'd be more interested in
1) how they sound ( to be more accurate, how a mix done on those monitors
carries over from a 2" clock radio speaker to a 50,000 watt concert sound
reinforcement system ), 2) price ( for some price is no object however for
me it is, and that seems to be your position too ). 3) How long can I
listen to those speakers without becomming fatigued? Specs are probably
the last thing you want to look at when purchasing speakers as they don't
provide you with a whole lot of useful information (in terms of how good
they are for actually mixing).
I wish I could participate in some sort of controlled comparison myself, I
bet there would be some surprises. I did a lab last semester where I
compared 5 mics on a male speaking voice. The mics were... an AKG C414, EV
RE-20, Sennheiser MD421, Shure SM57, and a Crown PZM. To my ears the 414
took first place, second place.... the SM57. I was absolutely astonished (
for male speech I would have expected the 421 or the RE-20 to come in
second (or possibly first) place ).
Graham, I didn't mean to offend you personally or start a flame war (I got
the feeling that you were a little irritated by my post). As far as the
NS10M's go, based on my own personal experience, and the opinions and
experiences of others whom I have talked to I could not honestly reccomend
them to someone who was considering them as their only pair of monitors.
That's not to say they aren't useful, I did two sessions today (4 hours
each) and both control rooms were equipped with NS10M's, I did use them
and they provided valuable information to me about my mix (however I spent
most of my time on the room monitors which in the first session was
Studers, and in the second session was Tannoy System 12's).
C ya, Joe
Teleologist
>
>
> Well the last guy I want to flame is a consultant even if his ideas are
> left field however in my experience if a mix sounds good on those funky
> white speakers then you can be sure that they will sound good every
> where.
commidity to most engineers. In this sense they are a 'refernce standard'.
David Hornbeck
get a mix to sound pretty good on those awful things, chances are, you are, how
they say-in the ballpark! The big studios all use them for this reason, and
because unlike some of the more expensive/newer models, when your mixing on
NS10s, you don't get a lot of masking or extremely weird coloration/s, and also
because it's like this "industry standard" kind of thing. If you hate the sound
of NS10s cranked (most people do) then do a lot of mid-to-low level(db
spl-wise)mixing on them, and have a seperate set of speakers (Genelics are
cool,KRK,Tannoy,JBL,etc...)to blast on....
CHEERS,
LORD HELLMET
P.S.
HALF A SHEET OF KLEENEX OR A PIECE OF A WHITE KIMWIPE TOWEL ARE USED OFTEN FOR
THE TWEETERS
A&M Recording Studios 213 469-5181 http://www.amstudios.com/
Ken Norton
If anybody has a set of these horrible NS10s that they absolutely
despise and can't stand the thought of having them in their presence,
please email me and I will provide you with an address for you to
send them to me.
They are flat enough to use as plant stands. Actually I find that placing
house plants on them improves the sound as the leaves vibrate slightly out of
phase to the tweeter--thereby warming up the high end a little. Experiment
with various plant varieties to determine proper sound contours. I personally
found African violets to work the best. ; )
Ken Norton
Mark Edwards
> System 15's, Tannoy System 12's, KRK 703's, Yamaha NS10M's, Fostex (can't
> remember the model... they're these enormous speakers where the mid range
> driver has the wooden horn... never mind), KRK 9000's, Studer (don't know
> the model but I LOVE these monitors, I can mix on them for hours on end
> without getting tired), Alesis Monitor One's, Yamaha NS40M's, KRK 7000B,
> Genelec's (don't know the model, I do believe they have a power amp built
> in), RUS NF25's ( I think these were manufactured by someone else for
> Roland, I've seen the identical monitor under a different name ), and I
> think that's it. With the excpetion of the Alesis monitors everything I've
> listed is much more expensive than the NS10M's (they are cheap) but the
> Alesis monitors are very decent for the money. I find them to be much more
> pleasant to work with over long periods of time. I've listed a few
> monitors manufacturers below but in order to give you an honest opinion on
> them I would have to actually mix a project on each of them.
>
> I'm not suggesting that people go out and buy Genlec monitors but there
> are other monitors out there that I think are a better choice than NS10Ms,
> even some consumer bookshelf speakers are affordable, sound good, and are
> useful for mixing (in addition to benefitting from a few more years of
> R&D). Snell Acoustics ( http://www.primenet.com/mainpage/ ), B&W (
> http://mcnaur.com/bwprod.html ), Tannoy ( http://www.tannoy.com/ ) and JBL
> make some good sounding (and affordable) monitors to name a few.
Have either of you listened to Audix 1a's or Nile V's? I just picked up
a pair of 1a's and I'm curious of your opinion of them. To my ears,
they provide a very different representation than NS10's or Alesis
mon-1's. The way I see it, NS10's (and Auratones) are often used to
provide information about mid-frequencies in music. I don't think
anyone would claim that NS10's are used to analyze bass frequencies, and
many people feel that the mid's, particularly the upper mid's, are
unnaturally harsh and exaggerated. This is the strength of the speaker,
however, and most people use them to complement another set of monitors
(usually larger) that gives a fuller sound. The Audix, to my ears, fall
into a different school of monitors that attempt to provide an extremely
smooth and full representation of the sound, but they perhaps leave out
some of the critical mid-frequency information that you can get with an
NS10 type of monitor. Other monitors in this camp might be KRK 7000B's,
Yorkville's, and the bookshelf models you mentioned. They might be
useful to someone who doesn't have access to nice large monitors in
order to provide an overall sonic picture.
Do you agree that in general the function of NS10's is to complement a
fuller-sounding set of monitors, in order to provide a "magnifying
glass", so to speak, for a particular set of important mid frequencies?
I think this is why many people feel that they sound bad, or would be
bad as your only monitor. They are a specialized tool. In my mixing
experience, this kind of tool can be very useful, although I have used
Auratones for this purpose more than NS10's.
My feeling is that, most importantly, one needs to have a set of
monitors that provide a nicely balanced picture of the entire spectrum
-- tight and full bass, not boomy, smooth and extended high's, nothing
sticking out too much. These do not necessarily have to be expensive or
large, although traditionally they are. Newer near-field design has
acheived many of these traits in small monitors (Genelec, maybe Tannoy,
KRK 7000B, Audix), although they will always be limited in the bass
because of size.
From this point, it is very important to add a second set of monitors
that provides insight into particular frequencies, for most
applications, the mid-frequencies. This can be as simple as a cheap set
of bookshelf's, a consumer box, but preferably something more telling
like NS10's or monitor 1's.
Some people might feel this is backwards, that the NS10's come first. I
think the current vogue is to embrace newer near-field designs that
favor fullness over punch. Add to this that people on this newsgroup
are working in a wide variety of studio situations, from decked-out
$100/hour+ studios to basement 4-tracks. Not everyone considers the
basement scene to be part of the professional recording world, but alot
of professional work goes on down there, and as technology cheapens, the
schism between pro and amateur is become less and less clear. What do
you think?
-Mark Edwards, Portland, Oregon
Steve Schow
and I have to admit that I don't particularly enjoy using them to just
listen to music.
Yet, every time I see a clip on TV of some artist in the studio, you can see
the NS-10's in the background as the main console mix speakers. Nearly every
decent studio I have ever been inside had NS-10's right there.
If they suck so bad.....why is everyone (including me) still using them?
Frankly I can't afford to switch to anything else right now. I have been thinking
about adding those new Alesis 3 way monitor speakers......as an ADDITION to
what I have now in order to have something with more bass response to listen
through while just laying tracks.....when I'm trying to be inspired.....
And also to use to listen to the finished mix to make sure it sounds full and good.
I am guessing that my use for the NS-10's will be when I am just trying to EQ and
hear the tonal quality of the music.
But....I'm sure that some of you are going to tell me that the NS-10 totally sucks
and that it isn't very flat, etc... But why then are so many people still using
it? Maybe most people are just "used" to how it sounds and so as a reference
point they know how to listen to those speakers and make a mix sound good?
-steve
Teleologist (Teleo...@sorry.noEmail) wrote:
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schow | But you don't need to use the claw, if you
s...@corp.portal.com | pick the pear of the big paw paw......
(408) 343-4421 (wk) | Have I given you a clue......?
(408) 977-5955 (hm) | - Baloo the Bear
------------------------------------------------------------------
HomePage: http://www.bstage.com/
HomeAddr: s...@midiman.bstage.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Harris
>
> > JC> everyone agrees that the NS10Ms sound pretty bad (at least I hope :-).
>
> If anybody has a set of these horrible NS10s that they absolutely
> despise and can't stand the thought of having them in their presence,
> please email me and I will provide you with an address for you to
> send them to me.
>
Same goes for me - any overflow that Ken doesn't want can be sent
directly to me.
Thanks for your support...
--Warren
--
HARRIS CREATIVE GROUP - http://www.voiceone.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just the FAQs! PC-Based Digital Recording - the Video FAQ
3 hours VHS - on Audio Recording for the PC
===============================================
VOICE-OVER work / samples / distribution Via our Website!
===============================================
DIGITAL AUDIO WORKSTATIONS! - SAW, DAL, Sek'd, Sound Forge...
Ellis Le
the woofer because there is 90 degrees phase shift in the HP and LP
X-overs which gives cancellation at the X-over freq. By wiring the
tweeter out of phase, the amplitude response at the X-over freq. is
smoother but naturally the phase response if all f'd up. I read that if
you swap the tweeter polarity back to normal, they sound better! Is this
true of the NS-10s and also the new 10M models?
Ellis Le
the mixes you make on them will translate, and on NS-10s they do. As much
as I hate the way they sound, and they are so fatiguing, the mixes
translate!
Greg House
Perhaps that works for you, but it didn't for me. I tried for over a year to
get a decent mix on a pair of NS10Ms and was never completely satisfied with
the results. If it sounded good on the NS10s, it generally sounded ok on a
boom box or a cheap-o car stereo, but was either completely dull and lifeless
or had a huge bloated bass problem on a better quality home stereo.
Now, that's not to say that the NS10s aren't useful to check things on. If
something sounds bad on NS10s, it'll sound bad on a lot of other
speakers, but I don't accept the inverse of that which says "if it sounds good
on NS10s, it'll sound good on anything". This is not true in my experience.
I got a pair of Tannoy PBM-8s and found that the work I do on them translates
MUCH better. I still have the NS10s and use them to check my mixes on, but
I'd never use them as a primary monitor if I could help it.
Greg
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg House | Symbios Logic | Wichita, KS, USA | greg....@symbios.com
"Which way did they go, George, which way did they go?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------