Japanese Speakers Suck?
Jeffrey A. Magee ( Sun-King )
I was wondering what people mean when they say this? Is it poor components
or poor overall sound or what? I listened to a pair of Yamaha NS-A835's
today and really thought they were pretty good, just a little sweet on the
high end and really tight bass.
A friend of mine bought something by JVC last semester and the woofer toasted
on him one night when he was driving it hard. The 10" woofer had a 1.5"
voice coil, so I wasn't too surprised...
Any other stories or opinions out there? Especially about the Yamaha's...
(which I plan on purchasing unless someone has a real bad experience to post.)
-Jeff
--
I'm a *Sun-King* baby... (mag...@rpi.edu)
--
Jonas Palm
No, not all Japanese speakers suck.
Most major manufacturers have at one time or another marketed quite good
speakers both in absolute terms and certainly price/performance wise.
BUT
1. American companies obviously have cost advantages in the USA.
2. Also, the Japanese companies are particularly good at bringing
up to date technology into production quickly, and inexpensively.
This doesn't give them as much of a competitive edge in speakers
as in for instance CD-players.
3. 'I've always heard that Japanese are really poor....'
Your own starting phrase is probably the most important point.
The Japanese have an image problem when it comes to speakers.
Even if they made high-end speakers, would they be bought?
JBL has had that problem, with speakers such as the 250ti and
others. If Bose brought out a $5000 model, as good as or better
than the competition, would Stereophile and TAS give it rave
reviews? Would owning BOSE speakers boost the owners ego or
audiophile standing?
Audio companies have to make a profit. Japanese or American.
_Apart_ from the required effort in manufacturing and marketing,
it will cost the Japanese companies to change their reputation,
against the magazines, the retailers, and peoples prejudices.
I hope they will sometime decide to make a strong concerted
effort in the speaker field anyway. If they did, consumers
would (probably unknowingly) be greatly served. If large scale
production of excellent speakers makes any business sense
isn't really very clear. Personally, I doubt the market is there.
Jonas Palm
Ying Tat Leung
My answer to the subject question is that most, if not all, Japanese
speakers being imported into the US are not competitive sonically.
Most of them are cheap however. The really high end Japanese hifi
components are very hard to find in the US or are terribly expensive
(e.g. Accuphase, Stax, Airtight). Now that I'm thinking, I cannot
recall a high end Japanese speaker. Does Stax make one?
Dave Dal Farra
Jonas...@orgk3.lu.se writes:
>others. If Bose brought out a $5000 model, as good as or better
>than the competition, would Stereophile and TAS give it rave
>reviews?
Ya.
They've raved about a JVC CD playera, a Pioneer amp, Radio Shack solder
and other marques which are miles removed from the snob arena.
I've never seen a favourable review in these rags (been reading 'em since '80)
about real snob gear: B & O - made for the discriminating bank account.
I don't think these rags deserve half the bad press they seem
to get on this BBS. Ya, they're technical chowder-heads more times
than not, but they aren't technical mags. Read in that light, I think
you can almost always get an honest opinion on what they really think
about the way a piece of gear sounds.
It's important to understand what the reviewer's tastes are, and this takes
some time exposure time. Stay clear of the reviewer's with alterior
motives (i.e. Dick Olsher's articles on his own Dahlia's) and the
mags can be very usefull. Of course, let your own ears decide in the end.
Taken in the context of other consumer reporting mags, especially car
ones, I think they're relatively honest.
..Dave
Shiv Naimpally
The drivers are often made from stamped instead of cast metal frames,
etc.. There is no engineering that goes into them - they just slap some
drivers into a box. If you are not particulalry discriminating they
sound fine.
The one notable exception to the above is Yamaha. Many studios swear
by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
impressed. Why are you so keen on Yamaha ? Did you listen to other
speakers ? Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
Dave Dal Farra
writes:
>The one notable exception to the above is Yamaha. Many studios swear
>by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
>impressed.
Be wary when a studio recommends speakers. Make sure that their criteria
includes sound quality.
My 'bro is a radio engineer in Toronto, and he's informed me of a case where
some recording engineer + producer recorded a huge hit in the States using,
get ready:
Radio Shack Minimus speakers with Kleenex over the tweeter! [should'a
been toilet paper 8:)]
Well, the industry jumped all over it and a big item of
debate in some of the recording and broadcast trade mags was concerning
which brand of facial tissue to use for optimum results!!
The jocks and producers at his station INSIST on Radio Shack Minimus' for all
of their production studios.
Somehow makes me feel a bit more sane...
Dave Dal Farra
BNR Ottawa
Audio and Acoustics Group
Richard D Pierce
>The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
>The drivers are often made from stamped instead of cast metal frames,
>etc.. There is no engineering that goes into them - they just slap some
>drivers into a box. If you are not particulalry discriminating they
>sound fine.
Take it from someone who knows. The vast majority of Japanese speakers
available in this country are manufactured here. This is true of Sony,
Kenwood, Panasonic and so on. The reason is simply that it costs a lot of
money to ship wooden boxes filled primarily with air. The drivers are
almost always made in orient and are very inexpensive.
If you look at the technical literature (Audio Engineering Society, etc.)
You'll see what I think is one of the fundamental problems the Japanese
have in building good loudspeakers. During the late '70s and through the
'80's, the Japanese flooded the hjournals and patent offices worldwide
with descriptions of new, radical materials that succeeded in solving one
very specific problem very well (or so the authors claimed). Things like
"boronized carbon flake diaphragms" and the like. Most of these articles
and the research behind them was performed in the engineering labs of the
major Japanese manufacturers (Sony, Yamaha, Matshushita, and so on).
The result of this research was an explosion of new speaker lines and
models based on one or two very narrowly focused pieces of research. In
pretty much all cases, the systems sounded lousy. There was no effort, it
would seem, to attempt to solve, or even identify, major sources of
coloration, integration issues, sonic balance. It is the classic case of
what some around here have complained about: engineering without regards
to listening.
>The one notable exception to the above is Yamaha. Many studios swear
>by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
>impressed. Why are you so keen on Yamaha ? Did you listen to other
>speakers ? Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
>companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
>(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
>Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
To explain again, Yamaha GAVE away multiple hundreds of pairs to studios
simply to promote them by reputation. People saw them in studios, believed
them to be wonderful as a result, then bought them for their own studios.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Scott Amspoker
>by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
>impressed.
The original NS10 speakers were intended to be sold as a consumer
bookshelf speaker. Somebody discovered that they made a great
studio reference monitor and the rest is history. Most studios
who use NS10Ms may swear by them but they also admit to disliking
the sound. The keyword here is "reference". The NS10M monitors
provide a solid reference for fine tuning mixes that will hopefully
sound good on other speakers in other environments.
Personally, I use JBL 4206's and love 'em.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | Too bad ignorance isn't really
| bliss. Then it could be outlawed.
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Trevor Pearson
> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
> >The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
>
> richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
> speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
> crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
> To explain again, Yamaha GAVE away multiple hundreds of pairs to studios
> simply to promote them by reputation. People saw them in studios, believed
> them to be wonderful as a result, then bought them for their own studios.
>
I thought the NS-10's were used by studios to give them an idea of
what their music would sound like when played back on the low fi,
low quality speakers posessed by the average listener. It is the very
attributes you mention which makes them useful. As with all things
in life the majority of companies cater for the majority of consumers,
ie. the lowest common denominator effect. If you like pop music and
own a real Hi Fi then bad luck.
Graeme Mawson
>Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
>companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
>(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
>Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
Don't forget Australian speakers. We have a couple of speaker manufacturers
here that make outstanding products. In particular, I am thinking of
Interdyn and Duntech. I own a pair of Interdyn BT-2's and found them to
be the best sounding speakers in their class (ca. US$1500) that I've heard.
Cheers,
Graeme Mawson.
--
Internet: maw...@aldetec.oz.au "As for me and my house, we will
Perth, Western Australia. serve the Lord." <><
Tim Hildebrandt
>
>Take it from someone who knows...?
Much offshore bashing deleted.
>
>God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
>speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
>crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
>To explain again, Yamaha GAVE away multiple hundreds of pairs to studios
>simply to promote them by reputation. People saw them in studios, believed
>them to be wonderful as a result, then bought them for their own studios.
>
Being a recording engineer/producer I've had the opprotunity (in a recording
studio environment) to reference on many many brands of sudio monitors from
the high end to the low end and let me assure you that the Yamaha
NS-10 SM's work very well for their entended purpose. Key words: "Entended
Purpose". There is no question that in the hi-fi arena these speakers do
not give you the transparent highs and extended lows that are so sought
after in this market. So, if this equates to lousy sound to you then so
be it. However, if you are using these speakers to reference material to
mix for a plathora(sp?) of listening components and venues then the NS-10
SM's work very well. What you get is this: 1. Excellent near field
monitoring. 2. Excellent imaging in the stereo spectrum. 3. Apparent loudness
seems to transfer well to any listening medium. 4. (and what I
personally like best) what you hear is what you get frequency wise!
These four areas are most imortant in the field of mixing for the masses
if you will. Sooo, for home hi-fi listening forget it. However, for near
field reference monitoring in a studio I highly recommend them.
T.H.
Bill Vermillion
At one time Sony made a high end speaker in what was called
their "Esprit" line. Really nice sounding. About 5 feet
tall.
Had square rigid flat plate diaphragms. The 'woofer' was a
12-inch square plate - with 5 'piston' drivers. The tweeter
was about 1" square. I seem to remember 5 different sizes in
the box. Really nice sounding.
And expensive. I saw/heard these in 1977/78 - and they were
$6000/pair then - that'd put them in the $15,000/pair category
now.
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.oau.org bi...@bilver.uucp
- ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Jim Roth
In article <1993Feb25....@trl.oz.au>, tpea...@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Trevor Pearson) writes...
>DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
>> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>> >The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
>> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>> ...
>I thought the NS-10's were used by studios to give them an idea of
>what their music would sound like when played back on the low fi,
>low quality speakers posessed by the average listener.
Actually, a comment I often hear is that a mix done on NS-10's
sounds great on a good system, but mixes done on (name some other
speaker) sounds lifeless. And that the NS-10's have "pinpoint imaging"
and so on.
So, go figure.
- Jim
Shiv Naimpally
|> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
|> >The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
|> >The drivers are often made from stamped instead of cast metal frames,
|> >etc..
|>
|> >The one notable exception to the above is Yamaha. Many studios swear
|> >by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
|> >impressed.
|>
|> richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
|> speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
|> crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
|> To explain again, Yamaha GAVE away multiple hundreds of pairs to studios
|> simply to promote them by reputation. People saw them in studios, believed
|> them to be wonderful as a result, then bought them for their own studios.
Dick, thanks for the info ! The NS10s have not immpressed me as great
monitor speakers. A friend bought them for his studio and I couldn't
beleive how losuy they sounded and how much he had paid for them. His
reason was "They are suppossed to sound shitty, so that it simulates
a car radio, ghetto blaster, etc. ". Yeah right !!!
Richard D Pierce
>
>>God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>>richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
>>speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
>>crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
>Being a recording engineer/producer I've had the opprotunity (in a recording
>studio environment) to reference on many many brands of sudio monitors from
>the high end to the low end and let me assure you that the Yamaha
>NS-10 SM's work very well for their entended purpose. Key words: "Entended
>Purpose". There is no question that in the hi-fi arena these speakers do
>not give you the transparent highs and extended lows that are so sought
>after in this market. So, if this equates to lousy sound to you then so
>be it. However, if you are using these speakers to reference material to
>mix for a plathora(sp?) of listening components and venues then the NS-10
>SM's work very well. What you get is this: 1. Excellent near field
>monitoring. 2. Excellent imaging in the stereo spectrum. 3. Apparent loudness
>seems to transfer well to any listening medium. 4. (and what I
>personally like best) what you hear is what you get frequency wise!
>These four areas are most imortant in the field of mixing for the masses
>if you will. Sooo, for home hi-fi listening forget it. However, for near
>field reference monitoring in a studio I highly recommend them.
If the idea of a monitor is to present as accurate a picture as possible
of the mix, the the NS-10's suck the big one. While near field frequency
response is certainly not the criteria for suitability, is is certainly
arguable that it is a reasonable MINIMUM criteria, and the NS-10's fail in
this respect miserably. Your point #4 "what you hear is what you get
frequency-wise", if it is to be interpreted as either flat axial frequency
response in the near field or flat power response, means that the NS-10's,
according to your own criteria, are severely deficient. Because of the
severe break-up modes the woofer cone suffers from, and because of the
relatively poorly designed crossover and no regard to even dispersion
characteristics, the imaging capabilities are pretty terrible.
I, because of my involvement in working on pro digital audio editing
workstations, have the opportunity to visit and listen in MANY studio
venues. ALL of them have NS-10's. WHen they are doing mixes by themselves,
they don't use the NS-10's AT ALL. All the producers and engineers I know
hate them, but they have to have them on hand because there is a crowd
that judges the srudio by the trendy equipment they have around. I have
even known one guy whose client forced him to use the NS-10's while the
client was there, but as soon as he was gone, he completely remixed using
something else, sent the tape on to the client, who was perfectly happy
with the result.
I myself have heard NS-10's in studio settings where OBVIOUS faults in a
mix simply could not be heard through NS-10's, and other near field
monitors laying around where far better.
I was speaking directly to the issue of using them in studio situations.
If, as other posts pointed out, your intent is to see what the mix is
going to sound like over cheap bad speakers, then NS-10's are probably as
good (or bad) as choice as any. But to think of them as a reference monitor
I think is stretching the point beyond any limits of reasonable credibility.
Again my point was that the NS-10's reached their level of popularity for
studio use NOT through any technical merit on their own, but through a
cynical marketing scam pulled by Yamaha.
Dave Dal Farra
tmh....@mhs.unc.edu writes:
>Being a recording engineer/producer I've had the opprotunity (in a recording
>studio environment) to reference on many many brands of sudio monitors from
>the high end to the low end and let me assure you that the Yamaha
>NS-10 SM's work very well for their entended purpose. Key words: "Entended
>Purpose". There is no question that in the hi-fi arena these speakers do
>not give you the transparent highs and extended lows that are so sought
>after in this market. So, if this equates to lousy sound to you then so
>be it. However, if you are using these speakers to reference material to
>mix for a plathora(sp?) of listening components and venues then the NS-10
>SM's work very well. What you get is this: 1. Excellent near field
I get it. Two wrongs make a right!! Since the "plathora(sp?) of listening
components and venues" sound like crap, we'll master our recordings to sound
good over a similar system. This is bogus engineering and only stimulates
the uninformed buying public to buy the crap they often get stuck with.
No wonder 80% of the pop recordings I here these days
sound like shit on my system.
...Dave
Dave Dal Farra
writes:
>Dick, thanks for the info ! The NS10s have not immpressed me as great
>monitor speakers. A friend bought them for his studio and I couldn't
>beleive how losuy they sounded and how much he had paid for them. His
>reason was "They are suppossed to sound shitty, so that it simulates
>a car radio, ghetto blaster, etc. ". Yeah right !!!
There's no excuse for buying un-musical sppeakers these
days. Paradigm, Mirage, PSB and others sell smallish
but musical speakers for as little as $200.
If the so called recording "Engineers" stopped mastering their
product using garbage speakers, maybe the market would start
supporting accurate & honest speaker designs which offer good value for
the money, instead of the shit these Bozos expect us to buy.
This recording practice kind of feeds on itself, doesn't it?
...Dave
Dennis Hart
It is certainly true that the Japanese (and they are not unique) have produced
some God-awful speakers. However, this is not universally so. I have been
living very happily with a pair of Yamaha NS 1000Ms for over 15 years now. At
the time of their debut (late 70s) they received rave reviews in many
*British* mags, and both their engineering and sound (IMHO) are exemplary.
They still sound very good indeed in comparison with many current highly rated
designs.
Moral: Don't be too anxious to can everything - there just might be a few
exceptions to purported general rule.
Dennis Hart
Dennis Hart
> >The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
> >The drivers are often made from stamped instead of cast metal frames,
> >etc.. There is no engineering that goes into them - they just slap some
> >drivers into a box. If you are not particulalry discriminating they
> >sound fine.
>
>
> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
> richly desrve! If anything they are the classic example of bad Japanese
> speakers. THe use the cheapest drivers, the most unsophisticated
> crossovers, they sound lousy, they measure worse. Why are they so popular?
> To explain again, Yamaha GAVE away multiple hundreds of pairs to studios
> simply to promote them by reputation. People saw them in studios, believed
> them to be wonderful as a result, then bought them for their own studios.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
> | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
> | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
It is certainly true that the Japanese (and they are not unique) have produced
Steve Green
>
> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Shiv Naimpally writes:
>
> >Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
> >companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
> >(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
> >Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
>
> Don't forget Australian speakers. We have a couple of speaker manufacturers
> here that make outstanding products. In particular, I am thinking of
> Interdyn and Duntech. I own a pair of Interdyn BT-2's and found them to
> be the best sounding speakers in their class (ca. US$1500) that I've heard.
Not to mention Richter!
I think I'd happily trade a major body organ for a pair of Duntech
Sovereigns!
:-)
************************************************************************
* Steve Green * "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa' my hat!" *
* Comms Group * "That trick never works" *
* ITS Branch * "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO!" *
* CSIRO Australia * "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat" *
************************************************************************
Trevor Pearson
> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Shiv Naimpally writes:
>
> >Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
> >companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
> >(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
> >Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
>
> Don't forget Australian speakers. We have a couple of speaker manufacturers
> here that make outstanding products. In particular, I am thinking of
> Interdyn and Duntech. I own a pair of Interdyn BT-2's and found them to
> be the best sounding speakers in their class (ca. US$1500) that I've heard.
>
manufacturers in the world (Duntech). but where does he source his
drivers from - Denmark. Nobody has mentioned that some of the best
drivers available in the world including those used in some of the above
brands, are made by Dynaudio. If you include Scan-speak, Vifa and the
other scandinavian manufacturers then they have good claim to world
leaders. I am still of the opinion that the drivers are the most
critical part of a loudspeaker, and this is where the Japanese usually
fall down. Who else would build woofers in the shape of a grand piano?
Yee-Chung Fu
Yes, it's about ten years ago, I read an article a guy use eight
Mark Levinson mono power amp to drive a pair of these Sony 'Esprit'
speakers. And he invited Mark Levinson to audit his speakers. ML's
comment is ' It's hard to beat them.'
YC
Yee-Chung Fu
>>their "Esprit" line. Really nice sounding. About 5 feet
>>tall.
>>
>>Had square rigid flat plate diaphragms. The 'woofer' was a
>>12-inch square plate - with 5 'piston' drivers. The tweeter
>>was about 1" square. I seem to remember 5 different sizes in
>>the box. Really nice sounding.
>>
>>And expensive. I saw/heard these in 1977/78 - and they were
>>$6000/pair then - that'd put them in the $15,000/pair category
>>now.
>>--
>>Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.oau.org bi...@bilver.uucp
>> - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
>
>Mark Levinson mono power amps to drive a pair of these Sony 'Esprit'
>comment is ' It's hard to beat them.'
>YC
set up the system and his room. And he was going to build a cooling system to
take care of his 1600w ML pure A power amps (in another room). All of this
is just for the Sony Esprit speakers.
YC
Kuusama Juha,,,VTT,
>
> ... The NS10s have not immpressed me as great
> monitor speakers. A friend bought them for his studio and I couldn't
> beleive how losuy they sounded and how much he had paid for them. His
> reason was "They are suppossed to sound shitty, so that it simulates
> a car radio, ghetto blaster, etc. ". Yeah right !!!
>
that the NS-10 is the "perfect" lousy speaker. It has all the faults
a car radio etc. would have, yet it is not overdoing any single mistake.
(Like it has poor bass but it has some bass anyway, it has poor frequency
response, but all frequencies come through somehow etc.) Both of the
engineers used the Yamaha's to check that their mix would not miss
any vital points when listened over poor speakers.
The explanation sounds very reasonable to me. After all, most listening
is done in cars or otherwise through a "poor" system.
--
Juha
Richard D Pierce
>maw...@aldetec.oz.au (Graeme Mawson) writes:
>Well thanks to an American we do have one of the best speaker
>manufacturers in the world (Duntech). but where does he source his
>drivers from - Denmark. Nobody has mentioned that some of the best
>drivers available in the world including those used in some of the above
>brands, are made by Dynaudio. If you include Scan-speak, Vifa and the
>other scandinavian manufacturers then they have good claim to world
>leaders.
Except that in my dealings with some of the larger Japanese and Taiwanese
driver manufacturers, they are demonstrably capable of manufacturing
drivers that are equal to or the superior of anything the people in
Scandanavia can do. At least, once they are lead, kicking and screaming,
to a good design, that is.
I have designed about a dozen different drivers to be made by some of
these Far Eastern manufacturers. It's been an uphill struggle trying to
get them to do it right. I get the magnet/voice coil design right, and
they decide to change the dustcap, because the new one is "better". I get
that fixed, they change cone molds. And so on. They quite literally seem
to design simply by shotgun approach. They just "change" things so they're
"better" and are completely unable to articulate a technical justification
for that day's version of "better". They simply do not seem to have a clue.
Further, they want to reserve the right to, at their discretion, simply
substitute parts that are cosmetically similar with no regard to
performance. They seem to be more interested in appearances, delivery
schedules and the like, and don't seem to care one wit about performance.
And it's the same thing with a dozen or so of my clients encompassing a
half million drivers a year.
Once I have finalized on a design, I force them into a contract situation
where my client has the right to refuse an entire shipment if the
statistics of a sample of the population do not meet my criteria. That
means not only do they swalllow a whole bunch of custom drivers, they also
have to eat overseas shipping and so on. The result is that once we agree
on a set of specs, they are able to manufacture drivers with outstanding
tolerances, far surpassing what anyone else is capable of. Typical
standard deviations on the compliance for European woofers is in the range
of 20%, for the Far East manufacturers it's typically 5-7%.
EILIF LIEN
>
>There's no excuse for buying un-musical sppeakers these
>days. Paradigm, Mirage, PSB and others sell smallish
>but musical speakers for as little as $200.
>
>If the so called recording "Engineers" stopped mastering their
>product using garbage speakers, maybe the market would start
>supporting accurate & honest speaker designs which offer good value for
>the money, instead of the shit these Bozos expect us to buy.
>This recording practice kind of feeds on itself, doesn't it?
>
Mr. Hildebrandt! Read this and learn!
Eilif, fed-up with unnessecary shitty sounding records
Shiv Naimpally
|> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Shiv Naimpally writes:
|>
|> >Yamaha makes better speakers than the other Japanese
|> >companies but American (Vandersteen, DCM, Thiel, etc.), Canadian
|> >(Paradigm, Energy, Axiom, PSB, etc.) and British (B&W, KEF, Mission,
|> >Celestion etc.) make btter speakers.
|>
|> Don't forget Australian speakers. We have a couple of speaker manufacturers
|> here that make outstanding products. In particular, I am thinking of
|> Interdyn and Duntech. I own a pair of Interdyn BT-2's and found them to
|> be the best sounding speakers in their class (ca. US$1500) that I've heard.
I guess all the ex-Brit colonies are doing well speaker-wise. Thanks
for pointing this out. I have heard of Duntech, and have read good reviews
of them. I mistakenly thought they were <gasp> British. My point was
only that the poster should listen to other speakers first. The examples
were off the top of my head and I thought of other good speakers I
left off afterward ...
Getting back to the NS10Ms. The argument that they are 'brilliant
near-field monitors' and at the same time suitable for a 'plethora
of environments' is a crock. Either they are accurate, ie. have
a flat freq. response, low distortion, image well, and in general
present the music with minimal colouration, or they sound like
the speakers in a cheap car radio or ghetto blaster. Unfortunately,
its the latter. Tannoy and others make far better nearfield monitors.
I asked a friend who owns a studio about NS10Ms and he said that people
used them only because they were available in every studio, so you
could take your music anywhere and be guaranteed to find a pair
of 10Ms at the studio. He doesn't like them either and only has the 10Ms
because clients have used them at other studios.
Tom Kuchar
>I've always heard that Japanese are really poor in comparison to American.
>I was wondering what people mean when they say this? Is it poor components
>or poor overall sound or what? I listened to a pair of Yamaha NS-A835's
>today and really thought they were pretty good, just a little sweet on the
>high end and really tight bass.
This was what I was told last weekend while auditioning speakers.
I bought a Yamaha RX-850 receiver and connected it to my 8yr old
Yamaha speakers (sorry don't remember the model #). The high frequencies
were so piercing coming from the speakers, that they were completely
intolerable.
I told the salesman this, which made me decided to think about replacing
them. He told me that the Japanese make the worst speakers. He said
they are engineered well, but that speaker making is an art as well
as a science. The Japanese don't have a grasp of the art aspect.
I asked which countries make the best speakers, and was told Britian
and the US. I listened to some B&Ws and Celestion and was really
impressed by them. These are both made in England.
--
Tom Kuchar
kuc...@buast7.bu.edu -or- kuc...@plh.af.mil
Department of Astronomy Phillips Laboratory/GPOB
Boston Univerity Hanscom AFB
Lon Stowell
>
>The explanation sounds very reasonable to me. After all, most listening
>is done in cars or otherwise through a "poor" system.
In a word, manure. Maybe for radio with the typical
overcompressed, over-EQ'd signal typical of the AOR FM stations.
But if you grundge up the source material, these music-hating
nerds that own the stations are not going to disable their
pre-processing..so you get even worse non-music.
Whether or not you like CD's, they have led to improvements in
the audio chain such that the average home system is at least
lower mid-fi.....and usually has speakers well over the quality
of the NS-10's.
Heck, the average set of walkman headphones sounds better than
the NS-10's...and that is another claimed target market.
Even Radio Shack's average boom-tink speaker sounds better than
the NS-10's.
I really can't imagine the target market the NS-10 proponents
have in mind. [Well, yes I can, but netiquette frowns on
profanity of that type.]
Lon Stowell
>
>I have designed about a dozen different drivers to be made by some of
>these Far Eastern manufacturers. It's been an uphill struggle trying to
>get them to do it right. I get the magnet/voice coil design right, and
>they decide to change the dustcap, because the new one is "better". I get
>that fixed, they change cone molds. And so on. They quite literally seem
>to design simply by shotgun approach. They just "change" things so they're
>"better" and are completely unable to articulate a technical justification
>for that day's version of "better". They simply do not seem to have a clue.
>
>Further, they want to reserve the right to, at their discretion, simply
>substitute parts that are cosmetically similar with no regard to
>performance. They seem to be more interested in appearances, delivery
>schedules and the like, and don't seem to care one wit about performance.
>And it's the same thing with a dozen or so of my clients encompassing a
>half million drivers a year.
I'd say you have pretty accurately summed up the REAL design
philosophy of the Japanese companies almost without exception.
I honestly don't know anyone who has actually dealt with the
Japanese manufacturers in automobiles, audio, or computers who
doesn't have a similar opinion. My personal background is in
large mainframes and crt terminals, but my opinion of their
design attitudes agrees absolutely with the kind of practices you
just posted.
Needless to say all the American press claims for technical
superiority of Japanese over American companies is a total
mystery to me....having actually experienced same.
To be fair, in my experience, most of the design changes were
always to make maximum use of existing inventory and reduce
manufacturing costs. Almost without exception, these goals
were paramount...and almost without exception the functional
specifications were not given due priority.
>Once I have finalized on a design, I force them into a contract situation
>where my client has the right to refuse an entire shipment if the
>statistics of a sample of the population do not meet my criteria. That
>means not only do they swalllow a whole bunch of custom drivers, they also
>have to eat overseas shipping and so on. The result is that once we agree
>on a set of specs, they are able to manufacture drivers with outstanding
>tolerances, far surpassing what anyone else is capable of. Typical
>standard deviations on the compliance for European woofers is in the range
>of 20%, for the Far East manufacturers it's typically 5-7%.
>
That seems to be about the only way to get consistent
output...make damned sure upfront that you fully specify the
functional and performance characteristics that you expect all
units to meet. That and rejecting an entire shipment for a
single fault. Once they figure out where they can and cannot
take shortcuts, I would say that the far eastern manufacturers
have production lines with AQL's unavailable elsewhere in the
world.
Yee-Chung Fu
>
>My answer to the subject question is that most, if not all, Japanese
>speakers being imported into the US are not competitive sonically.
>Most of them are cheap however. The really high end Japanese hifi
>components are very hard to find in the US or are terribly expensive
>(e.g. Accuphase, Stax, Airtight). Now that I'm thinking, I cannot
>recall a high end Japanese speaker. Does Stax make one?
Have you heard about the Japanese 'Audio Note' power amp?
50 watts costs 90,000 pounds. That's amazing.
YC
Keith M. Ryan
>
>>> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>>> ...
>
>>I thought the NS-10's were used by studios to give them an idea of
>>what their music would sound like when played back on the low fi,
>>low quality speakers posessed by the average listener.
>
>Actually, a comment I often hear is that a mix done on NS-10's
>sounds great on a good system, but mixes done on (name some other
>speaker) sounds lifeless. And that the NS-10's have "pinpoint imaging"
>and so on.
>
>So, go figure.
>
>- Jim
It is sad that the worst equipment used in the entire audio chain
usually is in the recording/mixing stage. If staging is not recorded into
the media, it can not be reproduced. If there is no deep bass ( 20-40 Hz ),
there is no way to regain it. Sure, you can use some dsp tricks to make some
artificial staging, etc. But, they usually sound rather artificial.
What is the point in listening to music mixed with NS-10's on an
audiophile grade system?
My main gripe about mainstream recordings ( pop/rock/etc ):
They record for the lowest denomination.
Heck, there are many CD's which actually sound more listenable on a
cr@ppy radio than an accurate one. I have heard cut after cut with somekind
of low end, "grundge" or "rumble" in the deep bass. I swear it must be some
air conditioning duct or something. Only, they can not hear it on thier
mixing monitors.
---
Hitler thought he was efficient at killing innocent beings.
That is, until he met God.
Richard D Pierce
> Needless to say all the American press claims for technical
> superiority of Japanese over American companies is a total
> mystery to me....having actually experienced same.
>
press would be right in this case. With some notable exceptions that are
in the almost invisible minority, the American driver manufacturers are
simply stupid and, for some reason, afraid to make money. I have been
forced to deal with the Far East for OEM driver purchases because of both
the inability and the unwillingness of domestic manufacturers to produce
drivers of fairly mundance specifications correctly and with any degree of
consistancy whatsoever. In six months, I might have to go through 5-6
iterations with a Far East manufacturer before they get it right (and
usually I end up building the prototype for them). In the same six months,
the American vendors are deciding whether to respond or not. In the end,
it's the Far East vendor that gets the $100,000 order, and the Americans
simply loose out.
The American vendors continue to shoot themselves in the foot. They suffer
from a level of both technical and (most especially) bureaucratic
incompetence that is simply amazing. Even considering the economic times,
the right person with about $1M in capital and the right marketing and
manufacturing plan could completely dominate the U.S. high quality OEM, semi
custom and DIY driver market, turning it into a nice $5-$8M a year
business fairly quickly (hint, hint, hint :-)
Matt Kennel
:
: I honestly don't know anyone who has actually dealt with the
: Japanese manufacturers in automobiles, audio, or computers who
: doesn't have a similar opinion. My personal background is in
: large mainframes and crt terminals, but my opinion of their
: design attitudes agrees absolutely with the kind of practices you
: just posted.
:
: Needless to say all the American press claims for technical
: superiority of Japanese over American companies is a total
: mystery to me....having actually experienced same.
:
: To be fair, in my experience, most of the design changes were
: always to make maximum use of existing inventory and reduce
: manufacturing costs. Almost without exception, these goals
: were paramount...and almost without exception the functional
: specifications were not given due priority.
And what about successes like Toyota? RAM chips?
Actually I'd interpret this as mercantalist business practices: they
do not really want to ship just parts to a potential competitor; they'd rather
reserve the really good stuff and their effort for their domestic
manufacturers. They'd rather sell the final product.
RAM seems like an exception: but RAM itself is a profitable product
and the Japanese essentially have total lock on that industry.
--
-Matt Kennel m...@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-*** lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Bill Vermillion
>In article <1993Feb25.1...@ryn.mro4.dec.com> ro...@gauss.enet.dec.com (Jim Roth) writes:
>>
>>>> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>>>> ...
>>>I thought the NS-10's were used by studios to give them an idea of
>>>what their music would sound like when played back on the low fi,
>>>low quality speakers posessed by the average listener.
>>Actually, a comment I often hear is that a mix done on NS-10's
>>sounds great on a good system, but mixes done on (name some other
>>speaker) sounds lifeless. And that the NS-10's have "pinpoint imaging"
>>and so on.
> It is sad that the worst equipment used in the entire audio chain
>usually is in the recording/mixing stage. If staging is not recorded into
>the media, it can not be reproduced. If there is no deep bass ( 20-40 Hz ),
>there is no way to regain it. Sure, you can use some dsp tricks to make some
>artificial staging, etc. But, they usually sound rather artificial.
> What is the point in listening to music mixed with NS-10's on an
>audiophile grade system?
The NS-10's won't degrade the signal, you just won't hear it in the
mix.
I >suspect< that one of the problems in mixing is that the producers
only get to hear wide range systems in the studio, and they have been
bitten from recording that sound great in the studio but don't in the
real world.
All this comes from not being able judge balances on a wide range
system. So if they can hear all the parts on a small system they
won't get lost on a good system, but the reverse is not true.
In one of my past lives - when I was a DJ/Music Director/Program
Director (before I wound up a recording engineer) I remember one big
hit from Motown that you would never hear the intro on any small system
because of the way the bass was eq'd. Sounded great on a wide range,
but parts were totally missing on a small system. They probably
didn't check it on small speakers. This was before the days of every
studio have a set of AuraTones, and before the NS-10's. I positively
hated the latter.
A good engineer should be able to mix and EQ on a wide range system and
have it sound good in a car, or boom box or on an audiophile system.
However, it appears that some engineers, or producers (since they are
the ones paying for the session and directing the final sounds) mix
entirely on little speakers. After all, it's the producer who really
has the most to lose. Artists (and I use that term advisedly) are
usually signed for a minimum number of releases. And producers get
changed like socks.
Many years ago we did a session for a group that wound up with a couple
of million selling albums. I think it was the 2nd album we did for
them. The producer and engineer came to town and were not really
familiar with our studio. But the tapes that left were wide range,
particularly for a Southern rock band. The tapes had a good bottom
end, and really sounded good.
But when I heard the final mix, which was done at the engineers
favorite hangout in LA, it sounded like it was coming over a car
speaker - even when played on a wdie range system. Thank God, I was
only listed as second engineer on that one :-)
Used properly, small speakers can be used to check balances for proper
playback on cheap systems, but I have seen session where they were the
'prime' mixing speaker.
Another thing that really distorts the producers perspective, is that
in the pop area many like to listen at concert levels in the control
room. There have been several times that I left the control room when
the producer was doing a final listen. They liked to listen at levels
that were obscenely loud. And of course after a bit of that your
hearing shuts down to the point that any further mixing that day winds
up harder and harsher.
Too often the producer - and often the engineer - have come out of
backgrounds that are more concert oriented, and those don't have much
relationship to recorded audio.
One notable exception to the latter I found was years ago at a Chuck
Mangione concert. He kept his concerts to relatively small halls, 2 -
4 thousand max. And he had as his sound mixer, the same person who did
his recording. This person was a recording engineer first and
foremost.
And it was the only system that I ever saw that use McInstosh power
amps for re-inforcement. During a sound check in the afternoon I
distintly remember being about 30 rows back but if you'd close your
eyes you'd swear Mangion was less than 20 feet away. That was the
only sound system in a live concert situation that I've heard that
sound just like a bigger than life decent audio system. Just a bit
short of audiophile quality.
> My main gripe about mainstream recordings ( pop/rock/etc ):
> They record for the lowest denomination.
I watched the change in the music industry that started in earnest in
the mid-60s. Up until then the people that ran the record companies
were in it for the music, and were typically musicians. And then they
became 'bottom line' oriented, and the company heads were predominently
laywers. $$$ - that was the bottom line.
It went from an industry that made money from an art form, while
preserving some of the art, to an industry that oriented to dollars
first music second. There was room in the industry for musicians who
only sold 50 - 100 thousand copies of any album, but would do it album
after album after album. Then as the multi-tracking and
over-production became the norm, and album expenses, production and
promotion, started hitting $250,000 for run-of-the-mill groups,
the companies got rid of anyone who could NOT sell a million.
Music became a commodity, and the 'rock star' was born. Money first,
music second.
> Heck, there are many CD's which actually sound more listenable on a
>cr@ppy radio than an accurate one. I have heard cut after cut with somekind
>of low end, "grundge" or "rumble" in the deep bass. I swear it must be some
>air conditioning duct or something. Only, they can not hear it on thier
>mixing monitors.
That has been true for years - but not just in pop music. Recording
studio monitors have never been as good as high end home systems. I
have one recording that obviously was miked quite closely and the
monitors probably didn't go below about 40-50Hz in the recording
environment.
There is a spot where the singer almost pops the mike on a "P". On a
wide range system you can feel the "P" - there is a pressure that hit's
you in the chest. It was just short of overloading the mike -
and I'm really surprised it got cut on the vinyl.
As was previously brought up in this thread, certain speakers tend to
be trendy and a large number of people use them, not because they were
good, but because others use them.
How does this happen? There are a lot of very insecure and
superstitious people out there. And it's a business where you are
judged on what you do know. It doesn't make any difference if you
produced 100 albums in a row that sold a million. If you do a couple
in a row that don't sell, you don't work. And most of the good pop
producers also get a percentage of the album sales, in addition to
their production fees and expenses.
And their success, or lack of it, affect the studio. If band ABC has a
hit in studio XYZ, then band DEF just HAS to use that studio - because
that's where the hits are. "Magic" is attributed to certain
producers and/or studios. If a record doesn't sell scapegoats are
searched out with a vengeance. It is an engineers fault, or a studio,
or the wrong producer, or the promotion department of the record
company. Or it might be the distribution chain who didn't get records
into the market properly. The fingers get pointed everywhere except
where it truly belongs - lack of material or lack of talent. Or
mis-directed talent.
So if ABC had a record that isn't a hit, they now go to JKL studios.
If they have a hit there, everyone followw them there because of the
'magic' in the studio, and XYZ just sits there with lots of available
studio time. That's one reason a lot of the major studio shifted their
focus to commercial/industrial production.
I don't know how many groups in the pop album boom of the 70's had one
or two big hits, and then decided they knew more than the record
company or the producer, so they produced themselves - and were never
heard from again.
I spent 10 years full time in the studio - full time means 60-80 hour
weeks. When we built our final studio, which was state-of-the-art
when it was finished, I avereraged 77.5 hours per week for 3 1/2 years.
It was fun. I miss the creativity that went into some of the session,
but I do NOT miss the politics that went along with it. Some of the
major labels were a real pain-in-the-ass (to put it mildly) to work
with. But then you'd get a chance to work with someone who was really
talented and it was pure joy.
So when you point the finger at the recording engineer - it's not
always his fault - or the fault of the equipment. Sometimes we want
to do better, but we aren't permiited to.
And I remember one session - that I thankfully wasn't involved with -
where someone had an idea that they could really 'make money' with.
Unrealistic production schedules. Unrealist judgement of talent.
Over optimistic expectations - and rush, rush, rush.
The project turned out so poorly that the real producer and engineer
asked the 'executive' producer to make sure that their names were NOT
on the final product. They were afraid if people knew they were
associated with it, they would be judged by that product and not get
much work.
In the end, the real driving force behind 'pop' music, is money.
That is true for a great majority of companies. Thankfully that is
not true for all of them. There are some out there making money while
producing real music.
Jim Roth
In article <1993Feb28....@bilver.uucp>, bi...@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes...
>In article <kmr4.1012...@po.CWRU.edu> km...@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb25.1...@ryn.mro4.dec.com> ro...@gauss.enet.dec.com (Jim Roth) writes:
>>>
>>>>> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>>>>> ...
>One notable exception to the latter I found was years ago at a Chuck
>Mangione concert. He kept his concerts to relatively small halls, 2 -
>4 thousand max. And he had as his sound mixer, the same person who did
>his recording. This person was a recording engineer first and
>foremost.
Yes, I've seen him perform out at Tanglewood and the sound was quite nice.
>And it was the only system that I ever saw that use McInstosh power
>amps for re-inforcement.
The Grateful Dead used stacks of McIntosh amps for their "Wall of Sound"
system during the early 70's (and have continued to use them, though I haven't
been to a show since fall tour 83...) They had all kinds of stuff, like
custom electronics designed by John Curl, separate amps and speakers for
each string on the bass guitar, etc. Awsome sound. There was even an AES
presentation on that system. But it was a logistic nightmare. (And sound
reinforcement has come a long way since then too.)
> ... lots of other interesting comments on the scene then and now ...
The vast majority of the pop stuff out there is like eating at MacDonalds.
- Jim
Graeme Gill
>DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
>> In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>> >The Japanese have not spent much effort in designing decent speakers.
>> God I wish the Yamaha NS-10's would die the embarrasing death they so
>what their music would sound like when played back on the low fi,
>low quality speakers posessed by the average listener.
NS-10's may not be the greatest speakers on earth, but they are
hardly lo-fi. For small two way speakers they are reasonably smooth
and clean. If they weren't tolerably good, I don't think they
would be kept around in studios even if they were being given away.
The main thing they lack on their own is deep bass, but a sub-woofer
seems to work well with them. I'm sure the main monitor speakers of
a recording studio cost a lot more $$ than a pair of NS-10's.
Graeme Gill.
Bob Neidorff
A few have hinted that some recording engineers want a monitor
speaker that will sound like the home speaker so that they can
mix the sound for the masses. It sounds good to the quick
read. Is this a valid theory in any regard?
I mean, some home speakers are treble shy, while others are
treble rich. Some have boomy bass, while others have no bass.
How can you have a "perfect" representation of a bad speaker?
If there were common ground, in terms of a common flaw, I would
think that eventually everyone would design out that simple flaw.
Now, taking things further, will music mixed for that common
flaw sound better on equipment with that flaw, or will it sound
worse in the long run than correctly mixed music?
People do use well-recorded music to evaluate new speaker designs,
right?
I keep remembering RCA Dynagroove. :-(
--
Bob Neidorff; Unitrode I. C. Corp. | Internet: neid...@uicc.com
7 Continental Blvd. | Voice : (US) 603-424-2410
Merrimack, NH 03054-0399 USA | FAX : (US) 603-424-3460
Richard D Pierce
> NS-10's may not be the greatest speakers on earth, but they are
>hardly lo-fi. For small two way speakers they are reasonably smooth
>and clean. If they weren't tolerably good, I don't think they
>would be kept around in studios even if they were being given away.
You make an assertion here that NS-10's are "reasonably smooth and clean."
Do you mean to say that they have a smooth frequency response and low
disortion? If that it your claim, then I challenge you to back it up with
frequency response and distortion measurements. I have measured NS-10's
under a variety of conditions, and not one single measurement supports
your assertion of "smooth and clean." Their frequency response is
embarrasigly bad, they have lousy unit-to-unit consistancy, they have
remarkably high levels of distortion and mundanely low output levels. Just
what is it you mean by "smooth and clean?"
And why don't you think they wouldn't be kept around if they weren't
"tolerably good?" I think the overwhelmingly impressive sales figures of
some of the lousiest speakers in the world (to both the consumer and
professional market) lay waste to your implied assertion of what
constitutes "tolerable."
As to whether they are "lo-fi" or not is less of a matter of opinion than
you might like to admit. That they are better than many speakers is
immaterial, because most speakers are decidedly lousy. If my choice was
between a pair of NS-10's and a pile of worse speakers, silence would be
most welcome.
>The main thing they lack on their own is deep bass, but a sub-woofer
>seems to work well with them. I'm sure the main monitor speakers of
>a recording studio cost a lot more $$ than a pair of NS-10's.
Yes, indeed they do, and often times they are no better, just much more
expensive. Bill Vermillion's fairly length post under the same subject
tells much about how studio equipment is chosen. It has little to do with
accuracy or quality or suitability to the task. It has to do with force of
personality, politics, greed, sex, magic and folklore. None of which in
any way assure high quality or high accuracy.
The view that something is either popular or commonplace in recording
studios because it is somehow high quality is simply naive and childish.
The world, I am afraid, is a lot more nefarious than you might be willing
to accept.
Lon Stowell
>
>And what about successes like Toyota? RAM chips?
>
>Actually I'd interpret this as mercantalist business practices: they
>do not really want to ship just parts to a potential competitor; they'd rather
>reserve the really good stuff and their effort for their domestic
>manufacturers. They'd rather sell the final product.
>
engineering. Once you get a design spec sufficiently hacked out
and discover which parts are subject to cost or manufacturability
changes and which aren't, nobody can crank out volumes of quality
products like the Japanese.
However when it comes to R+D type design work, they are good but
definitely not unbeatable.
However some other differences are due to culture
differences...I'm certain they find many of our products just as
strange as I find theirs.
>RAM seems like an exception: but RAM itself is a profitable product
>and the Japanese essentially have total lock on that industry.
And they are definitely going for a lock on the audio market as
well it seems. But with formidable manufacturing engineering,
not IMHO genius design in the base technology.
Bill Vermillion
>The view that something is either popular or commonplace in recording
>studios because it is somehow high quality is simply naive and childish.
>The world, I am afraid, is a lot more nefarious than you might be willing
>to accept.
There are some (or should I say a few) studios who do go for high
quality - I think I can say our old studio was one of them.
But what Dick says is really the way it is. A person who has never
been in a studio imagines all sorts of glamorous and exotic things.
It just isn't so. I remember many of my visits to recording studios
before we built our last one.
I have been in some of the legendary studios - including Columibia's
old studio in Nashville - formerly Bradley's Barn. I remember being
there when Bob Johnson played us the first 3 cuts he did on Dylan's
John Wesley Hardin album. There were A-7's hung by chains, and the
monitor meters for their only 8-track - a cast of from the NYC
studios, were 8 little meters stuck on the far side of the console -
and they were $10 meters. They might have come from Radio Shack.
I have also been in the old RCA Studio A - gone for about 15 years or
more - where most of the legendary Presley stuff was cut. These studio
were about as exotic as your local radio station.
People see pictures of one or two of the showcase, state-of-the-art,
cost-is-no-object recording studios, an project that view in their
imagination.
Imagine you had never seen an automobile before. Then you saw a
Ferrari, and then a Lamborghini - and then you thought all cars were
that way. That's stretching it a bit, but not as much as you might
imagine.
A.J.Ro...@lut.ac.uk
Yes, they do.
They also blow.
Alternately, between 5 and 50000 times every second !
Sorry guys ! :-)
Alan.
Graeme Gill
> In article <1993Mar1.0...@labtam.labtam.oz.au> gra...@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill) writes:
> > NS-10's may not be the greatest speakers on earth, but they are
> >hardly lo-fi. For small two way speakers they are reasonably smooth
> >and clean. If they weren't tolerably good, I don't think they
> >would be kept around in studios even if they were being given away.
>
> You make an assertion here that NS-10's are "reasonably smooth and clean."
> Do you mean to say that they have a smooth frequency response and low
> disortion? If that it your claim, then I challenge you to back it up with
> frequency response and distortion measurements.
I can actually do so, since they came with exactly that information.
Of course I have no way of verifying the methology or equipment used
by Yamaha to produce that information, but both Yamha's reputation and
the care that they say has been put into the product re-assures me that
it is probably close to the mark.
[ Yes, that could all be just "good marketing" ]
> I have measured NS-10's
> under a variety of conditions, and not one single measurement supports
> your assertion of "smooth and clean." Their frequency response is
> embarrasigly bad, they have lousy unit-to-unit consistency, they have
> remarkably high levels of distortion and mundanely low output levels. Just
> what is it you mean by "smooth and clean?"
This is an interesting assertion, but exactly which model NS-10's
are you referring to ? They sound reasonably clean compared to my $3000
4 way speakers in my "HiFi" system. Of course this may not be much of a
reference :-)
> And why don't you think they wouldn't be kept around if they weren't
> "tolerably good?"
If they were so bad as to have gross distortion, high frequency
roll off, greater than 6 db bumps in the frequency response, then I doubt
they could even fill the role of "check out" speakers.
> I think the overwhelmingly impressive sales figures of
> some of the lousiest speakers in the world (to both the consumer and
> professional market) lay waste to your implied assertion of what
> constitutes "tolerable."
You obviously have a "thing" about NS-10's. As I said, I'm
prepared to believe that there are many better speakers out there, but
NS-10's are a good level above what you'll find in sub A$1000 consumer
systems. (most of those have cone tweaters for gods sake!).
> If my choice was between a pair of NS-10's and a pile of worse
> speakers, silence would be most welcome.
I guess your expectations are a lot higher than mine. Sorting out bullshit
from real quality is difficult without a lab full of gear and the
ability to obtain samples to test. I don't trust subjective impressions
too much.
> The view that something is either popular or commonplace in recording
> studios because it is somehow high quality is simply naive and childish.
> The world, I am afraid, is a lot more nefarious than you might be willing
> to accept.
This may be true, but I wouldn't expect really awful gear to
survive in a professional environment. Too many people who half
know what they're doing would come across it and "can" it.
Just out of interest, what brand/model of speakers, of approximately
the same size and cost, _would_ you recommend to use as high quality monitoring
speakers ? How much better than NS-10s do you think they are ? (in subjective
or objective terms)
Graeme Gill
Electronic Design Engineer
Labtam Australia
Trevor Pearson
>
> A few have hinted that some recording engineers want a monitor
> speaker that will sound like the home speaker so that they can
> mix the sound for the masses. It sounds good to the quick
> read. Is this a valid theory in any regard?
>
> I mean, some home speakers are treble shy, while others are
> treble rich. Some have boomy bass, while others have no bass.
>
> How can you have a "perfect" representation of a bad speaker?
>
> If there were common ground, in terms of a common flaw, I would
> think that eventually everyone would design out that simple flaw.
>
radio. There is a problem with physics to be dealt with. Also money
prevents people buying the HiFi equipment that has these problems
designed out. ( or space or...)
> Now, taking things further, will music mixed for that common
> flaw sound better on equipment with that flaw, or will it sound
> worse in the long run than correctly mixed music?
>
A lot of people have made the assertion that monitoring on low fi
speakers will make the problem worse. This is not true. The monitor
speakers are not part of the recording chain such as a microphone, they
are used simply to listen to what the final product will sound like. The
best example is when a bass guitar part sounds good on a 15" 10 cubic
feet monitor at 110 dB, will you hear it on the average transistor
radio. If that happens to be a solo, it is going to sound very funny
indeed when listened to by some people. I do not want to argue the pro's
and cons of this attitude, I would be very happy if all music was
recorded for maximum fidelity on theoretically perfect equipment, but I
also know it wont happen while most consumers have low fi equipment.
Even classical music is not exempt, the current popularity of 6 inch
"woofers" creates a problem for the engineer. Should he expect that the
listeners speakers will be flat to 20Hz when recording organ music etc.
I have a recording of "Thus spake zarathustra" that sounds fine on my
sub woofer. You can barely hear the opening passage on a friends
Interdyns (6" woofer Vs 15"). And yes I have heard it at a live concert.
In the final analysis quality is all very well, but you still have to
sell it.
> People do use well-recorded music to evaluate new speaker designs,
> right?
>
Hopefully :-) some anyway.
> I keep remembering RCA Dynagroove. :-(
>
Fortunately no longer a problem.
brandon milner
have tried to mix on these in our schoold recording studio and have
wanted to tear my hair out as they sound so completely hideous that it
is impossible to tell what going on. They are good however for a few
things.
They bottom out audibly when there is too much bass in the
mix, I factor that can't be readily determined over better speakers as
they tend to be able to reproduce it clearly. A lot of music gets
heard over clock radio's and TV's and you need to know how much bass
is a good amount.
Everyone I know, but me, mixes on these things (I mix on
celestion 5's) and they swear by them because they are familiar with
them which is 99% of what makes a good recording studio speaker.
Brandon
Scott Amspoker
>The debate thusfar has contended that Yamaha Ns-10's suck utterly. I
>have tried to mix on these in our schoold recording studio and have
>wanted to tear my hair out as they sound so completely hideous that it
>is impossible to tell what going on. They are good however for a few
>things.
> Everyone I know, but me, mixes on these things (I mix on
>celestion 5's) and they swear by them because they are familiar with
>them which is 99% of what makes a good recording studio speaker.
Amen. I personally use JBL 4206's and I love 'em. However, an
aquaintance of mine who owns and operates a respected studio here
in Albuquerque described the NS10's very well. He said as long as
you don't try to "correct" the sound of the NS10's in your mix you
will be just fine. In other words, become familiar with them.
Listen to other recordings on them to know what you're dealing with.
--
Scott Amspoker | Head like a hole, black as your soul.
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | I'd rather die
| Than give you control.
sc...@bbx.basis.com | - Nine Inch Nails
Bill Vermillion
>
>A few have hinted that some recording engineers want a monitor
>speaker that will sound like the home speaker so that they can
>mix the sound for the masses. It sounds good to the quick
>read. Is this a valid theory in any regard?
>I keep remembering RCA Dynagroove. :-(
Interesting you should bring that up. I was just looking up
some information for Larry Spence, and ran across the paper
that Harry Olson presented to the AES in 1964 on RCA's
Dynagroove system.
It was only about 6 years after the first stereo LP, and they
had done a lot of research.
It was one of those things that when looked at over the passage
of time seemed logical at the time, but history has shown they
were on the wrong track.
The original paper involved the 'musician' and the
'engineer-scientist'. They broke down the entire recording
process and designated which was musician, which engineer, and
which were joint collaborations.
They studied noise floors in recording, in tyipcal
environments. They studied playback levels in real life and in
typical homes.
The concept was "what would you have to do to the signal - to
in effect have microphones record in the studio, and then play
directly through speaker systems in the home to give the effect
of the studio".
It was the idea of recreating the live experience as much as
possible in the home, and for those not used to live, to bring
the impact of live into the home.
Their studies are very much dated today as then they showed the
maximum 'typical' home listening level was about 80 db.
There were charts showing the noise levels in the typical home.
That had active equalization that varied with the levels. It
was sort of an advanced system of automatic loudness control
based on level and frequency content of the signals.
They had things designed for this concept, all the way from
consoles, equalizers, microphones, etc.
All in all it was an interesting idea. It seemed to be just
one of those things that just didn't work out in practice,
although the concept sounded good.
In retrospect, and with the addition of 20/20 hindsight - RCA
tried to build a system that would give 'enhanced' performance
on the average home system. But since this was just a few
short years after the introduction of the first stereo disks,
and just at the beginning of audio awareness, it was the wrong
thing at the right time - or the right thing about 20 years too
late.
Scott Fisher
>The debate thusfar has contended that Yamaha Ns-10's suck utterly. I
>have tried to mix on these in our schoold recording studio and have
>wanted to tear my hair out as they sound so completely hideous that it
>is impossible to tell what going on. They are good however for a few
>things.
I would not own a pair for my living-room, but they are fairly representative
of the "average" speaker.
> They bottom out audibly when there is too much bass in the
>mix, I factor that can't be readily determined over better speakers as
>they tend to be able to reproduce it clearly. A lot of music gets
>heard over clock radio's and TV's and you need to know how much bass
>is a good amount.
The lack of decent bass in modern pop music has always concerned me.
Occasionaly when a "good" recoding goes on...I wonder where all the
bass came from. My system is fairly neutral and does not artificially
bloat the bass like many seem to do. It is often reassuring to know that
my system can reproduce bass, if it's there :-)
Scott
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).
_--_|\ N
Department of Psychology / \ W + E
University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Lindstrom
>That is true for a great majority of companies. Thankfully that is
>not true for all of them. There are some out there making money while
>producing real music.
Nice write-up, Bill. I can tell it is a topic close to your heart.
Would you, or can you, tell us what labels you trust to do good mixes?
Even though I've been accused to liking "elevator music" for saying I
like GRP, I like them. I just got a 3-CD set from them on 20 yrs
work of the Crusaders. This set was done by allowing the original
artists to pick which recordings to use to highlight their work. At first
I rated it about average for audiophile things like imaging, but then I
got caught up in the music and have to rate it as FANTASTIC for artistic
merit. The set was mixed with Acoustic Energy AEI speakers.
I also like Micky Hart's "Dafos" on RYKO. This CD also lists the monitors:
Meyer 833 with subs as well as all the other mixing and recording gear.
LL Cool J's "Walking with a Panther" from Columbia makes no mention of
studio monitors used - not surprising. Though I enjoy this CD, I wouldn't
call it audiophile other than it goes very low.
Chesky's Ana Caram - "Amazonia" says B&W 801's were used while "the
Other side of Jomib" doesn't mention the monitor (just VTL electronics).
Dave Grusin's "Discovered Again" from Sheffield Lab makes no mention of
monitor electronics but it was Direct-to-disc.
I find it interesting that many of the CDs I like tell us what was used
to produce them, but not all do. I enjoy reading what was used so the
more info on this the better.
Thanks
Kirk out
=> "We are what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kirk Lindstrom - OCD Product R & D | Hewlett-Packard Co. M/S: 91UA |
| Engineer/Scientist, Hardware | |
|------------------------------------| Optical Communication Division |
| kirk_li...@sj.hp.com | |
| Kirk Lindstrom / HP0100/UX | 370 W. Trimble Rd. |
| ph 408 435 6404 | fax 408 435 6286 | San Jose, CA 95131-1096 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Len Moskowitz
>Nice write-up, Bill. I can tell it is a topic close to your heart.
>Would you, or can you, tell us what labels you trust to do good mixes?
I'm not Bill but I'll put in my two cents:
Try anything recorded by Tom Jung on the DMP label.
--
Len Moskowitz
mosk...@panix.com
Bill Vermillion
>>In the end, the real driving force behind 'pop' music, is money.
>>That is true for a great majority of companies. Thankfully that is
>>not true for all of them. There are some out there making money while
>>producing real music.
>Nice write-up, Bill. I can tell it is a topic close to your heart.
>Would you, or can you, tell us what labels you trust to do good mixes?
Well - I don't know whether it is close to my heart - or some other
part of my anatomy. My career was broadcast, then recording, then
computers. I put in about 30,000 hours in the studio in a 10 year
period. And one time I took a 4 month leave of abscence after
averaging 77 hours per week for 2.5 years straight. The 4 months
amounted to the Sunday's I had missed in the previous 2.5 years.
So the write-up came from experience.
As far as trusting 'labels' to do good mixes, you can't - at least with
the majors. The major labels used to have studios, engineers, pressing
plants, etc. Now they are distribution arms and virtually all of the
pop production is done by independents. They just turn over the master
tape to the labels.
I did mention that there were some making money whil producing real
music. The name that comes to mind is Bruce Lundvall - associated with
Elektra/Musican (I think he's still there).
Bruce is one of the small group of music lovers and musicians who are
still in the business. I met Bruce when he was a salesman for CBS
records - about 1968. I still remember having a conversation with him
and Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone at a convention in Miami. Rolling
Stone was up to about it's 10th issue at the time. Hm - I meet
people who become famous - but it doens't rub off on me. I even used
to talk to Robin Leach once a week about 1970 - when he was publishing
a music magazine - there's a definite pattern here :-(
The only labels you can trust are those who put artistry first, and
those labels (small ones) who often do eclectic recordings and/or are
audiophile type labels. I see that Len posted that he likes thing
by Tom Jung on DMP. Little labels like this are the ones that can be
consistant.
I have several "Reference Recordings" that Keith Johnson did that
are really quite nice. John Eargle's stuff on Delos is nicely
recorded by some is a bit too ambient for my tastes at time.
>Even though I've been accused to liking "elevator music" for saying I
>like GRP, I like them. I just got a 3-CD set from them on 20 yrs
>work of the Crusaders. This set was done by allowing the original
>artists to pick which recordings to use to highlight their work. At first
>I rated it about average for audiophile things like imaging, but then I
>got caught up in the music and have to rate it as FANTASTIC for artistic
>merit. The set was mixed with Acoustic Energy AEI speakers.
GRP is a label started by audio engineers - I remember when I got some of
their early digital recordings that everyone was raving about, and I was
not impressed. The sound was just not open, but I think a lot of that
had to do with the Neve console they were using. Those used to have
a 'pinched' sound - that's the only way I can describe it - or 'lack of air'.
Recording consoles have come a long way in the past 10 years or so -
but up until then many of them had a 'sound' that you could spot once
you got really familiar with things. I remember one time when Gary
Hedden sent me a demo of his mastering, trying to get our studio custom
business.
I listened to it and called him about it. Most of it was really fine,
but one cut bothered me. I told him it sounded like it was cut on an
MCI console. He said - he didn't master/mix that one and that it WAS
cut on an MCI. Neve's used to have their own characteristic - most of
these 'sonic id's' probably came from the EQ section.
You can get critical like this when you really listen hard for 8 to 10
hours a day for years on end. I can't tell that much anymore because
now I listen for enjoyment and not professionally, and I don't listen
intently for 60 hours per week either.
It only took me about 4 or 5 years from being away from the studio
where I got to the point where I could listen to the music and not the
medium - to paraphrase McLuan. Often in the studio the Andy and I
would play recordings for each other and say things like "listen to
that cymbal" - "or how about the high-end on the guitar". And we would
enjoy listening to some really strange recording - some of which had as
their only saving grace - the fact that they were recorded well - the
music often left a bit to be desired.
So while I appreciate a good sounding recording - as much or more so
than many - I have also learned to ignore the original medium and
listen to the music.
Today I was listening to a CD in the car of song from movie musicals.
And these were ancient. Many from film soundtracks that date to the
30's - including things by Fred Astair, Al Joson, and Eddie Cantor.
Yesterday it was "Break Like the Wind" by Spinal Tap - and that has
some of the worst over EQ'd cymbals I have ever heard.
I know this is NOT the proper thing to say on rec.audio - but I put
performances ahead of recording quality anymore. I used to be the
other way around.
>I also like Micky Hart's "Dafos" on RYKO. This CD also lists the monitors:
>Meyer 833 with subs as well as all the other mixing and recording gear.
I don't know why things like this are listed - except to try to impress
people - because the monitors/mixers/machines don't really make the
music, the engineers/producers do. A good engineer can make a good
recording in an average studio, and a poor engineer will make a poor
recording even in the best studio in the world.
However - those Meyer monitor are really impressive. Andy has a set
in his studio, along with the SLL console, and the imaging is exact.
You know what you are getting from the mikes and on tape. But if you
don't have the ears, nothing will help.
>LL Cool J's "Walking with a Panther" from Columbia makes no mention of
>studio monitors used - not surprising. Though I enjoy this CD, I wouldn't
>call it audiophile other than it goes very low.
And one of the recordings that many audiophiles praise is the Cowboy
Junkies. They love the sound of the Calrec mike - but I have never
heard so much extraneous trash in a commercially released recording
before. You can hear/fell the taping of the drummers foot, AC units
that are distracting, etc. While some use it as a great example, I
point out the flaws and use it as a great example of what NOT to do.
Considering it was digitally done, and they were using the Calrec mike,
why in hell didn't they beg/borrow/rent something like a set of Stax
electrostatic headphones to find out what they were getting on tape.
Sheesh!
> Chesky's Ana Caram - "Amazonia" says B&W 801's were used while "the
>Other side of Jomib" doesn't mention the monitor (just VTL electronics).
>Dave Grusin's "Discovered Again" from Sheffield Lab makes no mention of
>monitor electronics but it was Direct-to-disc.
I do know that disk and it's really good. I don't remember about the
session. Many of the early Sheffields were cut at Producers Workshop
in L.A. Nice little studio and more gold records on the wall from
MAJOR artists than you can imagine. I don't recall the name of the
company that owns it - 3 letters - and I think it's AVI - but the also
owned Woodland in Nashville - probalby the best there at that time -
several years ago.
The Lincoln Mayorga stuff was cut there. This is another musician
owned operation. His name is Ed Cobb. He was one of the singers in a
hit group of the late 50's - the Four Prep's - and they had one big hit
called 26 miles. Ed liked working in the studio better than being a
performer. I met him after I turned a "B" side into a hit here in
Orlando in about 1966 - and it then went on to be a big hit nationwide.
Ed produced that. It was called "Dirty Water" by the Standells.
But his studio is well known for it's great sound. They were 100%
Stevens, while the rest of the world seemed to use 3M, Ampex or (ugh!)
MCI. He put Studer's in Woodland in Nashville, and he told me at the
time he didn't know which of the two, the Studer or the Stevens that he
liked better.
Pick up some LP's from the 50's - particularly those that liked to
think they were audiophile - and they weren't always. Look at the
notes. The list tape speed, brand of machine, what mikes were used,
what the cutter head was on the lathe, etc. There wasn't much to talk
about in those days. The consoles had basically NO eq. What little
there was had to be patched in. But anything to impress the buyer and
sell the LP.
I wonder - do people like Telarc get price breaks because the mention
the mikes, the speakers, and the cables used. And big deal. If they
mention the mikes used, and you don't see a photo of the setup - what
information is conveyed. And what about the monitors. A great
monitor in a bad room won't sound as good as an average monitor in a
good room IMO.
There is a lot of hype out there. Technical information is nice, when
it means something - but does it mean anything on the vast majority of
recordings that it is used on?
I wonder.
And I've run on forever - as usual. And I've mentioned 'music' more
than probably permissible in 'rec.audio'. (Please don't banish me to
rec.music.misc!).
I will say that since I've gotten out of the studio my tastes in music
have gone more and more to well recorded pieces of serious music. But
my tastes are definatly not normal. I have about 60 LPs from the RCA
Vintage series of the late 60's. Virtually all of it was recorded in
the 30's with a few tracks going back to the late 20's. Not great
recordings - but some great performances.
And as I look around here in my computer room - with no music in it - I
find 6 CDs sitting near me. Talk about weird tastes. There is
Bob Dylan - the Bootleg series. Wendy Carlos Switched on Bach 2000.
Cal Tjader - Hurricane - a reissue of a Crytal Clear direct to disk.
Leo Kotke - Great Big Boy. Max Roach and Dizzy Gillespie - Paris
1989. And "Staurday from Light" a Stockhausen Opera. I still haven't
made my mind up about that one :-)
>I find it interesting that many of the CDs I like tell us what was used
>to produce them, but not all do. I enjoy reading what was used so the
>more info on this the better.
Next time you'll know better than to ask a simple question of a person
who was paid to do nothing but talk for several years of my life :-)
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bi...@bilver.uucp OR bi...@bilver.oau.org
Bill Vermillion
>In article <C37u2...@world.std.com>, DPi...@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes:
>> In article <1993Mar1.0...@labtam.labtam.oz.au> gra...@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Graeme Gill) writes:
>> > NS-10's may not be the greatest speakers on earth, but they are
>> You make an assertion here that NS-10's are "reasonably smooth and clean."
>> Do you mean to say that they have a smooth frequency response and low
>> disortion? If that it your claim, then I challenge you to back it up with
>> frequency response and distortion measurements.
> I can actually do so, since they came with exactly that information.
>Of course I have no way of verifying the methology or equipment used
>by Yamaha to produce that information, but both Yamha's reputation and
>the care that they say has been put into the product re-assures me that
>it is probably close to the mark.
>[ Yes, that could all be just "good marketing" ]
The latter statement probably has a lot to do with it.
You say something about "Yamaha's reputation". Some people don't put
it that high depending on product.
I still remember the big push on Yamaha speakers years ago - that were
shaped the same as the human ear. The "marketing" on that went along
the lines of we listen with something that shape, so we should
reproduce the sounds with something that shape.
Their pianos - to my ear at least - have a honky mid-range. Of the
Japanese pianos I prefer the Kwai - but I dont' particulary care for
any Japanese pianos.
That being said, I understand that Yamaha makes some pretty good sports
equipment, and their motorcylces re-wrote the books on handling and
construction several years ago - when they entered their 350cc models
in the 750cc race at Daytona and came in 1,2,3. (Bike week there this
week and even the streets of Orlando are filled with bikers). But that
still doens't mean they build good speakers. NS-10s - or others.
Of course this all my highly biased and jaded opinion :-)
Philip Greenspun
NS-10's are in fact used by recording studios to see how a mix will
sound on a typical car stereo, boombox, or rack system. They are used
precisely because of their low/typical performance and distortions.
For actual monitoring different speakers are used. All Philips
recordings, for example, are monitored with Quad ESL63 speakers. So
if you go to a studio in Boston where Pops records are sometimes mixed
down, you'll see a pair of those. B&W 801s are pretty popular too.
--
-- Philip Greenspun
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
Bob Erkamp
>In article <1993Feb24....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>>by Yamaha NS10M monitors, though I have heard them and not been
>>impressed.
>
>The original NS10 speakers were intended to be sold as a consumer
>bookshelf speaker. Somebody discovered that they made a great
>studio reference monitor and the rest is history. Most studios
>who use NS10Ms may swear by them but they also admit to disliking
>the sound. The keyword here is "reference". The NS10M monitors
>provide a solid reference for fine tuning mixes that will hopefully
>sound good on other speakers in other environments.
>
>Personally, I use JBL 4206's and love 'em.
>
I seem to recall that the Japanese are the biggest consumer of JBL speakers (and
American speakers in general). I'm a happy owner of JBL 4311's.
Bob
Kirk Lindstrom
>the mikes, the speakers, and the cables used. And big deal. If they
>mention the mikes used, and you don't see a photo of the setup - what
>information is conveyed. And what about the monitors. A great
>monitor in a bad room won't sound as good as an average monitor in a
>good room IMO.
>
>There is a lot of hype out there. Technical information is nice, when
>it means something - but does it mean anything on the vast majority of
>recordings that it is used on?
>
>I wonder.
>
sigma deltoids on drugs over/under sampled 3-beam laser" or something
you read in a CD add.... 8-) The words may impress, but the real
impression is made by listening and that depends on the quality of the
engineering (either making the musical recording or the playback gear).
I'll have to remember this. I'll still read the bits, though....
>And I've run on forever - as usual. And I've mentioned 'music' more
>than probably permissible in 'rec.audio'. (Please don't banish me to
>rec.music.misc!).
>
I enjoy the diversion and different perspective.
>Bob Dylan - the Bootleg series. Wendy Carlos Switched on Bach 2000.
>Cal Tjader - Hurricane - a reissue of a Crytal Clear direct to disk.
>Leo Kotke - Great Big Boy. Max Roach and Dizzy Gillespie - Paris
>1989. And "Staurday from Light" a Stockhausen Opera. I still haven't
>made my mind up about that one :-)
>
>
>>I find it interesting that many of the CDs I like tell us what was used
>>to produce them, but not all do. I enjoy reading what was used so the
>>more info on this the better.
>
>Next time you'll know better than to ask a simple question of a person
>who was paid to do nothing but talk for several years of my life :-)
>
Ah, try asking an engineer to explain something "simple"! 8-)
>Bill
Thanks for taking the time to write this for us.
Kirk out
Gabe M Wiener
>
>I wonder - do people like Telarc get price breaks because the mention
>the mikes, the speakers, and the cables used. And big deal. If they
>mention the mikes used, and you don't see a photo of the setup - what
>information is conveyed. And what about the monitors. A great
>monitor in a bad room won't sound as good as an average monitor in a
>good room IMO.
Well, I can speak for the microphones....NO. Telarc doesn't get any
discounts. Telarc uses Schoeps microphones almost exclusively, and
Schoeps microphones are sold in the U.S. by only one man, and I know
him well enough to say that he doesn't give discounts to *anyone*.
--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of
N2GPZ in ham radio circles communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$ no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Irv Robinson
> Telarc uses Schoeps microphones almost exclusively
This is not true. Telarc makes extensive use of Sennheiser mikes, and
seems to be moving away from Schoeps. Too bad, in my opinion. I
always thought their older recordings (those done with Schoeps) sound
the best.
Irv
Arlo James Aude
All of there equipment is constructed in house. The good thing is that
it is all tube. That's right, they do all of there recordings with tube
equipment. The other good thing is that everything they produce is listened to.Thast's right, they acctually listen to all of there equipment and recordings.
I've only heard one of there recordings and that sounded as good as some Chesky samplers I've heard. They are located in Tampa Florida and go by the name
Lyric Associates.
--
"If it were up your ass you'd know where it was"
Arlo James Aude
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt9...@prism.gatech.edu
Gabe M Wiener
>
>> Telarc uses Schoeps microphones almost exclusively
>
>This is not true. Telarc makes extensive use of Sennheiser mikes, and
>seems to be moving away from Schoeps. Too bad, in my opinion. I
>always thought their older recordings (those done with Schoeps) sound
>the best.
I should qualify my original statement. Almost all the Telarc
recordings that I've seen use Schoeps, mostly the Colettes, but
sometimes some of the older stuff too. I don't think I've ever seen
anything they've done use a Schoeps KFM, and that's unfortunate, as
it's just one of the niftiest microphones around, but then again there
are only like a dozen of them in the US right now and I don't even
know if Telarc has one.
I haven't listened to too many of their recent recordings, so I don't
have much to compare the older ones against.
Gabe M Wiener
>There is one label that I know of that is doing audiophile quality recordings.
> The other good thing is that everything they produce is listened to.Thast's
>right, they acctually listen to all of there equipment and recordings.
I like it! The next time I'm up late working on a session, maybe I'll
try *listening* to what's going on. I always wondered what those
crazy speakers and headphones were there for anyway.
Thanks for the tip.
Jim Roth
In article <1993Mar13....@news.columbia.edu>, gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes...
>In article <1993Mar12.2...@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> ir...@tara.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Irv Robinson) writes:
>>
>>> Telarc uses Schoeps microphones almost exclusively
This was true of their earliest recordings only.
>>This is not true. Telarc makes extensive use of Sennheiser mikes, and
>>seems to be moving away from Schoeps. Too bad, in my opinion. I
>>always thought their older recordings (those done with Schoeps) sound
>>the best.
As far as I know they will actually use a variety of mikes, including
Schoeps, B&K 4000 series, AKG, Beyer... this kind of thing is mentioned
in the liner notes.
- Jim