"Joe Mama" wrote

> Plus what Scott said.
>
> I'm not being argumentative - if you don't like them, that's cool
> (many don't). But you have the wrong idea about why they're so
> prevalent.
> The article linked in my previous post has some good information, if
> you're curious.
>
Nice find.

"I suspect that the success came from the NS10's only really
unusual feature: its iconic white bass/mid driver cone." Phil
Ward/Ref article.

Yea, that and a widely held but false belief (NS10 myth).
In the publishing business they say "when the myth
becomes "real", publish the myth. Finally, when was the
last time you met an "audio engineer/NS10 user" that
graduated from high school, really?

On Mar 12, 3:50*am, Joe Mama <bloodywan...@drugsmakemecool.com> wrote:

NS10m Studio

I have purposely stayed out of this discussion as I am well known for
my views on studio monitors.

There is only one near-field monitor that should be used if the
intention is to have competitive, commercial, sellable mixes ... and
that is Yamaha NS10 ... as used by 95% of studios world wide and by
the same percentage of hit producers. If the intention is to have
'good' sounding monitors then this does not apply.

Simply look at any studio photo of any serious music maker today and
you will see those little white cones.

The film and TV Industry, similarly, use them to visually show the
'credibility' of a scene they are shooting ... much the same as they
use Marshall Stacks to show a band's credibility.

From my point of view, I know that I can take my Pro Tools mix to any
studio in the world and almost certainly be guaranteed that they will
have NS10's for me to work with. That is the major point ... just
like Beyer DT100 earphones for tracking. We have a consistant
'sound'.

The choice of further listening speakers in the studio is no less
important after you have 'got it' on the NS10's.

I use Kef Correlli domestic Hi Fi speakers to audition the mix [as a
punter at home with his/her Hi Fi will hear it]. They accurately
deliver how the mix will sound in a club also.

I have a switching facility that will add the Kef's to the NS10s ...
that gives the NS10 mix plus the added bottom end down to 35HZ.

As main studio monitors I have a pair of Nightfire custom built studio
monitors [137 SPL and 25Hz-25KHz] .... quite devastatingly loud and
true.

I then have high SPL Kef Carina 11 domestic HiFi speakers to show me
how a high powered domestic system will produce the mix ....

And finally I have a switching device for the Nightfire/Carina
combination ..... oh ... and a pair of AR One's to give me the sound
of a cheap home set up.

After many years in the game, I consider that set up to cover almost
every step of the listening process ... starting with the NS10s [of
choice] ... if it is right on the NS10's it is 99% of the time right
on all the others. But then all the successful guys will always echo
that.

If I was looking for monitors, as the thread starter, I would seek out
a pair of NS10's or get the Studiospares modern day equivalent
SN10 ... at less than £180 ... I have recommended them to all my
members and never had a complaint yet. Size is important ... I do
believe that the NS10 size is the smallest that will give overall mix
authenticity.

Regards Dec [Cluskey]

"Joe Mama" wrote

>>> The article linked in my previous post has some good information, if
>>> you're curious.
>>>
>> Nice find.
>>
>> "I suspect that the success came from the NS10's only really
>> unusual feature: its iconic white bass/mid driver cone." Phil
>> Ward/Ref article.
>>
>> Yea, that and a widely held but false belief (NS10 myth).
>> In the publishing business they say "when the myth
>> becomes "real", publish the myth. Finally, when was the
>> last time you met an "audio engineer/NS10 user" that
>> graduated from high school, really?
>>
>>
> Well, if you read the whole article, it does elaborate. That one quote,
> taken out of context, does seem to make the article seem a little on the
> silly side.
>
"Silly"... so is any notion of using these speakers for any
serious work (24/96) in 2010. What we're really talking
about are Broke-A$$® NS10 users who find reasons to
justify their financial/educational limitations. (myth builders).


> To continue then:
>
<snip quacking>

In 1884 the MSRP for the NS10M was $310 /pr. Speakers
in general have a very high markup rate. I think it would be
fair to conclude that the 1 3/8" tweeter and 7" woofer and
crossover cost Yamaha no more than $20-30, if that, using
by today's standards poor material science and low
precision tolerances in the manufacturing process. You get
what you pay for.


> I don't know what you mean by (NS10 myth), because you haven't explained
> it, and I'm obviously not familiar with the specifics.
>
Your reference is a collection of other peoples work... which
is fine. There is no serious empirical or metric analysis being
attempted by the author. The writing is for entertainment
purposes. It's about advertisingadd space NOT science.


> And I'm not sure what to make of the graduation comment, to be honest. I
> don't think I get the joke, if it is one (or even if it's meant to be on
> me), so I won't comment further.
>
Sorry, not pointed at you... unless you're a NS10 user.

Historically when you challenge a NS10 user on their speaker
selection process and/or methodologies used and/or hearing
acuity their retorts are mostly emotional "feelings" based.
Nothing to be learned from.

"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote


>There is only one near-field monitor that should be used if the
>intention is to have competitive, commercial, sellable mixes ... and
>that is Yamaha NS10 ... as used by 95% of studios world wide and by
>the same percentage of hit producers. If the intention is to have
>'good' sounding monitors then this does not apply.
>
"95% of studios world wide"

Quack, quack, quack....

Although,I did recently see a photograph in a magazine
depicting a couple of gentleman standing in front of a
mastering board with the NS10 sitting on the bridge. In
the background of the suite was the largest array of
Westlake Audio speakers I ever seen. They looked
similar to their near flagship SM1VF ($180K) model.


(ref: http://www.westlakeaudio.com/Speaker...ries/sm-1.html )

On Mar 12, 12:53*pm, "Powell" <nos...@noquacking.com> wrote:
> "Joe Mama" *wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> The article linked in my previous post has some good information, if
> >>> you're curious.
>
> >> Nice find.
>
> >> "I suspect that the success came from the NS10's only really
> >> unusual feature: its iconic white bass/mid driver cone." Phil
> >> Ward/Ref article.
>
> >> Yea, that and a widely held but false belief (NS10 myth).
> >> In the publishing business they say "when the myth
> >> becomes "real", publish the myth. Finally, when was the
> >> last time you met an "audio engineer/NS10 user" that
> >> graduated from high school, really?
>
> > Well, if you read the whole article, it does elaborate. *That one quote,
> > taken out of context, does seem to make the article seem a little on the
> > silly side.
>
> "Silly"... so is any notion of using these speakers for any
> serious work (24/96) in 2010. What we're really talking
> about are Broke-A$$® NS10 users who find reasons to
> justify their financial/educational limitations. (myth builders).
>
> > To continue then:
>
> * * <snip quacking>
>
> In 1884 the MSRP for the NS10M was $310 /pr. Speakers
> in general have a very high markup rate. I think it would be
> fair to conclude that the 1 3/8" tweeter and 7" woofer and
> crossover cost Yamaha no more than $20-30, if that, using
> by today's standards poor material science and low
> precision tolerances in the manufacturing process. You get
> what you pay for.
>
> > I don't know what you mean by (NS10 myth), because you haven't explained
> > it, and I'm obviously not familiar with the specifics.
>
> Your reference is a collection of other peoples work... which
> is fine. *There is no serious empirical or metric analysis being
> attempted by the author. The writing is for entertainment
> purposes. It's about advertisingadd space NOT science.
>
> > And I'm not sure what to make of the graduation comment, to be honest. I
> > don't think I get the joke, if it is one (or even if it's meant to be on
> > me), so I won't comment further.
>
> Sorry, not pointed at you... unless you're a NS10 user.
>
> Historically when you challenge a NS10 user on their speaker
> selection process and/or methodologies used and/or hearing
> acuity their retorts are mostly emotional "feelings" based.
> Nothing to be learned from.

I find it hard to believe anyone ever bought them in the first place.
Didn't they come out about the same time as the JBL control 5's around
1986 and cost about the same? Everything out for the same price back
then was better. They sucked in those days. .... Industry standard? OK

Danny T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I find it hard to believe anyone ever bought them in the first place.
>Didn't they come out about the same time as the JBL control 5's around
>1986 and cost about the same? Everything out for the same price back
>then was better. They sucked in those days. .... Industry standard? OK

People got them as check-mix monitors. They were intended to sound like
cheap home speakers in order to make sure your mix came across well on
cheap home speakers. A lot of big studios got them for free, so they
turned up in a lot of places. Then slowly they became _the standard_
check mix monitor. And because a lot of big studios had soffit-mounted
monitoring systems that were... eccentric at best... a lot of people came
to mix in a way where they were relying heavily on the check mix monitors.

Yes, they sucked, but they sucked in a very useful way, and nobody ever
intended on using them as the sole monitoring system.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mar 12, 7:41*pm, Joe Mama <bloodywan...@drugsmakemecool.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2010 10:50 AM, Danny T wrote:
>
>
>
> > I find it hard to believe anyone ever bought them in the first place.
> > Didn't they come out about the same time as the JBL control 5's around
> > 1986 and cost about the same? Everything out for the same price back
> > then was better. They sucked in those days. .... Industry standard? OK
>
> I would have suggested (again) that you read the article I linked
> previously if I thought you were genuinely interested in the reasons
> behind this, but at this point I'm thinking that's probably not really
> the case.
>
> Hint: the Control 5s are ported.
>
> Happy travels,
> * -joe.

I wasn't jumping up and down for the control 5's either but what Scott
said finally makes some since. I really thought people were serious
about them being good.

On Mar 12, 7:41*pm, Joe Mama <bloodywan...@drugsmakemecool.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2010 10:50 AM, Danny T wrote:
>
>
>
> > I find it hard to believe anyone ever bought them in the first place.
> > Didn't they come out about the same time as the JBL control 5's around
> > 1986 and cost about the same? Everything out for the same price back
> > then was better. They sucked in those days. .... Industry standard? OK
>
> I would have suggested (again) that you read the article I linked
> previously if I thought you were genuinely interested in the reasons
> behind this, but at this point I'm thinking that's probably not really
> the case.
>
> Hint: the Control 5s are ported.
>
> Happy travels,
> * -joe.
I wasn't jumping up and down for the control 5's either but what
Scott
said finally makes some sense. I really thought people were serious
about them being good.

On Fri 2038-Mar-12 20:05, Scott Dorsey (1:3634/1000) wrote to All:

> Danny T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I find it hard to believe anyone ever bought them in the first place.
>>Didn't they come out about the same time as the JBL control 5's around
>>1986 and cost about the same? Everything out for the same price back
>>then was better. They sucked in those days. .... Industry standard? OK

> People got them as check-mix monitors. They were intended to sound
> like cheap home speakers in order to make sure your mix came across
> well on cheap home speakers. A lot of big studios got them for
> free, so they turned up in a lot of places. Then slowly they became
> _the standard_ check mix monitor. And because a lot of big studios
> had soffit-mounted monitoring systems that were... eccentric at
> best... a lot of people came to mix in a way where they were relying
> heavily on the check mix monitors.

RIght, friend of mine had the soffit mounted Yureis back in
those days too. When you couple that with the growth in
home studios, and people using small control rooms where
often soffit mounted monitors weren't an option and you run
into the situation that they were used as the only monitors, during tracking as well <grona>.

I've jbl's older models mounted in the truck, and even with
them sometimes the ns10 is a good second check on myself
<g>.
I found them more reliable than the s8m which was Yamaha's
replacement for them.

SD> Yes, they sucked, but they sucked in a very useful way, and nobody
SD> ever intended on using them as the sole monitoring system.
RIght, but that did happen for the reasons I cited above.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Danny T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I wasn't jumping up and down for the control 5's either but what Scott
>said finally makes some since. I really thought people were serious
>about them being good.

They're not supposed to be good, they're supposed to be useful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."