If NS-10s are so bad, then why the hell were they so popular?

[redddog]

I STILL see those in every pro room. But for the most part, people have a really sucky opinion of those monitors.

How could such an alegedly shitty monitor achieve such prominence in the professional environment.

It seems like rather than spending $1500 on monitoring, I should just grab a pair of NS-10s for 1/3rd of that and be in the same boat as thousands of engineers who recorded with those.

[luctellier]

Because they sound like sh**. Like everyone says: if it sounds good on NS10, it will sound good everywhere else...

[-Noodles-]

pretty much correct ^

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by redddog

It seems like rather than spending $1500 on monitoring, I should just grab a pair of NS-10s for 1/3rd of that and be in the same boat as thousands of engineers who recorded with those.

Being in the same boat does not always get you to the same destination.

I don't believe the crappy reference thing. They work.

[Glenn Kuras]

I think using just NS-10s would be pretty hard. I do have a pair of them and use them as a tool. You have to work your butt off to make things work on them, but I would not just us them alone. YMMV

Glenn

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Being in the same boat does not always get you to the same destination.

.

that should be the quote of the YEAR, for anything in life!!!!!!!!thumbsup

Glenn

[Kestral]

Originally Posted by myfipie

I think using just NS-10s would be pretty hard. I do have a pair of them and use them as a tool. You have to work your butt off to make things work on them, but I would not just us them alone. YMMV

Glenn

And that's why my tracks and mixes have gone up huge in quality ever since I got my NS10's. Because when tracking I make things sound good on the NS-10's. I take my beds to other studios and they freak out at how great my tracks sound.

[drBill]

A lot of it has to do with the fact that there weren't a lot of options for pro nearfields when they came out. If they came out now they'd never make it.

[redddog]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Being in the same boat does not always get you to the same destination.

I don't believe the crappy reference thing. They work.

If we're being literal here, yes, being in the same boat does always get you to the same destination. Unless of course, you jump off before the boat docks.

[tommy pee]

would someone be able to explain to me this NS10 thing please? because i understand what people say by they sound so bad, if you make it sound good on those they will on anything, but surely the same could be said for any bad speaker?

i would argue that the defining characteristic of a bad speaker is a floored frequency response, therefore making a mix good on those speakers would be to compensate for that, making the mixes frequencey heavy in certain areas?

im sure thats not the case, i just need it explaining i guess!

[Glenn Kuras]

Originally Posted by tommy pee

would someone be able to explain to me this NS10 thing please? because i understand what people say by they sound so bad, if you make it sound good on those they will on anything, but surely the same could be said for any bad speaker?

i would argue that the defining characteristic of a bad speaker is a floored frequency response, therefore making a mix good on those speakers would be to compensate for that, making the mixes frequencey heavy in certain areas?

im sure thats not the case, i just need it explaining i guess!

Here is my read on it. You can be mixing on some really nice monitors and think all is going well then switch over to NS-10s and get that WTF look on your face. Adjust a little and then switch back to the other monitors and have a look on your face. BUT YMMV!! This works for me and may not work for you. It seems to me as they have a way of bringing out the mids that can tell you a lot about the sound.

Glenn

[Han]

Well, go for it, make your mix on great sounding monitors, don't work too hard because it will sound decent anyway.

And when your client has left he will phone you the same day to tell you it doesn't sound good at home.

Well, it sounded very good in the studio, but on my own hi fi it was a desillusion, does that sound familiar?

Listen to NS10's, they reveal almost everything, unbalanced mix, mud in the low mids, the only thing is they don't reveal anything below 80hz and that's why you'll need a pair of mains, or a sub.

And yes, they are not sounding very nice, quite bad actually, causing fatique when playing loud.

But, listen to 'The Patient' by Tool (from the Lateralus album) on those white coned bastards. It sounds great, even on NS10's.

You'll have to work hard, very hard to make things sound great on NS10's and I like working hard. That's why I can't miss them.

[Jens]

If it sounds good on the NS-10s...........

























............You got way to much bottom

[tommy pee]

Originally Posted by Han

Well, go for it, make your mix on great sounding monitors, don't work too hard because it will sound decent anyway.

And when your client has left he will phone you the same day to tell you it doesn't sound good at home.

Well, it sounded very good in the studio, but on my own hi fi it was a desillusion, does that sound familiar?

Listen to NS10's, they reveal almost everything, unbalanced mix, mud in the low mids, the only thing is they don't reveal anything below 80hz and that's why you'll need a pair of mains, or a sub.

And yes, they are not sounding very nice, quite bad actually, causing fatique when playing loud.

But, listen to 'The Patient' by Tool (from the Lateralus album) on those white coned bastards. It sounds great, even on NS10's.

You'll have to work hard, very hard to make things sound great on NS10's and I like working hard. That's why I can't miss them.

I get you

so when you say 'great sounding' monitors, you almost mean Hi-Fi, as in, makes music sound brilliant rather than just painting an accurate representation?

and the NS10s do give that accurate representation? or rather, bring out the worst in a mix, opposed to the best?

whilst that makes perfect theoretical sense, it still leaves floors, such as it doesnt show the elements that DO sound good, meaning they may get left out?

i guess that's why theyre famously used as a reference, opposed to a main monitor

[Audiopool]

The story of NS10 actually goes back to the late 70's when the Swedish Radio was about to upgrade their complete studio park. Yamaha basically gave away NS1000 to all their studios. I think that this was the first step for Yamaha to be recognized internationally in the pro loudspeaker market. This was before the NS10, but Yamaha certainly pointed this out in their marketing later on as well. The NS10 was derived from the HiFi speaker NS615 which was not intended for studio use, but the NS1000 sucess gave them an incitament to explore this market further.
As I have come to understand the NS10 was first recognized in the US by some East Coast engineer who spoke about this speaker in some interviews.

I have come to know both the NS1000 and the NS10 quite good, since we have them where I work.
The 12dB/octave drop below 100Hz of the NS10 is maybe the reason many mixes of the time sounds uncontrolled in the bass when listened to in good speakers. Also, the large peak of about 6-7dB at 1-2k is maybe one of the reasons for this speaker characteristic sound. The problem is that this peak will render a thin, nasal (not-so-nice) mid in the mix.

According to a colleague who measured the NS10 from almost every aspect, the phase integration is also very poor. The fault is about 120 degrees between 3-4kHz (just above the crossover freq), resulting in that the sum of what comes out from the bass and the tweeter is not louder than the individual drivers, except if you move towards the bass driver (a result of the phase difference decreasing). If you listen towards the tweeter you will find a big gap in the tonecurve.
Sitting 1m from the NS10 about 6 inches below the center-axis of the speaker, the SPL at 3,6kHz is about +4dB. If you listen 6 inches above the center-axis the SPL at 3kHz is about -10dB.

To add to this mess, some people use the loudspeaker placed horizontally - resulting in even worse faults. The NS10 (naturally) gives three totally different tonecurves if the loudspeaker is places as usual or it it placed with the tweeters inward or with the bass drivers inward.

The result of this relatively poor design was that both the NS10 and the NS1000 was very often modified to sound more decent.

With all of this, I'm not saying that the loudspeaker is useless, obviously many people finds it great!

Most of the stuff I'm writing above was also written about (in Swedish) in an article in the sound engineering society in Sweden (not he same as AES), sometime in the late 90's.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by drBill

A lot of it has to do with the fact that there weren't a lot of options for pro nearfields when they came out. If they came out now they'd never make it.

Sorry Bill but this is not true.

We know the reason is because the studio business since the 80's has been built on the "sheep factor" and Gearslutz is a prime example.

How many times do you hear what did X(insert famous engineer) use to get this sound? "Maybe if i buy exactly what he uses i can sound exactly like him"?

Basically NS10's were pitched by Yamaha through a promotional campaign to alot of studios in the 80's as an alternative reference speaker or talkback speaker in the live rooms(does anyone remember EV monitors?).

It was Bob Clearmountain who gave them a shot as a mix reference and word got around that is what he used(or they thought he did) since he was the the most famous engineer at the time(and rightfully so). What added fuel to the fire is a picture in Mix magazine of a pair of NS10's he used on the meter bridge and the whole craze began. After that every studio cover had them on their meter bridge and the rest was history.

In terms of good nearfields that were available at the time you had Meyer HD1's,Tannoys,Genelecs and other brands that just hadn't broken through in the studio market.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by redddog

I STILL see those in every pro room. But for the most part, people have a really sucky opinion of those monitors. ... (snip)...

and by the way - not EVERY "pro" room has them up. They may be around, but not in use... on the console meter bridge

[paterno]

One other point. NS-10's on top of a console meter bridge sound very different than NS-10's on a set of speaker stands behind the console/ meter bridge.

JP

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Sorry Bill but this is not true.

We know the reason is because the studio business since the 80's has been built on the "sheep factor" and Gearslutz is a prime example.

How many times do you hear what did X(insert famous engineer) use to get this sound? "Maybe if i buy exactly what he uses i can sound exactly like him"?

Basically NS10's were pitched by Yamaha through a promotional campaign to alot of studios in the 80's as an alternative reference speaker or talkback speaker in the live rooms(does anyone remember EV monitors?).

It was Bob Clearmountain who gave them a shot as a mix reference and word got around that is what he used(or they thought he did) since he was the the most famous engineer at the time(and rightfully so). What added fuel to the fire is a picture in Mix magazine of a pair of NS10's he used on the meter bridge and the whole craze began. After that every studio cover had them on their meter bridge and the rest was history.

In terms of good nearfields that were available at the time you had Meyer HD1's,Tannoys,Genelecs and other brands that just hadn't broken through in the studio market.

Cool, that was interesting to read thanks for the info! I know I fall in that same trap of wanting to know what was used in a record. Currently I'm obsessing over Sufjan Steven's Illinoise album. The whole NS-10's sound like crap thing reminds me of all of the master engineers that use old "ghetto boxes" to test their masters...

bcgood

[raal]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

In terms of good nearfields that were available at the time you had Meyer HD1's,Tannoys,Genelecs and other brands that just hadn't broken through in the studio market.

out of these, tannoy golds are the only ones i could almost trust. still have some N-10s at home for occasional reference, but i could never mix on them exclusively. i'm a wuss.

Originally Posted by redddog

How could such an alegedly shitty monitor achieve such prominence in the professional environment.

the only explanation i can come up with is most people learned them, got used to them, also referenced with big monitors, auratones, the little spkr on A80s, car or whatever.

[Han]

NS10's were never meant to be a main monitor, but they're a great tool.

I remember a problem between a digital piano and a guitar in a jazz production.
This piano and guitar were eating eachother and this problem was best solved on the NS10's.

I always check any mix on the NS10's and there's always something I didn't hear on the other (seven) monitors.

They still sound awful, but they're tools, nothing more, nothing less.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by raal

out of these, tannoy golds are the only ones i could almost trust. still have some N-10s at home for occasional reference, but i could never mix on them exclusively. i'm a wuss.

With me it was the opposite.

I couldn't trust my mixes on Urei 813's, JbL's or Tannoys(which i mix with now a lot).

I never got the HD1's and to this day Genelecs leave me like this...

Once i learned how to not blow up the NS10 woofers i was pretty much golden.

I think its a NYC engineer thing.

[Audiopool]

The problem isn't really that they sounds bad because they don't. They sound (subjectively) good, and that's the problem. This nice elevated high mid will result in a nasty, nasal mid and the lack off bass will result in uncontrolled bass.

[Mario-C.]

few monitors reveal low mid mud like the NS-10's ...

[raal]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Once i learned how to not blow up the NS10 woofers i was pretty much golden.

think i still have an extra set of tweeters somehwere...

[zboy2854]

I mix exclusively on NS-10s paired with a subwoofer, and my mixes translate beautifully.

The reason NS-10's work is that they are very concentrated in the midrange, which is where the most crucial information in a mix resides. As far as the lows, if you don't have a sub added, a lot of guys I know can still figure out if their low end is right by actually watching the excursion of the woofers...

[Ricey]

i use them all the time, i trust them. i don't think "they're everywhere because they're great", but that "they're great because they're everywhere." for engineers that move between studios, it is so helpful. pretty much why Pro-Tools is standard, IMO - they got there first, it's everywhere... sure i think there's better, but no other company placed their product so thoroughly at the time.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Once i learned how to not blow up the NS10 woofers i was pretty much golden.

How's that? I'm on my first pair now-- been using them about 2 years and haven't blown anything. Any tips on avoiding that?

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by redddog

If we're being literal here, yes, being in the same boat does always get you to the same destination.

About half the people who boarded the Titanic would disagree.

Anyways, I'm illiteral.



When NS10's were available new, I preferred Tannoy PBM 6.5's but I've used NS10's plenty and didn't really have any problems. I wouldn't pick them to listen to music at home.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Sorry Bill but this is not true.

I see your point, and agree with it, but I disagree that the relative lack of other nearfields at the time did not contribute to the fact that NS10's gained such widerange popularity so quickly. People decided that nearfields were the way to go, and Yamaha just happened to have a decent (kinda) sounding one that was positioned towards the pro market. Better than getting some Bose or Radio Shack speakers on your meterbridge. I think that if they had all the myriads of brands and models we have to choose from now, and even if Clearmountain still chose NS10's, they would not have gained their widespread popularity.

The only speakers at that time that I can remember (I'll admit, my memory could be better.... ) that were positioned towards the studio crowd as nearfields were the NS10's, Auratones and a couple of JBL models. What else was there to choose from? Nothing.