Ns10s taking over the world

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingstonRock
  • Start date Start date
K

KingstonRock

PC load letter?
I have been looking at pictures of pro studios, they all must have $1 million of gear, no exagerration. Main monitor genelecs, near field genelecs, but on every equipment list and in every control room i see the ns10s, the event 20/20bas are common monitors too, but not as prominent as the ns10s. Are these really that good even at the low price, or is it that they have some special role in the studio, it seems that they are takign over the world.

Thanks
Eric

P.S. I havent seen any of the "pros" using the mackies, it just doesnt make any sense to me.
 
Old news... very old news.......!

And no - they aren't worth shit......... but some people do like them... (only because they got used to working with them..........
 
NS10s

Opinions and perceptions on this subject vary more than you would think. It is true to at least some extent that the big "pro" studios use the NS10s to check their mixes to see what they'll sound like on a home stereo. In this role, they're a supplement to the big full-range monitors; their use in this role creates no particular implication that they'd be useful to a home recordist as primary monitors.

On the other hand, some pros apparently do use them as their primary monitors. I guess. I've never quite been able to sort out the brouhaha that surrounds this particular pieces= of equipment (except that one GC salesdude's recommendation of them to me as "the most flat monitors there are" probably does not recommend his advice).
 
There is a simple explanation for the Yamaha NS10's being so popular.

They are actually nothing to write home about as studio monitors, BUT... many engineers and producers came to realise that if they could get their mixes sounding good on the NS10's then those mixes would translate well to the "real world", ie... car stereos, home stereos etc. For this reason many studios have the NS10's readily available so one can check how the mix sounds through them.
 
Ditto all of the above. Plus:

They were one of the first "portable" speakers. Engineers could carry them to gigs. There weren't 100 competing brands and models like today, so everybody knew what they sounded like.

It's not that they sounded good - it's just everybody knew them and how to use them. If you are just starting out today, though, i wouldn't worry about them. You're probably better off without them!
 
so basically what im hearing is, they are not good if they are your only monitors. How about the event 20/20bas, I saw some studios that used these as their only monitoring, and these guys were using huge neve consoles i didnt even know existed, i know its bad that this is how i judge a studio or and its engineer, but its all ive got.

Thanks
Eric

P.S. Maybe what im really asking is are the difference between the mackie hr824 and event 20/20bas a huge, obvious, any non-critical music fan can pick blindfolded which is which kind of thing, or is it a more of a subtle accuracy difference. The hr824s and the events are what ive pretty much narrowed it down to. I understand they are both huge upgrades form the stereo speakers, though nice ones, I am using now.

P.P.S. I heard a grammy winning cd was mixed on the events, that says that they are at least decent, because no matter how good an engineer is he cant guess a grammy with shit monitors, anyone agree/disagree with that?
 
KingstonRock said:
...because no matter how good an engineer is he cant guess a grammy with shit monitors, anyone agree/disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Of course they can - IF they know how shitty the monitors are and how to translate them -- the NS-10s are perfect examples of this! Crappy monitors used by some pros!

That doesn't help the home recordist though, since they likely won't have the understanding or level of experience needed to fully translate mixes on bad monitors, which is why NS-10s aren't recommended for the novices!

Good monitors make the job A LOT easier!

Bruce
 
They're not really an upgrade. Nearfields and stereo speakers you listen to are totally different. Nearfields are designed to be as close to a perfectly flat display of the frequency spectrum as possible. With your regular hifi stereo speakers, they are designed to be more pleasing to the ear, with exentuated bass and highs, which your music, if you mix with them, will sound like in the studio, and then when your mix is played on another set of speakers, will exentuate that even more, creating obvious problems, let alone inacurate mixes. So don't give up your stereo speakers just yet. Keep em, and have nearfields too.

Both of the monitors you are looking at are great. Just personal preference, but I'd go with the mackies. Some people have told me the 20/20s are better, but I like the mackies.
 
I think I'll use the events, or mackies, not sure yet, as my main monitors and smaller cheaper stereo speakers to check the mix every so often, I see how this is a really good idea, rather than mixing down and burning a cd. I usually find myself adding way to much high and i come out with a bassy yet weak mix, because regular speakers take my already tastefully equed mix and eq it in the same way even more.

Thanks a lot

Eric
 
Listen to a several CD's you're used to listening to on your monitors when you get 'em. It'll give you an idea of what your mixes should sound like. And they won't sound really pleasing to the ear, but once you put them in a playback system, then it'll sound great.
 
tyler657recpro said:
Nearfields are designed to be as close to a perfectly flat display of the frequency spectrum as possible.
Click to expand...
This is completely untrue....

Nearfields are designed for 2 primary things -- listening in the "near field" and for uncolored response (which is totally different than "flat response", which is a myth)

Stereo speakers are designed to make the audio sound "better", while it's the nearfield's job to make the music sound "honest", warts and all....

Stereo speakers are also designed for proper imaging at far-field distances (over 6-8 feet), whereas studio nearfields are designed to be heard at distances of 3-4 feet.....

Bruce
 
I've not heard a monitor as unforgiving as the ns10ms.

Enough said.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Old news... very old news.......!

And no - they aren't worth shit......... but some people do like them... (only because they got used to working with them..........
Click to expand...

Ehhhh, easy does it bro!!! ;)

I find them very true, and they don't candy coat the highs and bass like The YSM's and Event's seem to do... I find the mids are a tad harsh though.... That I will admit to.

It's just personal preference.

And, they ARE worth shit.... actually about $350 CDN :D
 
Clarification

RE: Event's and YSM's

The "candy coating" im talking about is just in my opionion , and in my listening experience.... Im not talking for everyones opinion...

(Just wanted to say that before I get hopped on) :D
 
Heyyyyyyyy Eaaaaaaaasy.......It's actually about $250.00...... Smart ass... :D
 
Binary choice

KingstonRock said:
... Maybe what im really asking is are the difference between the mackie hr824 and event 20/20bas a huge, obvious, any non-critical music fan can pick blindfolded which is which kind of thing, or is it a more of a subtle accuracy difference. The hr824s and the events are what ive pretty much narrowed it down to....
Click to expand...

Between those two, if you listen to them and go with the ones you like best you should be fine. "Like best" doesn't necessarily mean quite the same thing as "sounds best" (or "sounds worst," though some might say that). It's ultimately subjective, but I don't think you'll be kicking yourself afterwards whichever you choose. I could be wrong.
 
One of the most important factors in purchasing and using monitors is your ear. Once an individual decides on thier choice, it is imperative that one must become accustomed and in-tune with said monitors whereas eventually one can determine each and every audio nuance heard to determine what freq boost/cut,gain etc is essential to recording. Though 1 may think that said audio-translation from monitor is correct,comparison with other monitor/spkr formats is highly recommended to insure comparative audio recording translations.
It is wise to have at least 2 pairs of diff monitors and possibly a home speaker format to cross-ref each recording. I'll record a bass track,flat,no-comp just simply DI'd or amp-mic'd ,play it back
and see what type of basic,signal processing may be needed.
If track translates equally across all 3 formats (which is rare), i proceed to next track and if not, adjust accordingly to all agree.

Mannn, did I make any sense here!!?? I'm on my 7th brewski so
please ***BUUURRPP***...'scooze me!
 
I normally use these Hughengeller Artistica Professionelle speakers. They are not commonly known. they have a 17" combined with 2x 6". Offcourse we are speaking main-monitoring system here.

They make all other monitors like event and mackie sound like $5 systems.
17387.jpg
 
You will have to pry my NS10M's out of my cold dead hands. I should stock up on replacement tweets and woofs while they are still available. They were discontinued because the pulp for the woofers is no longer available.

I find it funny how you can find them on a $120,000 API but people here feel they are not worthy of mating with a Mackie 1202. I really dont understand all the disdain for them here.

I've never really bothered to look into other budget monitors because my NS10's have treated me well for 10years. I find them to be very clinical sounding and I like that.

They could almost be considered the one true 'reference' monitor because they are in every studio so all studios know they are hearing the same thing.

For a homewrecker on a budget I think deciding between a few hundred bucks for the NS10's and a grand for some Mackie's is a no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top