A
adamki
New member
I have been looking for another set of monitors to buy for a while. I Have read a lot of good things about the NS-10s. Does anybody use these? What do you think about them?
R
RRuskin
Rick Ruskin
They are not accurate. It became hip to use them because one very successful producer/engineer mentioned that he used them. It's possible to get good mixes with them but you need to learn how to 2nd guess them so the mixes translate well on other systems. They are better used as the "check to see how this sounds on typical home gear stuff" monitors rather than the main/really accurate ones. YMMV.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The biggest problem with NS-10s is that if you use them as your nearfields, you no longer have anything to use as a doorstop, and you have to spend extra money on a Duralog starter log for your fireplace because you no longer have a handy source of kindling. 
The main reason NS-10s became a de facto standard was because they were the first and had no real competition for that title until it was too late. They were nothing more than home stereo speakers that one engineer (Bob Clearmountain?) mentioned in one article that got passed around the community faster than a social disease.
Yamaha smartly jumped on the opportunity and started marketing them as studio monitors while the iron was still hot. Next thing you know, every control room wanted a pair in them so that they could advertise them on their gear list, and have the advantage of offering traveling engineers a baseline speaker they were familiar with. For this reason, many veteran engineers have learned to mix on NS-10s out of convenience and necessity; in a perfect example of symbiosis, control rooms had a marketing advantage in having NS-10s in them to attract engineers, and engineers therefore had a marketing advantage in becoming familiar with NS-10s.
But if you asked most of those engineers, if they had their druthers, they'd rather not. They'd secretly give their left lung to live in a world where Tannoy beat Yamaha to the portable nearfield punch
.
It's not so much the midrange clarity of NS-10s as it is the midrange hype of about 5dB over flat. Sure, it theoretically helps the engineer focus on the upper mids where most mix problems come in, but a good engineer should not need to have the monitors make that adjustment for them. And a bad engineer will wind up using death scoop EQ to compensate.
In todays world of Tannoys, Adams and KRKs, and in home studios where there is not a lot of engineer portability from studio-to-studio required, there's no need for a new generation of ears to have to do the double-translation required to use the NS-10s; they are a dinosaur who's time has passed right along with the cassette tape and the cathode ray tube.
The exception is those who have ears that are naturally mid-range deficient when compared to the average; their ear's natural loudness contour response is flatter than the human average. They might actually prefer the sound of the NS-10s and not find them fatiguing as hell to sit in front of for several hours.
Which leads us to the real answer:
G.
The main reason NS-10s became a de facto standard was because they were the first and had no real competition for that title until it was too late. They were nothing more than home stereo speakers that one engineer (Bob Clearmountain?) mentioned in one article that got passed around the community faster than a social disease.
Yamaha smartly jumped on the opportunity and started marketing them as studio monitors while the iron was still hot. Next thing you know, every control room wanted a pair in them so that they could advertise them on their gear list, and have the advantage of offering traveling engineers a baseline speaker they were familiar with. For this reason, many veteran engineers have learned to mix on NS-10s out of convenience and necessity; in a perfect example of symbiosis, control rooms had a marketing advantage in having NS-10s in them to attract engineers, and engineers therefore had a marketing advantage in becoming familiar with NS-10s.
But if you asked most of those engineers, if they had their druthers, they'd rather not. They'd secretly give their left lung to live in a world where Tannoy beat Yamaha to the portable nearfield punch
.It's not so much the midrange clarity of NS-10s as it is the midrange hype of about 5dB over flat. Sure, it theoretically helps the engineer focus on the upper mids where most mix problems come in, but a good engineer should not need to have the monitors make that adjustment for them. And a bad engineer will wind up using death scoop EQ to compensate.
In todays world of Tannoys, Adams and KRKs, and in home studios where there is not a lot of engineer portability from studio-to-studio required, there's no need for a new generation of ears to have to do the double-translation required to use the NS-10s; they are a dinosaur who's time has passed right along with the cassette tape and the cathode ray tube.
The exception is those who have ears that are naturally mid-range deficient when compared to the average; their ear's natural loudness contour response is flatter than the human average. They might actually prefer the sound of the NS-10s and not find them fatiguing as hell to sit in front of for several hours.
Which leads us to the real answer:
Instead of looking, you should be listening. Get down to your local showrooms and start listening to what works for you. If you find the Yamaha HSM-80 - which is not the same as the NS-10, but it's similar in class and response style - seems to fit your bill, then maybe the NS-10 (one that isn't old and tired, BTW) is the kind of loudspeaker you're looking for. If not, then go with what does work for you and forget about anything any of us have to say about it.adamki said:
G.
R
RRuskin
Rick Ruskin
You bet it will.
EVERY quality engineer I know can work with NS-10's, mainly because they have been an "industry standard" for so many years.
They have no low end, so indeed, you will be guessing at the low end with NS-10's. But, coupled with a suitable sub-woofer, you can work with them. I know of many good quality studios and engineers in them still using "nasty 10's" as their main reference monitor, and they do great work with them.
Just like ANY monitor, you will have to get used to them. I have done work on Meyers, Genelics, top of the line JBL's, KRK's, etc....They ALL require that you "figure them out".
What is the advantage of NS-10's over every other monitor I have worked with? The midrange clarity! If you cannot hear everything DISTINCTLY on NS-10's, you know the components in your mix are not separated well enough yet. No other monitor that I have used is that good of a reference!
Coincidentally, I don't personally own a pair, and probably won't unless I go back into the recording business, which I have been out of for a few years now. I prefer my Event 20/20's. But, when I did have my own studio, I had pair of NS-10's that sat right next to the 20/20's, and both got equal use!
You acknowledge that they're not accurate and have no low end but it maddens you because someone doesn't care for them? Jeesh!
Industry standard? The SM57 is considered an industry standard, too. Would you use that mic for every application?
mixmkr
we don't need rest!!
I think the NS-10 were popular because they were bigger than Auratone 5C cubes and had white cones on the woofers like the JBL 4311 did at the time. Plus they helped fill out the space on some of those meter bridges instead of goofy lava lamps.
Other than that, the times I have mixed on them, I really struggled and the low end was pretty much a guess as to levels.
Other than that, the times I have mixed on them, I really struggled and the low end was pretty much a guess as to levels.
A
adamki
New member
Thanks everybody for the response.
The main reason I even asked is because one of my friends got them and wants to sale them already. They are in perfect shape and he wants $600
for them......
So I was at the Guitar Center and the dude said that the new KRKs was the way to go. So I might do that.
I use the Tapco S-8 and nothing sounds good in them. I can never Get the low end mixed right. I have to bring my sessions to a friends studio to mix. They use the mackie monitors. which is out of my price range.
Thanks
The main reason I even asked is because one of my friends got them and wants to sale them already. They are in perfect shape and he wants $600
for them......
So I was at the Guitar Center and the dude said that the new KRKs was the way to go. So I might do that.
I use the Tapco S-8 and nothing sounds good in them. I can never Get the low end mixed right. I have to bring my sessions to a friends studio to mix. They use the mackie monitors. which is out of my price range.
Thanks
true-eurt
Maneater
Then you might want to talk to Cincykid...he has KRK's..here's a thread of his studio he just finished....https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=233783&page=6
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Whatever monitors you choose, pick them yourself. The only people less trustworthy than us when it comes to monitor selection are retail salespeople. Set them up properly in the showroom and audition them with material you are intimately familiar with, and see if how they sound makes any sense to your ears. Also make sure that your GC rep understands that you have to take them home and try them before you know for sure that they will fit your needs so that he won't give you a hard time if you wish to come back and exchange them for something else.
And also remember when you get them home, Adamki, that how you set them up in your room will make all the difference in the world. If I had a dollar for every rookie guy and gal that came in here complaining that they just couldn't get their bass right and their problem turned out to be that they had their mix position or their monitors set up in a corner or their mix position was sitting smack dab in a bass null, I could probably buy those KRKs for you.
G.
And also remember when you get them home, Adamki, that how you set them up in your room will make all the difference in the world. If I had a dollar for every rookie guy and gal that came in here complaining that they just couldn't get their bass right and their problem turned out to be that they had their mix position or their monitors set up in a corner or their mix position was sitting smack dab in a bass null, I could probably buy those KRKs for you.
G.
R
robin watson
New member
What kind of friend asks 600 dollars for his NS10s? Swipe him off your Xmas list at once.
I
Ironklad Audio
New member
eh...i'm gonna call bullshit here
while i can see some people adopting them because such-and-such engineer states he uses them, the fact is that THOUSANDS of the best engineers worldwide have used them for years now, and have mixed some of the greatest records ever made on them. if they really were THAT crap, the majority of those individuals would've dumped them a long time ago.
granted, a lot of people do hate them, and have no problem saying so...but to throw them under the bus like that and act like they have no place in a studio is just ignorant IMO.
Monkey Allen
Fork and spoon operator
Look I just throw my arms up in the air these days when I think about monitors...there's so much hype around anything labelled 'monitor'...when some reports claim that yuo'll get the results from hifi speakers...when I always read that you'd be a fool to use hifi speakers. But check out the Sound on Sound article about "Monitors vs Hifi". You can't buy 5 inch monitors because they have no bass...you gotta buy a sub for them...you gotta buy a sub for the sub...it's fckn craziness. You gotta treat your room so that it winds up looking like something your blind aunty decorated on some drunk summer afternoon binge.
At the end of the day all this gear...the M-Audio, Yamaha, Mackie, KRK...etc...any old one will do...just know what it does, in your room, with your ears, with your music, in translation to PC speakers, earbuds...etc
Am I too cynical?
At the end of the day all this gear...the M-Audio, Yamaha, Mackie, KRK...etc...any old one will do...just know what it does, in your room, with your ears, with your music, in translation to PC speakers, earbuds...etc
Am I too cynical?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
IMHO, you are just about right on target.
Th real issue behind all this is the one nobody wants to admit to: anybody who can't tell with their own ears which loudspeker is best for them won't do any better with one monitor than they will with another. It's like trying to decide which $600 set of golf clubs to recommend to someone who can barely hit the ball off the tee. If one doesn't know what to listen for, then it won't matter what they hear.
And - here's where I get into trouble again
- if they don't know what to listen for, they probably shouldn't be the one doing the audio.G.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
There's a number of factors at work here. One is ignorance, i.e. simply not knowing what there is out there and its characteristics. Another is lots of choice . . . there are so many choices it's next to impossible to assess them all and to make a decision. A third is the attraction of the glittery shiny things . . . impressive-looking objects are highly desirable; they become status symbols. A fourth is an inability to discriminate when we do a hearing test on them. There are probably other factors as well.
The consequence is that we seek signposts to direct us to our purchases; peer recommendations, peer purchases . . . some confirmation that our purchase is going to be a wise one because we are not sure ourselves. But, practically, this has little value, because no one else knows exactly our circumstances, our level of experience, our listening environment or our capacity for sonic discernment.
If you are not sure what you want, don't sweat on it. Go to a shop, have a listen to a few, buy one that you like the sound of. If you are not sure, then just buy one that you like the look of. It really doesn't matter.
Don't succumb to the fallacy of unobtainable perfection, i.e. the choice you make must be the perfect choice. It's not going to happen. As you gain experience and proficiency in your craft, you will acquire the ability to be more discerning, and that's when you learn that it's time to do something about your set up.
It's exactly as Glen says: a topline set of clubs ain't gonna make you a better golfer if you can't hit the ball off the tee in the first place. Nor can you get a driving licence and hop straight into an F1 car. Get something that will get you going first.
There's a maxim floating around the place which goes like "buy cheap, buy twice" or something like that. It means that if you buy something cheap, it is highly likely that you are going to have to replace it fairly soon (either because it breaks down or because it no longer suits you). I've never subscribed to that view. I am quite content to buy something that's only okay until I'm ready to move on. I would rather do that than make a more substantial investment in something that is not going to be suitable (but I don't realise it), or that I'm not going to be able to make use of effectively (because I don't know how).
The consequence is that we seek signposts to direct us to our purchases; peer recommendations, peer purchases . . . some confirmation that our purchase is going to be a wise one because we are not sure ourselves. But, practically, this has little value, because no one else knows exactly our circumstances, our level of experience, our listening environment or our capacity for sonic discernment.
If you are not sure what you want, don't sweat on it. Go to a shop, have a listen to a few, buy one that you like the sound of. If you are not sure, then just buy one that you like the look of. It really doesn't matter.
Don't succumb to the fallacy of unobtainable perfection, i.e. the choice you make must be the perfect choice. It's not going to happen. As you gain experience and proficiency in your craft, you will acquire the ability to be more discerning, and that's when you learn that it's time to do something about your set up.
It's exactly as Glen says: a topline set of clubs ain't gonna make you a better golfer if you can't hit the ball off the tee in the first place. Nor can you get a driving licence and hop straight into an F1 car. Get something that will get you going first.
There's a maxim floating around the place which goes like "buy cheap, buy twice" or something like that. It means that if you buy something cheap, it is highly likely that you are going to have to replace it fairly soon (either because it breaks down or because it no longer suits you). I've never subscribed to that view. I am quite content to buy something that's only okay until I'm ready to move on. I would rather do that than make a more substantial investment in something that is not going to be suitable (but I don't realise it), or that I'm not going to be able to make use of effectively (because I don't know how).
R
RRuskin
Rick Ruskin
Where in my original response did I say they were crap and had no place in the studio? If you want to disagree then disagree. Don't put words in my mouth.
"They are not accurate. It became hip to use them because one very successful producer/engineer mentioned that he used them. It's possible to get good mixes with them but you need to learn how to 2nd guess them so the mixes translate well on other systems. They are better used as the "check to see how this sounds on typical home gear stuff" monitors rather than the main/really accurate ones. YMMV."
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I think this is a key source of confusion in the NS-10 mythology.
While I'm sure there are indeed a number of commercial releases that have been mixed on NS-10s, I believe (I have no hard data to back this up, I admit) far more than that they have been used as "check monitors" or "baseline reference" monitors. That doesn't mean that's what they were actually *mixed* on.
The NS-10 became a popular "standard" in much the same way that Pro Tools did; more than anything else they provided a familiar environment for the pro engineer who might be working in Studio X for one project and Studio Y for the next. Each one became a de facto standard not so much because they were the best choice, or necessarily even that great of a choice (at the time), but because they were in the right place at the right time. ProTools was pretty much the first and only serious multitrack NLE at the time, and the NS-10 was really the first and only currently-produced bookshelf speaker that was being being re-marketed as a portable nearfield studio monitor.
A key word there is *portable" Yes, Bob Clearmountain's endorsement DID have a major impact on it's adoption by the community (though that was not the only factor, of course.) The idea was that he could have a set of reference monitors that he *knew* that he could take with him from studio to studio the way many Auratone owners liked to do. This way, no matter what the studio, he had a baseline reference that he could use to check to make sure his mixes actually sounded like what he thought they sounded like, and that his ears were not being tricked by an unfamiliar studio environment and monitor sound.
The studios picked up on this and started replacing their lava lamps with NS-10s (
) for the convenience of the engineer so that they would not have to drag stuff with him, and so that he knew that he could work in that studio and still be able to check his mixes on a faimilar-sounding monitor. This made the studio more attractive to engineers and helped bring in business in much the same way that having a PT rig attracted engineers who worked in PT and didn't want to have to worry about their projects being transportable to another studio or to have to worry about learning every brand of DAW platform out there.But none of this means that the engineers actually did most of their *mixing* on the NS-10s. Sure, many of them did. But mostly, they used them to check the mixes that they made on more detailed monitors than the NS-10, or at least bounced between the two sets of monitors while mixing.
None of which really is a shining reference for the use of NS-10s as one's only monitor for mixing. Can it be done? Sure. But the idea that the NS-10 has been a standard in pro studio lineups is not really a supportive argument for it, because that's not the *why* of that pro standard.
G.
A
adamki
New member
Thanks everybody!
I read this stuff all the time But really never comment because I'M not that great at mixing. But anyway here some stuff I mixed. I'm On drums. www.myspace.com/foreverandadaybands
and thanks again.
And if anybody needs drum drum tracks, I love to play.
I read this stuff all the time But really never comment because I'M not that great at mixing. But anyway here some stuff I mixed. I'm On drums. www.myspace.com/foreverandadaybands
and thanks again.
And if anybody needs drum drum tracks, I love to play.
guido #2
New member
Just mt two pennies:
I use NS10s and Mackie HR824s almost every day.
I was indeed shocked, but all my mixes on the NS10s tranffered much better to the outside world than on the Mackies. Low end included.
With the NS10s, I feel I can hear "deeper" into the mix. Reverbs become more apparent. My bottom is tighter (did I just say that
) and the stereo spread is just a smidge wider.
Call me what you want, but Ill give you $200 for your "doorstops" right now. That seems like a MORE than fair price for a Doorstop
btw: the NS10s are running on a Hafler amp
I use NS10s and Mackie HR824s almost every day.
I was indeed shocked, but all my mixes on the NS10s tranffered much better to the outside world than on the Mackies. Low end included.
With the NS10s, I feel I can hear "deeper" into the mix. Reverbs become more apparent. My bottom is tighter (did I just say that
) and the stereo spread is just a smidge wider.Call me what you want, but Ill give you $200 for your "doorstops" right now. That seems like a MORE than fair price for a Doorstop
btw: the NS10s are running on a Hafler amp
true-eurt
Maneater
Geesh...who would'a known...I'll have a pair of those Doorstops myself!!!!With the NS10s, I feel I can hear "deeper" into the mix. Reverbs become more apparent. My bottom is tighter (did I just say that
Call me what you want, but Ill give you $200 for your "doorstops" right now. That seems like a MORE than fair price for a Doorstop
M
MCI2424
New member
I think this is a key source of confusion in the NS-10 mythology.
While I'm sure there are indeed a number of commercial releases that have been mixed on NS-10s, I believe (I have no hard data to back this up, I admit) far more than that they have been used as "check monitors" or "baseline reference" monitors. That doesn't mean that's what they were actually *mixed* on.
The NS-10 became a popular "standard" in much the same way that Pro Tools did; more than anything else they provided a familiar environment for the pro engineer who might be working in Studio X for one project and Studio Y for the next. Each one became a de facto standard not so much because they were the best choice, or necessarily even that great of a choice (at the time), but because they were in the right place at the right time. ProTools was pretty much the first and only serious multitrack NLE at the time, and the NS-10 was really the first and only currently-produced bookshelf speaker that was being being re-marketed as a portable nearfield studio monitor.
A key word there is *portable" Yes, Bob Clearmountain's endorsement DID have a major impact on it's adoption by the community (though that was not the only factor, of course.) The idea was that he could have a set of reference monitors that he *knew* that he could take with him from studio to studio the way many Auratone owners liked to do. This way, no matter what the studio, he had a baseline reference that he could use to check to make sure his mixes actually sounded like what he thought they sounded like, and that his ears were not being tricked by an unfamiliar studio environment and monitor sound.
The studios picked up on this and started replacing their lava lamps with NS-10s (
But none of this means that the engineers actually did most of their *mixing* on the NS-10s. Sure, many of them did. But mostly, they used them to check the mixes that they made on more detailed monitors than the NS-10, or at least bounced between the two sets of monitors while mixing.
None of which really is a shining reference for the use of NS-10s as one's only monitor for mixing. Can it be done? Sure. But the idea that the NS-10 has been a standard in pro studio lineups is not really a supportive argument for it, because that's not the *why* of that pro standard.
G.
BTW: I have a set of Auratones bought back in 1981. Anyone who can get a decent sounding mix on them is, in my opinion, an audio god. They are that bad.
jmorris
New member
you can mix on any speaker in the world if "you know" what that speaker sounds like. I also believe that different people hear things differently. Different ears,perceptions etc.