Yamaha NS10's - what's the dealio?

[tigerflystudio]

Hi,
there seems to be fair bit of contention over whether the NS10's are actually any good for mixing. There doesn't seem to be a structured thread about them, though. Lots of folks seem to have used them (or still do), but on the flip side of that coin there are those who simply can not stand them.

I wondered what it is about the speakers you either love or hate? Some argue that they are very neutral but somehow sound nasty. Some say they sound great. What's your opinion and why?

 

[dintymoore]

NS10M's aren't really studio monitors but just the most popular home reference speakers. I can't imagine a big time studio having just NS10M's.

They sound good, tight, don't wear you out. They don't have much bass, so that can result in bass heavy mixes. I use a homemade sub that solved that. I actually like my set of Acoustic Research AR-7's better to just listen to.

I don't respect anybody's ears more than Bernie Grundman. I read an interview with him and he'd just mastered Eminem's CD and was doing a Disney movie next, and he had a set of NS10M's on his desk.

For sure, there are lots of speakers that are better to mix on, are more accurate and sound better. I bought mine in '83 or '84 and have been using them since... I'm hooked on them. I also have a pair of Auratones - museum stuff. They were sort of the pre-NS10M's.

I never thought NS10M's sounded nasty at all. They have a natural, clear sound to me.

 

[ez_willis]

NS10M's aren't really studio monitors but just the most popular home reference speakers. I can't imagine a big time studio having just NS10M's.

really? every studio i've ever been in had a pair. they were an industry standard forever. never have i once been to someone's house where someone was rocking a set on the home theater.

 

[ez_willis]

this thread should be closed. nothing good will come of it.

 

[ez_willis]

I can't imagine a big time studio having just NS10M's.

missed that part of it. I've never been in a studio that ONLY had ns10's either.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I wondered what it is about the speakers you either love or hate? Some argue that they are very neutral but somehow sound nasty. Some say they sound great. What's your opinion and why?

Loudspeakers are like shoes or bowling balls; what fits one person like a comfortable glove can be painful and useless to another.

This is Mother Nature at work; no two sets of ears and brains are the same. Everybody has different hearing and different preferences. No two people can even agree on what "flat" actually sounds like.

With this in mind, it's impossible to call any particular model of loudspeaker as globally "good" or "bad". Either this model or that model works for you or it doesn't, just like one rental bowling ball may fit your fingers fine or it may not.

Technically speaking, the NS-10 and NS-10m are far from neutral or flat. Their bass response is about as solid as a tower of jello, they have a nasty bump of several dBs in the upper mids, and - on the NS-10M, anyway - the high end tends to be a bit on the brittle side (on that last one, one famous trick that a lot of engineers use is to tape a piece of tissue paper over the tweeter just to remove some of the "edge" from the HF.)

But there are lots of engineers out there that don't like flat, or that hear the idiosyncractic character of the NS-10 as fairly neutral. Either way, they can actually mix well on them. Others just get a headache listening to them for any extended period and prefer a speaker that is closer to technical flat. Neither side is globally right or wrong, they are only right or wrong for themselves and their ears.

Then why are the NS-10s so legendary? Those reasons are more a story of that's just how history played out and the NS-10 being in the right place at the right time than they are of the NS-10 having any special qualities that put it head and shoulders above anything else.

G.

 

[scott free]

There must be a reason why there are a ton for sale on ebay right now.
Just sayin

Thanks,
Scott.

 

[Lt. Bob]

they suck and I think the reason you see them in studios is there is a real need for a 'sucky' standard. They sound similar to the lo-fi crap that so many people have as home stereos and so, give a good reference as to what mixes will sound like in the typical home.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

I use NS-10's as a kind of "mid-range magnifier". It really shows up any vocal/instrument conflicts in the middle of the audio spectrum.

Having said that, I can't imagine trying to do an actual full mix on them, but there are apparently a number of engineers (that I respect) who can.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think the reason you see them in studios is there is a real need for a 'sucky' standard.

Yep, and the key word there is "standard".

NS-10s are in so many studios for much the same reason that Pro Tools is. Pro Tools is not intrinsically and definitively better than, say, Samplitude or Nuendo or Sonar, but Pro Tools hit the studio early and studios wanted a standard platform so that engineers could come in to their studio and know how to use their gear without having to learn new software every time, so everybody got Pro Tools.

It's much the same thing with the NS-10. "Nearfield studio monitors" did not really exist back then. The NS-10 was actually a home stereo bookshelf speaker when it came out. Then some big name engineer - the story is that it was Bob Clearmountain - got the idea that he wanted to have a portable speaker that he could easily take with him from studio to studio to use as a reference; i.e. speakers whose sound he was familiar with and from which he could translate his mixes well. He chose the original NS-10s as speakers which, while most definitely not typical "studio quality" (by standard definitions of the time), he knew if he could make a mix sound good on those, it would probably sound good on anything.

So his idea of carrying his own personal bookshelf speakers caught on, and so did the NS-10 ("if Clearmountin likes them, why shouldn't I?"). The studios then caught on to the idea and started equipping themselves with NS-10s as secondary monitors to attract engineers so that they'd have a familiar reference to work with without them having to lug their own speakers around with them. Thus a standard was born; not of sound quality, but of standardization and as a way to lure engineers.

Yamaha rode this wave and then replaced the NS-10 with the NS-10M, with the "M" standing for "monitor" and the words "studio monitor" emblazened all over the advertising. The ironic thing is that most engineers at the time preferred the original NS-10s because the M model had a new tweeter design that many believed over-hyped the high end (hence the tissue paper trick).

But now the "nearfield studio monitor" market was born, out of one engineer with a good idea. Everybody jumped into that money-making pool and soon offered their own small bx "studio monitors", many of which are just bookshelf speakers in disguise, and we are left with the legacy of a bunch of people arguing endlessly in forums about who's favorite brand of nearfield sound better than who's .

G.

 

[dkelley]

NS10M's aren't really studio monitors but just the most popular home reference speakers. I can't imagine a big time studio having just NS10M's.

they became studio monitors after the first few months of release actually. they were terribly failed home speakers that were remarketed for the pro studio after not too long and existed in EVERY SINGLE RECORDING STUDIO I worked in during the early 90s. without exception. that's dozens of studios. I hated them every time LoL, but maybe that's just me. you're right though, they started as home speakers until near fields caught on.

They sound good, tight, don't wear you out. They don't have much bass, so that can result in bass heavy mixes. I use a homemade sub that solved that. I actually like my set of Acoustic Research AR-7's better to just listen to.

don't wear you out? sound good? no way, sorry, but I've never heard them described like that before. these are the speakers that created the terms like "tiring" when describing studio monitors. they do sound really tight though. the generally accepted phrase is "if you can make your mix sound good on ns-10s it will sound good on anything". that's moderately true, although because ns10s have such a harsh high end that is accentuated several db compared to the woofer's output, it's easy to make tame sounding mixes on ns10s, and as you noted, it's easy to add too much deep bass as well. But people still learned to mix on them and did great work on them if they could handle the sound. For me, I just got headaches listening to them so had to avoid them whenever possible.

I don't respect anybody's ears more than Bernie Grundman. I read an interview with him and he'd just mastered Eminem's CD and was doing a Disney movie next, and he had a set of NS10M's on his desk.

doesn't mean they're the best speakers or even good sounding, just means that he learned back in the day when NS10s were everywhere and one HAD to learn NS10s if you wanted to work in other people's studios. Maybe he even likes them... they are VERY good for revealing issues in your tracking or mixing. they're NOT good for listening to music or getting an idea of the true balance of your mix imho.

For sure, there are lots of speakers that are better to mix on, are more accurate and sound better. I bought mine in '83 or '84 and have been using them since... I'm hooked on them. I also have a pair of Auratones - museum stuff. They were sort of the pre-NS10M's.

I never thought NS10M's sounded nasty at all. They have a natural, clear sound to me.

you do realize that you are more the exception than the rule here right? not in that you use them and find they work well, tons of people have been in that camp, although it's much less common these days with so many better options available for reasonable prices in recent years. Mostly people who use ns10s still are people who learned on them 20 years ago. IF someone is starting out now I will always recommend against them, you can get just as much revealing quality in much better sounding speakers that are quite affordable and far easier to mix on these days.

but if you like them, that's great! I wouldn't be suggesting to someone here that they should expect to like them however. I HATE the harsh highs from the tweeters.

There's a reason why some engineers put tissue paper over the tweeters back in the day... although to me that defeated the only thing those speakers brought to the control room back in the day: they revealed hiss and other noises in the mix because they had such exaggerated highs compared to the woofer's output.

I really liked the sound of the woofers in those things though, I admit that. great punchy bass, just without any real low end extension of course.

 

[quickmill]

There is a theory that the mids are the most important part of a mix in order for translation to be good. Ns10's emphasize the mids in a way that full range monitors do not. If you get the mids right on the ns10's then you can work out the highs and lows on your full range monitors. I use Hs50's the same way and am a big believer in this theory (my mixes translate much better since adding them). I also can't imagine them being my only monitors but better men than I obviously can.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

There is a theory that the mids are the most important part of a mix in order for translation to be good. Ns10's emphasize the mids in a way that full range monitors do not. If you get the mids right on the ns10's then you can work out the highs and lows on your full range monitors. I use Hs50's the same way and am a big believer in this theory (my mixes translate much better since adding them). I also can't imagine them being my only monitors but better men than I obviously can.

The whole thing about the midrange is that the NS-10 boosts the upper mids a few dBs, which tend sto emphasize that crucial band, exposing problems there in a way not unsimilar to what a parametric sweep of the same area, except in a more broadband manor that covers the upper mids simultaneously instead of just a narrow Q sweep would do.

One thing to be careful with them in that respect is that the newb ear tends to want to over-compensate by scooping the mids in a more broadband way than they would with sweeps. If that's the kind of sound one likes, one could just throw a death scoop/smiley face EQ on the master bus, because that's more or less what that technique winds up doing, give or take a couple of dB/Hz. While that can work on the uneducated ear on a 70s home stereo in much the same way the old loudness buttons can, it's probably not a great habit to get in to when trying to do audiophile-quality mixing.

G.

 

[KillahKane860]

Ive owned the NS-10's for several years and in my opinion, they are definately an excellent set of monitors. However, again ain my opinion, they should not be the only set of monitors in a studio. From my experience, they are not able to reproduce enough low end on their own, hence many people mention that it is a good mid range monitor. Eventually, I parted with them and I got the Mackie HR824's and these are the best Ive ever had. They have a great overall sound including good low end, although I also do have a separate subwoofer in my studio...

 

[slowmotion]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm

Have a read of the above article. Interesting read and has actually made me want a pair of my own, even though in the past I too thought they sounded pretty bad the few times I was exposed to them (I was not behind the desk and it certainly could have been my band at the time that really sucked hahaha).

 

[darrin_h2000]

Ive been using them and Ive never gotten tired...but I havent had to sit in front of them very long to get the job done...Ive had other sets of nearfields and I know these pretty well...I do have some midfields and other sets...but using the NS10s as a tool...Ive never changed anything after listening on another system.

 

[quickmill]

The whole thing about the midrange is that the NS-10 boosts the upper mids a few dBs, which tend sto emphasize that crucial band, exposing problems there in a way not unsimilar to what a parametric sweep of the same area, except in a more broadband manor that covers the upper mids simultaneously instead of just a narrow Q sweep would do.

One thing to be careful with them in that respect is that the newb ear tends to want to over-compensate by scooping the mids in a more broadband way than they would with sweeps. If that's the kind of sound one likes, one could just throw a death scoop/smiley face EQ on the master bus, because that's more or less what that technique winds up doing, give or take a couple of dB/Hz. While that can work on the uneducated ear on a 70s home stereo in much the same way the old loudness buttons can, it's probably not a great habit to get in to when trying to do audiophile-quality mixing.

G.

Which is why I recommend they be used with another set of monitors and not used alone. However, I can say the same for my Mackie 824's, which are not the most "revealing" monitors (they make ANYTHING sound good). Used together, they are pretty amazing. I will never go back to a single set of monitors.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Which is why I recommend they be used with another set of monitors and not used alone. However, I can say the same for my Mackie 824's, which are not the most "revealing" monitors (they make ANYTHING sound good). Used together, they are pretty amazing. I will never go back to a single set of monitors.

As a fellow owner/user of 824s, I agree they are a much "better" sounding monitor, but my theory there is not that they make bad stuff sound good - if something sounds bad, it sounds bad no matter what you play it on - they just don't make good stuff sound bad and don't emphasize critical frequencies to make the bad stuff blatantly obvious.

But that's off-topic (me??? off topic??? What a surprise! ) The main point you make about using something along with the NS-10s is really what they're kind of all about. While many big boy studios are equipped with NS-10s, they are virtually never the only loudspeakers that studio has. And furthermore, most big boy engineers actually do the majority of their actual *mixing* on the other loudspeakers (often far-field arrays), but use the NS-10s as "check", or reference monitors. It's kind of the same idea like many of us here do when we take our mixes out to the car to check our mixes there.

G.