John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Hello.
Apart from the Acoustic Energy AE22's that I have mentioned in another recent thread.
What would you guys suggest as alternative monitors of a similar hi-fi quality as the old classic NS10's?

They were home speakers at first, so maybe any reasonable decent home speakers

They way I see it, NS-10's are not amazingly popular in studios because of how GOOD they are, but rather because of how MEDIOCRE they are. They sound more or less like averagely decent home stereo speakers, so they make a good point of reference for checking how the mix will sound the way most people will hear it at home, so you can probably just go with any fairly decent home stereo speakers if you can't get NS-10's.

Having said that, personally I reckon that "most people" no longer listen to music mainly on their home stereo systems these days: I have no statistics to back me up, but I reckon that "most people" these days listen on MP3's, iPods, car stereos, cell phone ear buds, and computer "speakers", so I'm not really convinced that having a set of NS-10's (or equivalent) is as important as it used to be. Perhaps a better bet would be to have some average lousy US$ 25 computer "speakers", some average lousy ear buds, and some average decent car stereo speakers in your studio CR, then check the final mix on those: to my mind, that's the way most people will listen to your mix these days anyway, so that's where it needs to sound good.

- Stuart -

buy the best monitors you can have
and too check the mix just ad a hi-pass

bad speakers as an average tend towards flat freq response and usually are limited in the bass

you can go bad many many different ways so there is no reference

but if you go good there is a clear tendency to a flat on axis response and a smooth and constant directivity
my 2 cents

valentin wrote:buy the best monitors you can have
and too check the mix just ad a hi-pass

There is no substitute for having a secondary set of speakers with a different crossover point (or no crossover at all).
If budget is a concern, there are terrible speakers everywhere. Just look up computer speakers and pick a set.

The key with main monitors is find a set that makes great recordings sound the way you think they should sound. But for a second reference pair, just about any miserable speaker will do.

buy the best monitors you can have
and too check the mix just ad a hi-pass

I don't think he was talking about what to use for his mains, but rather what to use for a set of general purpose monitors that sound like NS10's, ie, mediocre and harsh in the high end. I'm not so sure that just adding a high pass filter to near-field studio monitors will turn them into NS-10's, either! There is an awful lot to it than just frequency response.

bad speakers as an average tend towards flat freq response and usually are limited in the bass

I'm not so sure I agree with that either, and the frequency response of NS-10's could hardly be considered "flat"! Not even the NS-10M is flat. Which is one reason they make such good monitors.

but if you go good there is a clear tendency to a flat on axis response and a smooth and constant directivity

Actually, a point about 20% to 30% off axis is the the best place to get an idea of how a speaker really sounds, and how good its response is, since that's where most of the energy comes from and goes to anyway. You don't have to move very far from the intersection of the speaker axes in a CR to get your ears close to 20% off axis. Slide your chair forwards or backwards a few inches, and you'll be there...

The story with the NS10s is that a leading engineer , Bob Clearmountain, was asked by a friend if he could get him a pair of small bookshelf speakers for his home for around $300. Bob went to the local shop and decided upon the NS10s as they met the specs his friend had asked for and they sounded OK in the shop.

When he got back to the studio, The Power Station, he put them up in the console and swapped them for the Auritones just to make sure they worked outta the box. When he'd finished the days recording he ran off a quick mix to reference back at home, unplugged the NS10s and took them home. As he was driving home he played the tape in his car and was instantly amazed at how the tape sounded like the studio - he later played the tape at home and once again he noticed how true to the original mix they sounded. So he went out and bought himself a pair.

I worked with a band and we had Bob Clearmountain mix one of the tracks (he was world famous by then) - a couple of the band flew over to NY for the mix. They told that Bob refused to listen to anything over 85db and NEVER referred to the main monitors, only the NS10s. If the band wanted to hear the track back loud he'd hit play and leave the room.

Bob's mixes were fantastic and everyone attributed it to the NS10s and soon everyone had a pair and Yamaha had a field day. The NS10s were the small speakers of a range - there were the NS1000 with a 12" woofer, the NS100 with a 10" woofer and the NS10s.

I have a pair of Yamaha HS-50Ms and they are as good, if not better than the NS10 IMO.

Good story John!

I don't think he was talking about what to use for his mains, but rather what to use for a set of general purpose monitors that sound like NS10's, ie, mediocre and harsh in the high end. I'm not so sure that just adding a high pass filter to near-field studio monitors will turn them into NS-10's, either! There is an awful lot to it than just frequency response.

i am sure that putting a hi pass in a great set of monitors will not convert them into ns-10 , Thank god!

mediocre speakers sound very different in so may ways but if you average them you will see a clear tendency to a flat frequency response there is no universal bad sounding monitor to be a reference

I'm not so sure I agree with that either, and the frequency response of NS-10's could hardly be considered "flat"! Not even the NS-10M is flat. Which is one reason they make such good monitors.

as an average not a single model the are studies made not my invention

ns-10 and ns10m are far from flat in freq response but thy are flat in sound power
the ns 10m has basically the same freq response as the auratone 5c with a little more bass
ns-10 are bad speaker and should not be a reference

and as John states thy became a standard because thy attributed the sound of a great engineer to the speakers he used
and that is so wrong in so many levels.

good engineers are creditors for such great mixes not the speakers there has been very good recordings done on bad conditions and that does no make us want to have such conditions.

Actually, a point about 20% to 30% off axis is the the best place to get an idea of how a speaker really sounds, and how good its response is, since that's where most of the energy comes from and goes to anyway. You don't have to move very far from the intersection of the speaker axes in a CR to get your ears close to 20% off axis. Slide your chair forwards or backwards a few inches, and you'll be there...

i do not agree dispersion from speakers vary a great deal especially when they are bad speakers
good speaker tend to have very good dispersion that resemble the on axis

but if you average them you will see a clear tendency to a flat frequency response

Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? Because that isn't what I see in mediocre home speakers I see a decided average of both low and high frequency response, and a decided emphasis in the mid range: In other words, mediocre speakers just plain sound "honky", not flat.

there is no universal bad sounding monitor to be a reference

Except for the NS-10, of course!

the ns 10m has basically the same freq response as the auratone 5c with a little more bass

Sorry, but I have to hugely disagree with that. They aren't even close. See below.

ns-10 and ns10m are far from flat in freq response but thy are flat in sound power

No they are not. See below.
Neither the NS10M nor the Auratone is flat in sound power, frequency response, or harmonics.

There's a good reason that the old Auratones quickly lost favor and were replaced by NS10's The Auratones sounded crappy, and the NS10's didn't! The response curves show part of that picture, but there are other major reasons to.

NS10's didn't become popular because everyone thought that Bob Clearmountain was a guru to be imitated, no matter what. Other engineers had ears and brains too. Bob was just lucky enough to find the NS10's first.

Despite popular legend, NS10's didn't just become popular because one big-name engineer used them. They became popular because many other engineers like them too! To claim otherwise is to suggest that all the other engineers had lousy hearing, no brains, couldn't tell the difference, and only used NS10s because "Bob uses them"! That's a pretty poor reflection of the other engineers.

The reason they tried out NS10's might well be "because Bob uses them", but the reason why they CONTINUED to use them, is because when the tried them, they found that Bob was right! NS10's really were better than what they had before, and were actually pretty good at exposing problems in a mix.

Compare the above curves with a couple of decent more modern speakers that actually do have pretty flat response curves that actually are similar:

ns-10 are bad speaker and should not be a reference

So you are saying that all the great engineers over the past few decades that swore by NS10's, used them day-in and day-out, and turned out numerous fantastic mixes four countless hit albums, were all idiots? That the weren't smart enough to figure out that, in realty, Bob was an idiot and they were lousy monitors? Sorry, but once again I disagree.

NS10s may be mediocre by today's standards, but compared to what was available back then when they became popular, they are pretty darn good. The response curve might not look like much, but it turns out to be a great curve for doing good mixes on, because it exposes issues harshly: It doesn't just "tell the the truth" like a monitor with a flat curve does, but actually "yells and screams the truth", precisely BECAUSE the curve is not flat. If you listen to an NS10 and get a good sounding mix on it, you find that you just automatically compensate for the mid-range emphasis by reducing your mix in those areas, boosting the lows a lot and the highs a little, and ... oh Gee! ... Hot Damn! .... That would mean that you approximated a loudness curve!!!!

As it turns out, the NS10 frequency curve is a pretty good mirror image facsimile of an 80 or 90-phon Fletcher-Munsen curve!!! Coincidence? Hardly!

Basically, the NS10 forces you to subconsciously do a mix that lacks mids and boosts highs and lows, and ends up looking like a curve that the human ear finds pleasant to listen to! Surprise!

It doesn't sound like a good speaker, but it forces you to produces mixes that sound good to the human ear! Not a coincidence at all. It became popular among engineers because it helped them to do mixes that sound great and translate well.

The NS10 also has great phase timing across the low end, because it is NOT a ported design. If it had ben ported, the bass response would have been better but the bass timing would have been lousy. So the bass and kick sit together well, and you can judge them truthfully, whereas ported designs tend to screw up the timing and phasing of lows, making it harder to get the low end tight.


There are many characteristics of the NS10 that one might question, but it most certainly isn't a "bad speaker that should not be a reference", which is what you suggested! Making such a claim questions the intelligence, skills, hearing and integrity of numerous engineers who used them to turn out some of the best music ever, in years gone by. And the folks who still use them today.

became a standard because thy attributed the sound of a great engineer to the speakers he used and that is so wrong in so many levels.

No, there is nothing "wrong" with seeing what some other guys uses, and trying it out for yourself. On the contrary, I'd say that it would be "wrong" to ignore what big-name engineers and artists do and don't use! Once again, to say that people ONLY used NS10's because the thought that was Bob Clearmountain's secret to success, is to question the intelligence and listening skills of countless other good engineers. Sure, Bob used them first, others noticed what he was doing and tried them out to, but you can bet that if they had not LIKED what they heard, and had not been able to produce mixes that were BETTER than what they had produced before, then they wold not have continued to use them. Suggesting otherwise questions the abilities of engineers around the world to judge for themselves whether or not a speaker is any good for mixing on.

Obviously, there probably were a few lousy engineers that used them ONLY because "that's what Bob uses", (just like there are lots of engineers today that use ProoTool because "that's what the big guys use"), but you can bet that the vast majority adopted NS10's for the same reason Bob did: because the NS10's allowed them to turn out consistently great mixes that translated well. Period.

dispersion from speakers vary a great deal especially when they are bad speakers good speaker tend to have very good dispersion that resemble the on axis

Yep. Which has nothing at all to do with what I said. It looks like you missed the point!

What I said was that the best point to listen to a speaker is NOT on axis, but at a point about 20° to 30° OFF axis, because that will tell you how good the dispersion is! Pretty much any half-decent speaker sounds good directly on axis, but it takes a great speaker to continue to sound just as good 30° off axis. But since we mixing folk DO tend to move around a lot in front of our consoles / DAWs, the zone around 20° to 30° off axis is where we do a lot of our hearing. You only need to move your chair (or head) a few inches to get off axis. Unless you bolt your head into a frame located exactly at the sweet spot, then on-axis response is meaningless.

So, once again, I repeat: "Actually, a point about 20% to 30% off-axis is the best place to get an idea of how a speaker really sounds, and how good its response is". Measuring on-axis doesn't tell you much about the speaker, except the basics. Measuring off axis tells you a lot more about it. If it is bad on-axis, it will be really terrible at 30°, so save yourself some time and just listen at 30° first. If it can still produce the exact same sound 30° off axis as it does on axis, then I'd call it a good speaker. Especially since my ears will most likely be spending a lot more time off-axis than they will on-axis.

Off-axis is what really matters in the real world, not on-axis.


- Stuart -

NS10's didn't become popular because everyone thought that Bob Clearmountain was a guru to be imitated, no matter what.

people took to them because everyone respected Bob and loved his mixes and yes - everyone agreed they were a great nearfield work speaker.

The reason they became a mix speaker was because they had a smooth midrange from 2khz - 10khz - yes - there's a 1khz peak - it was said at the time " if you make them bark you'll be fine" But it's that region this is important to balance.

You had to be very cautious of the low end as the 100hz roll off was severe so you needed full range monitors to get your low end right..

It should also be noted that at the time recordings were getting very bright in frequency response as people tried to get louder and louder on vinyl by boosting the high mids and rolling off the lows.

Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? Because that isn't what I see in mediocre home speakers I see a decided average of both low and high frequency response, and a decided emphasis in the mid range: In other words, mediocre speakers just plain sound "honky", not flat.

Except for the NS-10, of course!

the ns 10m has basically the same freq response as the auratone 5c with a little more bass

Sorry, but I have to hugely disagree with that. They aren't even close. See below.

please se below that to me is very similar contur

Neither the NS10M nor the Auratone is flat in sound power, frequency response, or harmonics.

once agian

There's a good reason that the old Auratones quickly lost favor and were replaced by NS10's The Auratones sounded crappy, and the NS10's didn't! The response curves show part of that picture, but there are other major reasons to.

both sounded crappy that's way in those days they were elected as a universal reference for crappy systems ( and today are out of production) science has gone forward since then but old habits die hard

NS10's didn't become popular because everyone thought that Bob Clearmountain was a guru to be imitated, no matter what. Other engineers had ears and brains too. Bob was just lucky enough to find the NS10's first.

Despite popular legend, NS10's didn't just become popular because one big-name engineer used them. They became popular because many other engineers like them too! To claim otherwise is to suggest that all the other engineers had lousy hearing, no brains, couldn't tell the difference, and only used NS10s because "Bob uses them"! That's a pretty poor reflection of the other engineers.

The reason they tried out NS10's might well be "because Bob uses them", but the reason why they CONTINUED to use them, is because when the tried them, they found that Bob was right! NS10's really were better than what they had before, and were actually pretty good at exposing problems in a mix

i don't agree partially

it started with bob and the it became a ishu of familiarity witch is a good thing when you jump from studio to studio.

i have Newell book from where you put your grafts i have study it. ns 10 had some strong points but for today standards and knowledge we can see its a mistake to use them as a reference

look at johns comments

The reason they became a mix speaker was because they had a smooth midrange from 2khz - 10khz - yes - there's a 1khz peak - it was said at the time " if you make them bark you'll be fine" But it's that region this is important to balance.
You had to be very cautious of the low end as the 100hz roll off was severe so you needed full range monitors to get your low end right..
It should also be noted that at the time recordings were getting very bright in frequency response as people tried to get louder and louder on vinyl by boosting the high mids and rolling off the lows.

familiarity will help you to balance the issues with this speakers

I don't agree also! Audio equipment often becomes popular because of one person or a very small group of people. A budget Radio Shack portable CD player became very popular because of one magazine writer! In truth this player's sound was identical to dozens of other players.

There was a particular thought process that took place in Power Station back around that time (and in fact even today with the Franchise of the "A" room by Tony Bongiovi), and that was that the control rooms were designed to sound like the average living room (they were NOT designed to be flat) and that reference speakers that were not of "stellar quality" are a good thing to run your mixes through........

I remember well the look on Tony's face when I asked him why he still finds and installs Big Red monitors in the control room today (and you pay some big bucks for these if and when you find a pair in good to excellent condition) when they basically just suck - and his response was that they used them for just that reason..... to quote him "If you can make a mix sound good on a pair of Reds, they'll sound good on anything".

I never questioned him on the NS10's (They were definately a step above the Red's) - but I will have to agree with John that any well known professional's endorsement of a product does a world of good to it's making it in the market place - which is why famous people are paid a ton of money for endorsement deals - and in the case of this speaker - someone as well know as Bob Clearmountain would certainly help when it came to sales.

Now, I don't know how much of the story (about Bob and the NS10's) is fact and how much is myth......... but the next time I run into Bob I will be sure to ask the question........

Rod