[PMAT]

What does this really prove? The NS-10 cabinets are weak. The drivers are nothing special. Do the new crossovers make them great? Probably not.

[Russell Dawkins]

What does this really prove? The NS-10 cabinets are weak. The drivers are nothing special. Do the new crossovers make them great? Probably not.

The NS 10 deserves the reputation and the role it has in studios. In many ways it is more revealing than the vast majority of speakers out there, non-linear frequency response notwithstanding. Read this summation by Sound on Sound and learn some reasons why this reflexively dissed speaker has real merit.
http://tinyurl.com/o46dyum
Notice the results for the ATCs, as well.

[bdp24]

The frequency chart explains why the NS10's sound so forward and downright nasty. Horrible loudspeaker. And every Pro studio I've been in has a pair.

[Russell Dawkins]

Wait a minute. Aren't those audiophile speakers?

Yep - many studios make the same mistakes as many audiophiles and choose speakers based on name and street reputation, as witness the following:

Here are some more: http://www.singmastering.com/the-studio/#2

Those must be very good speakers.

I hope you are joking. Listen to the sound samples of that mastering studio's work:
http://www.singmastering.com/listen/

They all sound very bass light to me. I'm sure this was not intended. It is an error. I attribute that to overly ripe bass in the monitoring set up, whether speakers, room or both, but probably the result of using a speaker intended to please the bass-hungry consumer, not for mastering. I think this sort of error (bad linearity of response from 20 - 400Hz) is by far the most common and also the most damaging when accuracy of replay is desired.

It is worth mentioning that this seems to be a mastering facility with aspirations to high end and they look to have spent big bucks in that pursuit - but, as often is the case, not in the right places.

In my opinion, there has been a significant improvement in some of the best monitors over the last 15 years, so that suitable speakers can be had from numerous manufacturers, but with few exceptions not many of them are making domestic speakers. Again, the most significant difference between the better monitors and the vast majority of speakers aimed at domestic consumption is the speed of clearing in the bass region - the rapid settling time. Look at that aspect of the performance in the waterfall plots of the K+H 0198 (which is similar to the K+H 0300 that I use), the ATC SCM 20A and the Yamaha NS10 contrasted with the majority of the others, including the popular Mackie HR 824 and the Meyer HM-1S, on pages 10 and 11 of this pdf:
http://tinyurl.com/o46dyum

[Russell Dawkins]

The frequency chart explains why the NS10's sound so forward and downright nasty. Horrible loudspeaker. And every Pro studio I've been in has a pair.

- and why do you think most pro studios has a pair? Hint: it's not because they're nasty and "if you can make it sound good on those, it'll sound good on anything". Read the pdf I linked to and find out.

[Redefy Audio]

Russell Dawkins,

Thank you for the link to that paper, its very educational for me 

cheers
henry

[Early B.]

Russell Dawkins,

Thank you for the link to that paper, its very educational for me 

The last statement says:  "It is notable how many of the people who use them in studios do not use them for home listening."

[Quiet Earth]

Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do was look at a chart to see how well a speaker works? Or open it up and look at the parts to see how good it sounds?

FWIW (nothing, I know), I owned a pair of perfect measurement Mackie HR824s for a few years. I could never get my mixes to translate on other systems. I tried and tried but finally gave up. It could have been me or it could have been the monitors, but I had to let them go and try something else. I think the ability of a person to translate their mix to sound right on all other audio systems is the only reason to own studio monitors.

It is all that matters. That's not what this thread is about.

[Danny Richie]

What does this really prove? The NS-10 cabinets are weak. The drivers are nothing special. Do the new crossovers make them great? Probably not.

The drivers are not bad at all actually. And the new crossover makes them more accurate than about 95% of the speakers out there. The new crossover also increases their clarity and ones ability to hear a detail and resolution levels well beyond what was possible before.

[Danny Richie]

Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do was look at a chart to see how well a speaker works? Or open it up and look at the parts to see how good it sounds?

Actually it is pretty nice. The measured responses will tell you how accurate a speaker is and highlight any problems. And looking at the crossover parts can tell you a LOT about how a speaker will sound. All of those crossover parts impart their own characteristics into the playback.

FWIW (nothing, I know), I owned a pair of perfect measurement Mackie HR824s for a few years. I could never get my mixes to translate on other systems. I tried and tried but finally gave up.

Most of those that I have measured have been horribly inaccurate and highly color the sound. I can't believe anyone could use them.

[Danny Richie]

Quote from: Danny Richie on 29 Oct 2013, 05:25 pm

Wait a minute. Aren't those audiophile speakers?

Yep - many studios make the same mistakes as many audiophiles and choose speakers based on name and street reputation, as witness the following:
Quote

Here are some more: http://www.singmastering.com/the-studio/#2

Those must be very good speakers.

I hope you are joking. Listen to the sound samples of that mastering studio's work:
http://www.singmastering.com/listen/

They all sound very bass light to me. I'm sure this was not intended. It is an error. I attribute that to overly ripe bass in the monitoring set up, whether speakers, room or both, but probably the result of using a speaker intended to please the bass-hungry consumer, not for mastering. I think this sort of error (bad linearity of response from 20 - 400Hz) is by far the most common and also the most damaging when accuracy of replay is desired.

No, I am not kidding. Those are incredibly good speakers. You must not be too familiar with them. They are extremely accurate and not at all designed for a bass hungry consumer. They are extremely linear and have a very tight and clean bass response from those 7" woofers.  And in the picture from the link you posted you will also see a pair of 12" servo controlled woofers on each side of the speakers. They produce the fastest and cleanest bass response in the industry.

[HAL]

From the paper posted, the NS10M response bump in the midrange from the farfield measurements is flattened by the console baffle once the speaker is placed nearfield.  Might be why a flat response measuring monitor in farfield does not work as well for monitoring in nearfield with the desk baffle. 

[Quiet Earth]

Actually it is pretty nice. The measured responses will tell you how accurate a speaker is and highlight any problems. And looking at the crossover parts can tell you a LOT about how a speaker will sound. All of those crossover parts impart their own characteristics into the playback.

Most of those that I have measured have been horribly inaccurate and highly color the sound. I can't believe anyone could use them.

I think you missed the point entirely. It's not about how good a speaker is or how well it measures. It's about how someone can use a particular speaker as a reliable tool to translate their mix to other systems. It's mostly about developing the skills to mix rather than buying something that magically does the work for you.

Maybe I have the wrong definition of studio speakers.

[Danny Richie]

I think you missed the point entirely. It's not about how good a speaker is or how well it measures. It's about how someone can use a particular speaker as a reliable tool to translate their mix to other systems. It's mostly about developing the skills to mix rather than buying something that magically does the work for you.

Maybe I have the wrong definition of studio speakers.

Oh, I get what your saying now.

It is the same for loudspeaker design. Any amateur can buy the tools now and then they think they can design loudspeakers. 

[Danny Richie]

From the paper posted, the NS10M response bump in the midrange from the farfield measurements is flattened by the console baffle once the speaker is placed nearfield.  Might be why a flat response measuring monitor in farfield does not work as well for monitoring in nearfield with the desk baffle.

Mid-range is technically centered in the 300 to 500Hz range though. The huge rise is in the upper region where it would make the speaker overly bright. Even if a close wall placement lifts the lower end the range some, above the rise is still going to be down a lot. It's messed up anyway that you look at it.

[Russell Dawkins]

No, I am not kidding. Those are incredibly good speakers. You must not be too familiar with them. They are extremely accurate and not at all designed for a bass hungry consumer. They are extremely linear and have a very tight and clean bass response from those 7" woofers.  And in the picture from the link you posted you will also see a pair of 12" servo controlled woofers on each side of the speakers. They produce the fastest and cleanest bass response in the industry.

I haven't heard the Tylers, although I have seen a few references to them. They always looked to me like a relatively cheap entry into what is conventionally expected in a mastering facility - bling in the form of monster speakers, statement amplifiers, garden hose speaker wire, etc., to impress the client. I have never read a credible review of any Tyler yet.
As I said - from the sound samples on that page, I would say that either the speakers have a lot of overhang in the bass region or the room acoustics have an R60 characteristic which insufficiently damps this bass range, because all the samples are bass-deficient in a similar way. Do you not agree - or do the samples sound good to you?

[Russell Dawkins]

Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do was look at a chart to see how well a speaker works? Or open it up and look at the parts to see how good it sounds?

FWIW (nothing, I know), I owned a pair of perfect measurement Mackie HR824s for a few years. I could never get my mixes to translate on other systems. I tried and tried but finally gave up. It could have been me or it could have been the monitors, but I had to let them go and try something else. I think the ability of a person to translate their mix to sound right on all other audio systems is the only reason to own studio monitors.

It is all that matters. That's not what this thread is about.

What is not what this thread is about? My main talking point is sound translation from studio to consumer, and I think bass character is a large part of this consideration and significant in differentiating between what works as a monitor and what works for home use.

I find waterfall plots very useful in getting some idea of a speaker's performance if I cannot listen to it. The Mackie HR 824 (which I have heard), with its passive radiator assisted design yielding response down to 39Hz from a smallish box, sounds just like the waterfall plot suggests. Look at the overhang in the bass. That is what one-note inarticulate bass looks like! It is also probably the main reason you were having difficulty getting your mixes to translate, although I have also read numerous instances of HR 824 owners needing to cross check their midrange on other speakers, like the NS10.

A very well designed monitor enables good mixes with minimal cross-checking on other speakers and maximum translation to the world-at-large.

[AKLegal]

I haven't heard the Tylers, although I have seen a few references to them. They always looked to me like a relatively cheap entry into what is conventionally expected in a mastering facility - bling in the form of monster speakers, statement amplifiers, garden hose speaker wire, etc., to impress the client. I have never read a credible review of any Tyler yet.
As I said - from the sound samples on that page, I would say that either the speakers have a lot of overhang in the bass region or the room acoustics have an R60 characteristic which insufficiently damps this bass range, because all the samples are bass-deficient in a similar way. Do you not agree - or do the samples sound good to you?

Your guesses about how the Tyler's sound don't agree with my experience in owning the smaller D2s for almost 2 years.  They are very accurate speakers. They sound much more like stand mounted speakers than they do "monster speakers". They needed more space than I have in my listening space though, otherwise I'd still have them.

I have not listened to the mixes but perhaps the lack of bass in those mixes are due to the preferences of the guy that made them.  Maybe he thinks they sound more impressive that way or maybe he is bad at his job.  Maybe he has subs and they are turned up too loud.  Who knows.  But it seems to me that it would be difficult to make broad generalizations about speaker quality simply by listening to mixes when there are other factors that contribute to the sound of the mixes.  And this is just ONE guy we are talking about here.  If all the studios that used the D1s exhibited the same bass issues we would have something more substantial. 

I find waterfall plots very useful in getting some idea of a speaker's performance if I cannot listen to it.

I absolutely agree.  Using waterfall plots helped me transform how my room sounds.  I trust them more than regular frequency response charts.  But most waterfall plots I have seen are from end users making in studio or in house measurements.  You can't really compare them to each other since every room is different and everyone does not treat their rooms adequately. 

[Freo-1]

FWIW, I also have a pair of Tyler Reference Monitors, a two way with 7" SEAS Excel drivers, along with the SEAS Excel tweeter.  They sound smooth, natural, and pretty neutral to me.  I use them in a HT setup, but they sound very nice on two channel music as well.  They are well made, nice fit and finish, and sound good to boot.  Hard to argue with that.

Russell, thanks for the link. 
 

[Danny Richie]

I haven't heard the Tylers, although I have seen a few references to them. They always looked to me like a relatively cheap entry into what is conventionally expected in a mastering facility - bling in the form of monster speakers, statement amplifiers, garden hose speaker wire, etc., to impress the client. I have never read a credible review of any Tyler yet.
As I said - from the sound samples on that page, I would say that either the speakers have a lot of overhang in the bass region or the room acoustics have an R60 characteristic which insufficiently damps this bass range, because all the samples are bass-deficient in a similar way. Do you not agree - or do the samples sound good to you?

Actually they are very good speakers. Nothing cheap about them. The drivers are basically the same motor design and type as the Seas Excel line of drivers but with a paper cone. Copper coated aluminum phase plug, vented coil, Copper shorting rings, Copper coated top and bottom plate, etc. All first class....



And I should know. I designed the drivers.    And the speakers.

No overhang in the bass region at all. Very clean!

And there are tons of great reviews out there on the Decade line that I designed for Tyler Acoustics. All are great reviews.

I really can't judge the mix quality played back on my modest desk top speakers. I am sure they are only MP3 or some other compressed file type for Youtube as well. Maybe the guy that made the mix had the servo subs cranked way up and he is compensating for it. Maybe he wanted them that way. I do not know.

At least he has speakers capable of allowing him to hear everything accurately, or at least to the level that his electronics allow.

And it is hard to tell if the speakers are backed up to an untreated wall (way to close) or if it is an acoustically transparent false wall. In one pic it looks like it could be a false wall. It could be just fabric coated. I certainly wouldn't have opted for a hardwood floor though.