[Danny Richie]

I designed an upgrade for the Yamaha Studio NS-10M several years ago and just haven't had time to post anything on them.



And here is a peak inside.



This is not exactly what you want to see in a speaker being used for mixing by a huge percentage of the industry. This is typical of a mass produced speaker of its time though. It had a plastic cup with ferromagnetic connectors in the path, electrolytic caps, and common electrical wire and connectors.

But the real question is how accurate are they right? Well here is the on axis response.



They are within +/-5db and have a huge hump centered at about 1700Hz.

Looking at them individually it looks like the hump is in the woofers response.



On a good note the spectral decay was fairly clean. So while the woofers response had an amplitude peak it didn't have stored energy in that area. So no ringing. The woofer is actually pretty good and does use a paper cone.



There was a little stored energy in the lower range of the tweeters response but not bad. Unlike the woofer, the tweeter was nothing special. 

So I stood the speaker up with the tweeter on top and shot some vertical off axis responses. Not too bad actually. The vertical off axis did not vary much from the on axis.



I then flipped it over and took the same measurements with the tweeter on the bottom. Again, not bad.



And then with the tweeter on top I shot on axis and horizontal off axis measurements. Again not bad.



And here is the impedance curve.



Now to give them some much needed help.

[Danny Richie]

Next was to redesign the crossover and fix the amplitude problem and give them a level of accuracy needed for the role that they are used in.

The drivers were pretty easy to work with and it wasn't real hard to correct the response issues and make improvements in all areas.

Here is the new frequency response.



And the crossover response.



Straightening out the woofer and tweeters response was no problem.

The spectral decay is really clean in the woofers range. There is still a little stored energy in the lower range of the tweeters response but not too bad.



And standing up again with the tweeter on top here is the vertical off axis response.



There is some cancellation in the crossover region in this direction.

Now with the tweeter on the bottom the vertical off axis looks great. The drivers are in phase over a very wide range.



So since this speaker is designed to lay on its side then I would position the speakers with the tweeters on the outside.

And here is the horizontal off axis response. It looks real good this way as well.



And here is the new impedance response.



The impedance is a much more even load now.

The new crossover used all Erse XQ inductors, Sonicaps, Mills resistors, and in the impedance trap an Erse poly cap and a Lynk resistor was used.



Then our high quality, four 9's pure, solid core wire was used.



I had to design the board to leave space for the wiring from the tube connectors to come through the middle of the board. The reason for this was that the old binding post cup was replaced with a solid piece of MDF that allowed for mounting of the tube connectors and the crossover was too big to fit on either one side of the connectors or the other. So the crossover board splits the connectors and allows them to pass through the center.

Here is a look at the back now showing the MDF panel that mounted from the inside.



And with the tube connectors. I love the tube connectors. They are always a clarity improvement across the board.



And here is the gutted inside. There were no braces and the side panels did produce some resonance issues, but a little No Rez will fix that.



And with the crossover dropped in.



Mounted in now and lined with No Rez.



Then a little fiberglass insulation over the crossover.



I have sold four or five of these upgrades just from word of mouth and feedback from studio to studio as they contacted one another. I love getting those calls after the upgrades are installed. The difference on these speakers is substantial and most of the guys that are used to listening to these speakers are freaked out by how much better they sound.

Every studio out there using these old speakers needs this upgrade. So you guys feel free to share this with your studio friends.

[Captainhemo]

As always, nicely done Danny  !
Love these upgrade  threads 


jay

[S Clark]

Wow.  Looking at those initial F/R graphs, my high school physics students used to do better than that... and Danny knows that that's the truth.  I'm sorry, but that's just lazy or cheap... probably just cheap.  Wow. 

[OzarkTom]

I always wanted a pair of these when they came out, now selling around $400 a pr. on Ebay.

[bdp24]

Wow.  Looking at those initial F/R graphs, my high school physics students used to do better than that... and Danny knows that that's the truth.  I'm sorry, but that's just lazy or cheap... probably just cheap.  Wow.

The stock response is SO bad it makes one wonder if it wasn't actually deliberate. Perhaps Yamaha was building a monitor to replace all the JBL Century L-100's in the studios, whose cone surrounds were starting to decompose from all the air pollution in L.A. Every single studio I was in during the late-70's through the late 90's had these Yamahas on their mixing consoles, some with toilet paper over the tweeter, an attempt to get rid of some of the NS-10's extreme forwardness. I imagine they also had the 1000Hz fader on their graphic equalizer pushed way down. Imagine monitoring and mixing through a speaker with that stock frequency response!

[Russell Dawkins]

There is some insight to be gained in the pdf linked to on this page, called 'Yamaha-NS10M twenty years a reference monitor-why?

http://reflexion-arts.com/insights/the-yamaha-ns10m-twenty-years-a-reference-monitor-why/view?set_language=en#portal-globalnav

[Skiman]

While I realize that these speakers were designed to be laid on end, apparently because that's how the sound engineers want them on their mixing consoles, it still begs the question-why? Why don't sound engineers want their small two way monitors positioned vertically?

[Russell Dawkins]

While I realize that these speakers were designed to be laid on end, apparently because that's how the sound engineers want them on their mixing consoles, it still begs the question-why? Why don't sound engineers want their small two way monitors positioned vertically?

Horizontal placement obscures the view over the top of the console to the recording room less than vertical orientation and sight lines from engineer to artist(s) in the room are often horizontal or slightly downward, so the lower the better. On big consoles there is usually a shelf along the back edge for placement of near field monitors and still smaller speakers like the Auratones and also devices like big level meters and stereo correlation displays or goniometers, although this is increasingly being relegated to screens in mid size and smaller control rooms.

Also, some engineers do not seem to consider the fact that the tonality of a two way speaker oriented horizontally varies more with lateral displacement, i.e., as the engineer moves left and right in front of the console, than it would if it were vertically oriented. Similarly, the monitors are typically not fully toed in to cross in front of the engineer even when vertically oriented. It seems this detail remains to be discovered by many, pros and amateurs alike.

And, by the way, I don't think the speakers were designed to be laid on end. No two way performs as well horizontally as vertically with less than, say, 48dB/octave crossover slopes or very high crossover frequency to the tweeter, in which case it becomes, effectively a widerange driver augmented by a tweeter for the top two octaves (5-20k, for example). The modern trend for three way near field monitors like my K+H O300s and some others is to have the mid and high drivers vertically oriented and the bass driver horizontally displaced. This is a better compromise, but still a compromise vs vertical. The O300s are the ones to the right in this picture:
Not my studio, I hasten to add!


Finally, it must be admitted that in the minds of some, horizontal orientation looks more 'pro', as it was first seen regularly in million dollar studios on hundred thousand dollar consoles for reasons explained above, so now you will see horizontal oriented speakers when there is no reason whatsoever to do that, such as in the picture below. I am referring to the Yamaha NS-10s to the left and right of the K+H O300s, and well out of the sight line to the recording room:

[poseidonsvoice]

Danny,

It appears you performed these measurements in late March 2013, so I'm pretty sure the speakers are long gone. (And of course the end user was advised on the exact positioning/orientation of the loudspeaker after the crossover modification).

Did you ever perform horizontal and vertical off axis measurements with the speaker laying on its side? Just curious. I imagine the woofer's peaky response wouldn't change though.

Best,
Anand.

[Danny Richie]

Did you ever perform horizontal and vertical off axis measurements with the speaker laying on its side? Just curious. I imagine the woofer's peaky response wouldn't change though.

Best,
Anand.

The measurements are the same regardless of what side the speakers are laying on. So long as the mic is on the tweeter axis then you can spin the speaker around in a circle and the measurements do not change. But since the speakers are commonly laid on their side I do perform off axis measurements in both directions and to the side (or up down and sideways).

[Danny Richie]

There is some insight to be gained in the pdf linked to on this page, called 'Yamaha-NS10M twenty years a reference monitor-why?

http://reflexion-arts.com/insights/the-yamaha-ns10m-twenty-years-a-reference-monitor-why/view?set_language=en#portal-globalnav

I am glad you posted that. I haven't read that in a while. Some of that is almost comical. They have just enough information to form some assumptions, but not enough information or comprehension to understand what is necessary for accurate playback.

[bdp24]

I am glad you posted that. I haven't read that in a while. Some of that is almost comical. They have just enough information to form some assumptions, but not enough information or comprehension to understand what is necessary for accurate playback.

The early studio recording engineers were trained radio and electronics guys, often building their own mic pre-amps and mixers. They returned from WWII and went to work in the new booming music business. By the time I got into recording, most of the guys in studios had gone to some kind of school specializing in training one to do studio recording, and most of them left those schools having no education in basic electronic and acoustic theory. I went to a session with a singer/songwriter I was working with live but not recording with, and the engineer came up with the brilliant idea of putting an "ambience" mic in one of the rooms' top corners. Have you ever put your ear there when music is playing? It is THE worst sounding location in the room! It wasn't my gig, so I didn't say anything, but on playback all agreed the channel of "ambience" sounded like c#&p. If that "engineer" knew even a little about acoustics he wouldn't have to learn it on the job, with the client paying for it. The concept of accuracy is not part of most recording engineers' mindsets these days.

[mlundy57]

The early studio recording engineers were trained radio and electronics guys, often building their own mic pre-amps and mixers. They returned from WWII and went to work in the new booming music business. By the time I got into recording, most of the guys in studios had gone to some kind of school specializing in training one to do studio recording, and most of them left those schools having no education in basic electronic and acoustic theory. I went to a session with a singer/songwriter I was working with live but not recording with, and the engineer came up with the brilliant idea of putting an "ambience" mic in one of the rooms' top corners. Have you ever put your ear there when music is playing? It is THE worst sounding location in the room! It wasn't my gig, so I didn't say anything, but on playback all agreed the channel of "ambience" sounded like c#&p. If that "engineer" knew even a little about acoustics he wouldn't have to learn it on the job, with the client paying for it. The concept of accuracy is not part of most recording engineers' mindsets these days.

Which is a problem because how can anybody evaluate the sound of speakers or any other component if they don't know what they are feeding it?

[JeffB]

I have never mixed anything, but I have a couple of thoughts.
It would seem to me that one would just directly use whatever the microphone gives you without any kind of equalization.  The only reason to apply equalization would be if you had a very accurate measurement of where the microphone was in error and an exact correction curve could be applied.  This however really has nothing to due with the speakers used for playback.  It is just DSP correction of the microphone.

The second thing one needs to do is level match the recorded tracks.  If each instrument is recorded on a separate track, you need to blend each one at the right volume.  I am not sure you need an accurate speaker to achieve this.  In fact, having a bump at 1.5 kHz seems like it might improve ones ability to perform the level matching since the human ear is so sensitive in this region.  It seems like one might be able to mask out all frequencies except 1k to 4k to perform accurate level matching.  Of course sometimes you want certain instruments to stand out a little louder, often the vocal.  You might bump the guitar volume during a solo, etc.  Maybe an accurate speaker is better to hear where everything should fall into place, but I can definitely see why it might not matter.

[HAL]

The only recordings that will be close to the mic feed sound are acoustic recordings, and some of those use things like added reverb, so no longer the mic feed. 

It is nearly impossible to know what any other recording sounds like unless you were the recording engineer who heard the live mic feed during the performance either live or studio.  Once it goes to the mastering engineer it is a new creation, unless he purposely does nothing to the mic feed.

You have to search out recording labels that discuss how it was recorded and mastered to know it is as close to the mic feed as possible.  As examples from the early recordings, RCA Living Stereo, Everest and Mercury Living Presence were done with simple stereo mic setups for the recordings.  Telarc and Reference Recordings are recent labels carrying on the ideas for classical recordings.

There are pop recordings like The Cowboy Junkies The Trinity Sessions that are simply miced recordings as well. 

 

[Russell Dawkins]

I am glad you posted that. I haven't read that in a while. Some of that is almost comical. They have just enough information to form some assumptions, but not enough information or comprehension to understand what is necessary for accurate playback.

You think?
http://philipnewell.net/
https://www.routledge.com/Loudspeakers-For-music-recording-and-reproduction/Newell-Holland/p/book/9780240520148
http://tinyurl.com/zruq9fm

[bdp24]

I have never mixed anything, but I have a couple of thoughts.
It would seem to me that one would just directly use whatever the microphone gives you without any kind of equalization.  The only reason to apply equalization would be if you had a very accurate measurement of where the microphone was in error and an exact correction curve could be applied.  This however really has nothing to due with the speakers used for playback.  It is just DSP correction of the microphone.

The second thing one needs to do is level match the recorded tracks.  If each instrument is recorded on a separate track, you need to blend each one at the right volume.  I am not sure you need an accurate speaker to achieve this.  In fact, having a bump at 1.5 kHz seems like it might improve ones ability to perform the level matching since the human ear is so sensitive in this region.  It seems like one might be able to mask out all frequencies except 1k to 4k to perform accurate level matching.  Of course sometimes you want certain instruments to stand out a little louder, often the vocal.  You might bump the guitar volume during a solo, etc.  Maybe an accurate speaker is better to hear where everything should fall into place, but I can definitely see why it might not matter.

Believe me, what you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with how most recordings are made. Microphones aren't selected for their accuracy, but for their sonic signature, their character. A lot of engineers record snare drums with a Shure SM57, a mic designed for live PA systems. It has a built-in presence peak, great for keeping vocals hearable on stage. But accurate? Not even close. But the thing is, the engineer isn't trying to get an accurate recording of that particular snare drum, he's trying to get a snare track that "pops" in the mix.

The mic feed then goes through a mic pre-amp, a compressor, a parametric equalizer, an echo chamber, a reverb plate, and whatever else the engineer or musician thinks makes the track sound "better".

It doesn't end there, because the mastering engineer then puts his touch on the final mix. Again EQing and compressing, then digitizing. The final sound is not compared to a live reference, but to other recordings. The idea is to get the record to sound like whatever's "hot" at the moment, whatever that may be. And if the monitor speaker in any of these stages has a, say, huge 1kHz peak, one of the engineers may have equalized the recording to compensate for that peak. When the recording is then played back on a speaker without that peak, there will then be a deep suckout in that frequency range. Oh, it's a complete, utter mess. 

[poseidonsvoice]

The measurements are the same regardless of what side the speakers are laying on. So long as the mic is on the tweeter axis then you can spin the speaker around in a circle and the measurements do not change. But since the speakers are commonly laid on their side I do perform off axis measurements in both directions and to the side (or up down and sideways).

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if the design axis of the NS-10 as intended was for a mixing console and not 2ch "audiophile" seated playback like "we" assume. That I bet would make a difference.

Best,
Anand.

[Danny Richie]

You think?
http://philipnewell.net/
https://www.routledge.com/Loudspeakers-For-music-recording-and-reproduction/Newell-Holland/p/book/9780240520148
http://tinyurl.com/zruq9fm

Yes for certain. Do I need to elaborate?

And the point of your links?