NS-10s

[Matt Smith]

OK, I'm thinking of picking up some NS-10s to give them a shot. Original NS-10, NS-10m, NS-10m Studio, etc...I know the "M" versions were redesigned with foam around the tweeter to negate the use of tissue over the tweeter, but is there anything else I should know about? Any of these versions I need to stay away from? Andy, which ones do you use?

Thanks,

 

[Exsanguis]

I used to have a pair of NS-10(the originals). They're really nice, never had any problems, and stood up real well for several years, till I got my Genelec 1033's. Now I also have the NS-10m's(don't know about the NS-10m studios though) and they appear to sound a little clearer than the originals, but I could just be imagining it. Excellent speakers overall, but if you have the extra cash, I'd definitely recommend the Genelecs over them.

 

[Nostalgiaplatz]

When I came to this forum today, I was actually going to start one thread about monitors but...I'm going to use this one instead to avoid having 2 threads dealing with almost the same content.

Here's a question for andy, though anyone is welcome to comment:

I've read you use NS10s for your mixes and genelecs for surrounds. I've heard as well that NS10s are full of mids and that the Yamaha MSP5 are superior.

My question is: If you were acquiring a new pair of monitors, knowing what you know today about the NS10s what monitors would you buy as a replacement now and for what reason?

Btw, are NS10 passive or active monitors?

Thanks

 

[Razorjack]

I've heard as well that NS10s are full of mids and that the Yamaha MSP5 are superior.

My question is: If you were acquiring a new pair of monitors, knowing what you know today about the NS10s what monitors would you buy as a replacement now and for what reason?

Btw, are NS10 passive or active monitors?

Thanks

1. I personally prefer the MSP5's as they have a much tighter sound (it is probably due to them being slightly less enhanced in the mid range, as you said)

2. A pair of MSP5's will keep you creating good mixes until you can judge for yourself what good monitors are.

3. NS10's are passive and the choice of power amp is as important than the monitors. All the Yamaha MSP range are active (The MSP5's being apprx. 70watt each speaker, 40watt bass - 30watt treble)

 

[Nostalgiaplatz]

1. I personally prefer the MSP5's as they have a much tighter sound (it is probably due to them being slightly less enhanced in the mid range, as you said)

2. A pair of MSP5's will keep you creating good mixes until you can judge for yourself what good monitors are.

3. NS10's are passive and the choice of power amp is as important than the monitors. All the Yamaha MSP range are active (The MSP5's being apprx. 70watt each speaker, 40watt bass - 30watt treble)

Thanks! That was the information I was looking for

 

[Matt Smith]

Well, the NS-10s definitely aren't accurate. I think it's more about knowing how they sound. The old saying is, "If you can make a mix sound right on NS-10s, it will sound good everywhere." Notice it says, "...sound RIGHT on NS-10s," not "sound good on NS-10s." I've heard that your mixes should sound a little mid-heavy and bass-lite on NS-10s because of the frequency response of the speaker. But man, their translation is supposedly second to none if you know what you're doing.

And from what I've read on Gearslutz, etc., I think Andy started using NS-10s because they could be found in any studio since they were kind of an industry standard. But feel free to elaborate or correct me of course, Andy.

Right now I have ADAM P-11As, and they're great monitors, but I really need some extra $$ for other expenses. I haven't had them long enough to really grow accustomed to them, which is why I'm considering going with NS-10s and using the extra cash towards my mic purchase, etc.

 

[Plec]

What speakers you use and how you mix is very individual and there's nothing wrong with anything basically, as long as you get it where you want it. Room acoustics is even more important than the speakers 'cause your speakers will only sound as good and accurate as the room they're in.

My personal preference is a speaker that doesn't sound too hyped or flattering. That basically has a very natural response and are extremely sensitive. There's always the question of yin and yang. Every frequency you hear changes the way you percieve another so if your room contributes to the sound not being uniform it's going to drastically affect the way you mix.

Genelecs for me are among the worst speakers ever to work on (I've only had experience with the 2ways) because they're so hyped. I've never had a mix sound bad going through a pair of genelecs. Their bass response is so hyped that everything usually sounds way bigger and better than it actually is. Their mids are very insensitive but the high end is usually pretty nice. This in combination with the wrong room just augments the problem even further. This is of course only personal preference, but it seems there aren't that many engineers that can make good mixes on genelecs unless they've worked on them for quite a few years. They're superb for impressing clients though

In my mastering room I have HiFi Dynaudio coupled with Alchemist amps and REL subs in a mathematically optimized acoustic environment. They always translate in the exact way you expect them to and they never sound flattering. When you walk in a room while playing a mix and you immediatley "know" what to change... and later on all those changes work and translates to every other system and environment. That is when you've found yourself the right solution. When mixing I do most of my work on a single NS-10 in true mono and switch to the larger near fields just for panning and checking my low-end. How's that for high-end :hotjump:

The reason NS-10s work so well (except the fact that everybody's used to them...) is 'cause of its frequency response. The ear is most sensitive/accurate in the mid-range and this is where the NS-10s where designed to work. Making it sound "right" on a pair of NS-10s means that you have a great midrange balance. If your mix has that balance it will translate more or less exactly that way you intend to almost every other system and environment you can imagine. People have very different preferences when dealing with low-end and high-end frequencies, but the midrange preference is more or less always constant from person to person and system to system. This is why the NS-10s are so successful. When working on more fullrange speakers you're easily fooling the ear 'cause that extended low-end and etheral high end is going to affect the way you percieve the midrange... and even more if your acoustics isn't right, so basically it's a gamble when working on your everyday studiomonitors.

 

[Matt Smith]

Genelecs for me are among the worst speakers ever to work on (I've only had experience with the 2ways) because they're so hyped. I've never had a mix sound bad going through a pair of genelecs. Their bass response is so hyped that everything usually sounds way bigger and better than it actually is.

That's exactly why I sold the Mackie HR824s I had as my first monitors. They prettied everything up too much. My mixes would sound awesome in the studio, but thin and anemic anywhere else. I think monitors that make you work harder are better for me, which is one of the reasons I'm interested in trying out the NS-10s.

 

[Plec]

Haha! I have the HR824s as complement to my NS-10s

Nearfields...

...and a pair of Alesis Monitor One MKII farther away

Ehh.. farfields??

Well.. I agree with you on them Matt, but I think they do sound quite a bit more natural than the Genelecs. I usually just use them to check the lows and panning. I work with the NS-10s 80% of the time while tracking and mixing.

 

[Matt Smith]

Wow, nice setup!

 

[Plec]

Thx man!
At least it works

 

[egan.]

That's exactly why I sold the Mackie HR824s I had as my first monitors. They prettied everything up too much. My mixes would sound awesome in the studio, but thin and anemic anywhere else. I think monitors that make you work harder are better for me, which is one of the reasons I'm interested in trying out the NS-10s.

I've heard that arguement before, but I think it has everything to do with what you are used to. The 824's are actually more accurate than NS-10's in reality. But, if you only listen to studio monitors when mixing (and not just for listening) you can easily be tricked by the fact that they sound better than your car or cheap hi-fi. I can't say for sure why the NS-10s became a standard, but most engineers I've talked to who use them do so b/c they are everywhere. If you walk into a new control room you are already comfortable w/ the speakers.

 

[Nostalgiaplatz]

So, what monitors do you consider to be "the best", even if they're not accessible ($$) to most of the home-recording studios? (I know there's a lot of room accoustic characteristics to take in mind for any monitoring system to work the way they are meant to, but that's another subject)

 

[Plec]

I don't think there is a "best" monitor since personal preference plays such a big part. There are however manufacturers that are more interesting than others.

My personal preference would be Dynaudio.. and not the professional active (dynaudio acoustics) but the hifi versions. They're VERY unforgiving and really work like an audio microscope. The midrange is very balanced and natural (vocals sound extremely transparent) which is THE most important thing if you want an accurate monitoring system. Most professional monitors focus to much on low/high end and neglect the need for transparent midrange.

The Alesis Monitor One MKII speakers seem to work very well for most people. This could of course be coincidence, but all of the stuff I've gotten in for mastering in varying genres that were done on those speakers have always sounded very uniform, a bit on the dark side maybe, but still very uniform. I have a pair that I check my work on while mixing, and they're always pretty hard to make stuff sound good on.

Mixes that were done on two way Genelecs seem to lack good low-end most of the time. The lower mids are usually very mushy and lack low-end punch. I guess this is due to the "Genelec syndrome".

Phonic and Behringer monitors are about the worst on the market!!! They sound bad in ALL categories.

Mackie monitors sound very balanced overall and I've done mixes on them that translate very well balance wise.. but like Matt said.. they usually give you a more sense of power than might be present. Pretty much like the genelecs but way more balanced I think.