My lying ears!
- Thread starter Purité Audio
- Start date
a.wayne
Well-known member
Yeah , Another Woo Woo statement, especially considering how many thousands of recordings mixed on NS 10's over the decades , not to mention the amt of Auratone's used to hear the mix at limited bandwidth...
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,086
Yeah , Another Woo Woo statement, especially considering how many thousands of recordings mixed on NS 10's over the decades , not to mention the amt of Aurotone's used to hear the mix at limited bandwidth...
If you want to know how your mix is going to sound in a car or on a crappy system, you need a tool that will allow you to hear that and that is the purpose of having some small bandwidth limited monitors around. They are a tool to be used by those who know how to use them.
CPP
Active member
Studio A - Electric Lady Studios studio A&B
Equipment Overview | Sunset Sound & Sound Factory
http://www.jazzanovarecordingstudio.com/files/jrs_gear_10-2013.pdf
Recording Studio
https://soundbetter.com/profiles/12312-big-house-studios
Paramount Studio B
I could go on and on but I think I made my point. But you did not say strictly uses NS10s as their main monitors. You wrote "" recording studios are not using NS10s "". So it appears a lot of studios are still utilizing the NS10's along with a mixture of other monitors.
Can't wait to get them in house and arrange some demos.
a.wayne
Well-known member
Purité Audio
New member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2014
- Messages
- 126
- Thread Author
- #128
Pertinent to this discussion ,Bruno hopes the Kii will be also used in the pro audio recording/mastering world.
Keith.
a.wayne
Well-known member
jdandy
New member
microstrip
New member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 134
Professionals have different speaker requirements from consumers. What we consider crappy speakers for our listening room can be excellent tools for recording. We can find it in the summary of the paper on the NS10M by Philip R Newell, Keith R Holland and Julius P Newell. Quoted from http://www.soundonsound.com/pdfs/ns10m.pdf
• The free-field frequency response of the NS10M gives rise to a response in typical use which
has been recognised by many recording personnel as being what they need for pop / rock
music mixing. The principal characteristics are the raised mid-range, the gentle top-end roll-
off, and the very fast low-frequency decay; the latter is aided by the 12dB / octave roll-off of
the sealed-box cabinet.
• The time response exhibits a better than average step function response, which implies good
reproduction of transients. Many people speak of the "rock and roll punch" of the NS10M.
• The distortion characteristics are also better than average for a loudspeaker of such size.
• The output SPL is adequate for close-field studio monitoring with adequate reliability.
• In many of these characteristics, the NS10M mimics the response of many good larger
monitor systems in well-controlled rooms. They are hence recognisable to many recording
personnel in terms of their overall response.
• They are tools to achieve a well-balanced mix. It is notable how many of the people who use
them in studios do not use them for home listening.
Tomelex says 
One small issue is all the mix and master engineers using their speakers with worse waterfall plots (decay times) etc and making the mix sound good on gear that is technically less effective, so will a mix produced on something with unequal wave launch times and decay times sound as good on a more technically superior speaker?
Mep says:
So you are saying that all the "mix and master engineers" are using crappy speakers to make the final versions of the recordings we are buying? Is this a new phenomenon or has this been going on for many years? Please tell us your experiences with visiting recording studios around the world and how you know the speakers they use measure badly and their gear is "technically less effective."
It appears that you are inferring that all recordings are optimized to sound their best on speakers that measure poorly because that's how the "mix and master engineers" made the recordings and therefore how can they sound good on a "technically superior speaker." I'm waiting to see the evidence that backs your assumptions of recording studios using speakers with the worst waterfall plots and mixing the sound on gear "that is technically less effective" whatever the hell that means. Technically less effective than what?
I said quite clearly what I said.
I asked a question: so will a mix produced on something with unequal wave launch times and decay times sound as good on a more technically superior speaker?
Talk about putting words into someones mouth. My son owned a studio for over two years. I have been there, and played in it, and watched and learned.
How much time do you have in the studio Mark?
Mix and mastering studio. Mix speakers are designed to be pounded on to really hear distinct bits of sound, such as drums etc and to create a mix. Master speakers are usually more like home audiophile speakers, usually floor standing to better create a "better" home sound. What the mix and master engineer do with their tools is a whole different story. My post is clear enough to not have to repeat myself. Looks like others understood it just fine. This is simply about a very accurate measuring speaker is going to be reproducing a master or mix that for sure in the past was not produced on such technically accurate speakers (Myles is happy to inform us the best sounding recordings were made on these less effective speakers so I guess we have nothing to consider in how different these best old recordings will be portrayed by a vastly more accurate speaker...so theres one persons opinion...that does not make any sense to me by the way).
One small issue is all the mix and master engineers using their speakers with worse waterfall plots (decay times) etc and making the mix sound good on gear that is technically less effective, so will a mix produced on something with unequal wave launch times and decay times sound as good on a more technically superior speaker?Mep says:
So you are saying that all the "mix and master engineers" are using crappy speakers to make the final versions of the recordings we are buying? Is this a new phenomenon or has this been going on for many years? Please tell us your experiences with visiting recording studios around the world and how you know the speakers they use measure badly and their gear is "technically less effective."
It appears that you are inferring that all recordings are optimized to sound their best on speakers that measure poorly because that's how the "mix and master engineers" made the recordings and therefore how can they sound good on a "technically superior speaker." I'm waiting to see the evidence that backs your assumptions of recording studios using speakers with the worst waterfall plots and mixing the sound on gear "that is technically less effective" whatever the hell that means. Technically less effective than what?
I said quite clearly what I said.
I asked a question: so will a mix produced on something with unequal wave launch times and decay times sound as good on a more technically superior speaker?
Talk about putting words into someones mouth. My son owned a studio for over two years. I have been there, and played in it, and watched and learned.
How much time do you have in the studio Mark?
Mix and mastering studio. Mix speakers are designed to be pounded on to really hear distinct bits of sound, such as drums etc and to create a mix. Master speakers are usually more like home audiophile speakers, usually floor standing to better create a "better" home sound. What the mix and master engineer do with their tools is a whole different story. My post is clear enough to not have to repeat myself. Looks like others understood it just fine. This is simply about a very accurate measuring speaker is going to be reproducing a master or mix that for sure in the past was not produced on such technically accurate speakers (Myles is happy to inform us the best sounding recordings were made on these less effective speakers so I guess we have nothing to consider in how different these best old recordings will be portrayed by a vastly more accurate speaker...so theres one persons opinion...that does not make any sense to me by the way).
Myles B. Astor
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
Myles B. Astor
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
Actually Francisco I wasn't referring to NS10 in particular but the speakers that the all-time greats like RVG, Roy DuNann, Robert Fine, Pfeiffer and Layton, Culshaw, Haddy and Wilkinson, Parker and Bishop, Pontrefact, Studer and Paulin, etc. used. Ever hear Olson LC1-As? Horrible but many great recordings in those day were made on the Olsons.
The key is the producers and recording engineers in those days were trained musicians, not knob twiddlers like today. They knew what music sounded like, let the tape roll and knew how to correctly compensate despite, not because of the speakers. In other words, maybe the effect of studio speakers are overrated and the recordings are the issue. As one of the greats once said to me, 80% of the recording is the hall. If that's not right, you are beat before you start.
And we can also talk about the effect of multi-tracking on sound as the purest sounding recordings are those old two and three tracks.
CPP
Active member
No you wrote this, these are your words not mine. "" that's an old story and recording studios are not using NS10s to develop their recordings." To question what you wrote;
I provided a few examples of studios that list these monitors in their studios.
Now you want to change your words to include "they are not using them as their sole recording and mixing speakers"
Me I really don't care. And further more how do you know studios that have a mixture of monitors to include NS10 are NOT using them as "their sole recording and mixing speakers". Have you personally contacted all the studios in the world and asked them ?
Man , give us the facts...
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,086
Hmm. :skeptical:
I thought it was clear that I was trying to establish that recording studios are not using NS10s as their primary speaker to record and mix their music as that was the inference by some. I thought I said they were and are used as a tool to tell how their recordings are going to sound on cheap gear. I don't know how much more plain I can make that so no backpedaling needed by me.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,086
'Develop' = the primary speaker used to record and mix the music. I don't know why this keeps getting twisted around. If you want to believe that some, many, lots, or all recording studios are using NS10 speakers as their primary speaker for recording and mixing, that's fine. I'm tired of arguing with people who are trying to pick pepper from fly shit and twisting my words around to suit their argument. The NS10 has been around since 1978 and it has been talked about since 1978 and now it's 2015 and someone wants me to 'prove' that major recording studios aren't using them as their primary speakers when making their recordings. Please...
jdandy
New member
a.wayne
Well-known member
:roflmao: