My lying ears!

Double-D said:
Mark.......Keep painting, but I think you may have to wait until it dries to get out of the corner. :rolleyes:


painted-into-a-corner.gif
Click to expand...

I have people like you who are trying to paint me into a corner, but I didn't put myself there. I standby what I said and I'm not trying to change what I said. You want to dance around on the head of a pin and argue that my point wasn't that recording studios are not using the NS-10 as their primary speaker for recording and mixing. Go back and read what I initially wrote. Here is exactly what I said:

That's an old story and recording studios are not using NS10s to develop their recordings. They were used as a sanity check for how the recordings would sound on crappy speakers.
Click to expand...
 
CPP said:
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...
Click to expand...

You left off the second sentence which clarified what I meant by the first sentence:
They were used as a sanity check for how the recordings would sound on crappy speakers.
Click to expand...
By omitting my second sentence in your attempt to "get me" you changed the context of what the first sentence meant. This shouldn't be so hard....
 
Tomelex said:
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).
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me because the question has been answered. Most of us didn't get into this hobby so we could play crappy sounding recordings on very expensive gear. There are tons of great recordings and the more the equipment improves, the better the recordings sound. So there is your answer. If there were no good/great recordings to listen to, there would be no need for the high end.

So, your wisecrack to Myles doesn't hold any water with me. The proven ability to make great sounding recordings has been around since at least the 1950s. We are still discovering information in those old recordings as our gear gets better. What doesn't make sense to me is that you asked the question in the first place. If you want to argue there are no great recordings to listen to, that would be a reflection of your system which you sort of list in your signature except you talk around it. Old Yamaha table, old Hafler DH-110 preamp, pair of old Hafler DH-220 power amps, and an old pair of JBL speakers.
 
mep said:
I have people like you who are trying to paint me into a corner, but I didn't put myself there. I standby what I said and I'm not trying to change what I said. You want to dance around on the head of a pin and argue that my point wasn't that recording studios are not using the NS-10 as their primary speaker for recording and mixing. Go back and read what I initially wrote. Here is exactly what I said:
Click to expand...

Mark.......I am not painting you into a corner, nor am I dancing on the head of a pin, although I like that latter analogy. I may use it in the future. Additionally, I haven't spoken one word about speakers in this thread. You seem to have that topic sewn up. Actually, I am just enjoying this thread and having a little fun on a Sunday afternoon. I see no reason to get wound up over this or any other topic. This is just a thread on a forum, not the World Conference of Sound Recording Engineers.

I think it might be time for a Tanqueray and tonic with a twist of fresh lime. No, not for you, for me!

:D


Tanqueray-London-Dry-Gin.jpg
 
Double-D said:
Mark.......I am not painting you into a corner, nor am I dancing on the head of a pin, although I like that latter analogy. I may use it in the future. Additionally, I haven't spoken one word about speakers in this thread. You seem to have that topic sewn up. Actually, I am just enjoying this thread and having a little fun on a Sunday afternoon. I see no reason to get wound up over this or any other topic. This is just a thread on a forum, not the World Conference of Sound Recording Engineers.

I think it might be time for a Tanqueray and tonic with a twist of fresh lime. No, not for you, for me!


:D


Tanqueray-London-Dry-Gin.jpg
Click to expand...


Crap! I thought you were offering me a good drink. I happen to be a fan of gin and tonic.
 
mep said:
'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...
Click to expand...


Mark its your words and only your words that you are twisting around. Read what you wrote the first time, post #116, you wrote it I didn't, then argue with yourself.

"If you want to believe", I'm not trying to believe anything, you made a statement that was unbelievable. That's fact and I questioned that statement. You can't make a statement without the facts and so far you have not provided any facts to back up your claim. How is anyone supposed to know what you meant in post #116.. You clarified yourself in further post but still can't answer how you know studios are not using the numerous versions of NS10's in the studios when in fact those speakers reside on the studio gear list among others.

The fact is, you really don't know whats being used in all the recording studios out there, I know I don't know and can admit that but instead you get all defensive when someone shows examples of those speakers in a real studio gear list and bingo, we hear, I'm twisting your words', like I said your written words post #116.. Just admit you don't know either, as it was a slip of the pen and lets move on.
 
Well, I drank mine and Mark's Tanqueray and tonics. That melted me into the studio's couch. The system has never sounded better. :celebrate008_2:
 
The fact is, though, that as micro posted the NS10's were and are being used as much more than a sanity check for crappy speaker sound. They have a sound that is both familiar to many engineers as well as some properties that make them very useful as mixing and monitor speakers. That doesn't necessarily mean that a recording mastered in a studio that uses NS10's is mastered to sound its best on NS10's.
 
Mike said:
If you have any links to your reviews, would love to read them.

As for specs - for me - it's like this: if I like a speaker, I check the measurements. If the measurements are bad, but the speaker sounds great, I still like it. If the speaker measures good, I still like it.

Good or bad measurements in no way affect my opinion of a speaker because we cannot measure so many of the characteristics that make a great speaker. Like how will measurements tell me the differences between MBL 101 Extremes, Harbeth 40.2's and Maggie 20.7's? I will see different charts and graphs and see mid bass bumps here and there and other things, but there is no bloody way measurements can tell me the spooky 3D MBL's create, the wall of sound from Maggie's and the "soul" and shear musicality from Harbeth's.

However, I will say this, I have found an inverse correlation between the speakers that measure extremely well and finding them downright boring, sterile and soulless.

Also, it seems that today we put a much greater emphasis on measurements for speakers, but don't talk as much about amp measurements or DAC measurements.
Click to expand...

"Measurements are helpful at illustrating the differences between design approaches, but they are certainly not the last word in audio. If they were, then numerous other approaches would sound as good or better."

Nelson Pass
 
Myles B. Astor said:
"Measurements are helpful at illustrating the differences between design approaches, but they are certainly not the last word in audio. If they were, then numerous other approaches would sound as good or better."

Nelson Pass
Click to expand...
He's either telling audiophiles just what they want to hear...or he's one lucky alchemist.;)

cheers,

AJ
 
My memory is a little foggy, but didn't Albert Porter prove once and for all you can't determine anything based on specs alone? I remember Albert posting specs and measurements of two amps. The one looked way better than the other. Everyone picked the one that had the best measurements.

The only problem was that the one with the best measurements was a Kenwood car stereo. The other was Lamm Tube monos.
 
No idea who Albert is, but my point is that if a designer has no clue what measurements correlate to the specific "sound" of their product...that they designed, engineered and manufactured to have that "sound"....then they are either all very lucky, or alchemists.
Today I'm going to wake up and rub rare roots on my circuits. No clue why, but if it improves the "sound"....:lol:
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No idea who Albert is, but my point is that if a designer has no clue what measurements correlate to the specific "sound" of their product...that they designed, engineered and manufactured to have that "sound"....then they are either all very lucky, or alchemists.
Today I'm going to wake up and rub rare roots on my circuits. No clue why, but if it improves the "sound"....:lol:
Click to expand...

Do you remember the magic rocks trick Bart played on the group? He told everyone the rocks he put on the amps improved the sound. Some even said "yeah, I can hear the difference!" We were laughing because he just grabbed them from his garden. That was funny.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
He's either telling audiophiles just what they want to hear...or he's one lucky alchemist.;)

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

Really? That's the best you can come up with? Nelson has been in the business longer than almost anyone and he's hardly the charlatan you insinuate. There's no one in the industry more respected than Nelson. He's written and had more articles published on circuit design than practically the rest of the industry combined. Not to mention his outside design work including some noted recording studios. He's forgotten more than most people know and outside of maybe John Curl is the encyclopedia of engineering knowledge. Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top