Gene got the Ban Hammer!

[Matthew J Poes]

Think of the damage the Yamaha NS10 has done! Millions of sound mixes!

Here is a paper with a lot of measurements of different studio monitors. Some of them are very good, but others... people made professional sound mixes with these things. Just goes to prove Toole's point about the circle of confusion. The THX PM3 standard should have been pushed a lot more, it would have addressed some of these shortcomings. It doesn't have an all-encompassing solution, but it's a hood start.

Freakin Newell! James as you know that paper, while interesting, is missing among the most critical measurements of a speakers performance. The lack of polar data (unless I missed something) is sad. While I have no doubt the NS-10M is not a great speaker, without a polar response it’s really hard to say. You can design a speaker with a perfect axial response, ideal step response, and clean CSD, while still having bad sound. There are also a number of studio monitors that might seemingly measure well in that report but sound bad or measure poorly but sound good. We just need more measurements to actually know what is going on.

The note that the sound of the NS-10M was especially helpful for mixing rock seems troubling. Those speakers appear quite colored. Assuming that midrange peak doesn’t disappear off-axis then why would you want that? Even if you did, why not use a speaker with performance more like the JBL M2 and then artificially add the peak? It goes back to what I said earlier. Some engineers know there are flaws and mix around them. In this case, the implication is they are seeking out flawed speakers to mix on because it somehow sounds better.

 

[shadyJ]

Freakin Newell! James as you know that paper, while interesting, is missing among the most critical measurements of a speakers performance. The lack of polar data (unless I missed something) is sad. While I have no doubt the NS-10M is not a great speaker, without a polar response it’s really hard to say. You can design a speaker with a perfect axial response, ideal step response, and clean CSD, while still having bad sound. There are also a number of studio monitors that might seemingly measure well in that report but sound bad or measure poorly but sound good. We just need more measurements to actually know what is going on.

The note that the sound of the NS-10M was especially helpful for mixing rock seems troubling. Those speakers appear quite colored. Assuming that midrange peak doesn’t disappear off-axis then why would you want that? Even if you did, why not use a speaker with performance more like the JBL M2 and then artificially add the peak? It goes back to what I said earlier. Some engineers know there are flaws and mix around them. In this case, the implication is they are seeking out flawed speakers to mix on because it somehow sounds better.

I believe speaker "A" in that graph is the NS10. Looking at its first reflections curve, directivity index, and listening window, the direct axis curve pretty much sums up the off axis behavior. It's madness that these were ever used to mix sound recordings, let alone so many recordings.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I believe speaker "A" in that graph is the NS10. Looking at its first reflections curve, directivity index, and listening window, the direct axis curve pretty much sums up the off axis behavior. It's madness that these were ever used to mix sound recordings, let alone so many recordings.

While I agree, the nice thing about a consistent polar response is that you can eq that out and get a more neutral response. I think you know that I consider a higher DI optimal but I’ll admit a low but flat DI or gradually rising but smooth DI and a flat/smooth axial and first reflection response is good too. Seems like the high frequencies are less even in the 3-7khz range but not terrible.

I have to be honest the NS10M seems redeemable. Just needs some eq. Still they don’t match JBL’s monitors for similar money. It’s sad how many bad monitors are on the market and readily in use.

I still would love to do some kind of pro vs home monitor comparison to see what’s he best way to spend $500-$1000. I have a strong feeling that in that price range a set of powered studio monitors and a monitor controller would give far better sound than what you could get from the domestic end of things.

 

[shadyJ]

While I agree, the nice thing about a consistent polar response is that you can eq that out and get a more neutral response. I think you know that I consider a higher DI optimal but I’ll admit a low but flat DI or gradually rising but smooth DI and a flat/smooth axial and first reflection response is good too. Seems like the high frequencies are less even in the 3-7khz range but not terrible.

I have to be honest the NS10M seems redeemable. Just needs some eq. Still they don’t match JBL’s monitors for similar money. It’s sad how many bad monitors are on the market and readily in use.

I still would love to do some kind of pro vs home monitor comparison to see what’s he best way to spend $500-$1000. I have a strong feeling that in that price range a set of powered studio monitors and a monitor controller would give far better sound than what you could get from the domestic end of things.

If we look at the THX standards page for powered monitors, none of them are terrible (except for that Avantone thing), so I think buyers these days have a good chance of ending up with good monitors, at least if they stick with the known good brands. I doubt that many studios still use the NS10. I agree that studio monitors are a safer bet for good sound than home audio speakers. That said, not every monitor is a gem, and there are home audio speakers that are easily accurate enough to be used as a monitor.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I think the Aventones deserve special mention for those not familiar.

http://www.avantonepro.com/mixcubes-passive-creme.php

These are not designed to sound good. They are designed to provide a reference monitor which simulates the sound of cheap speakers like TV’s, Bluetooth speakers, crummy car audio systems, etc. it’s actually a problem solver and very good for its intended purpose. Aventone has upgraded the original with better parts, which honestly, I question. I suppose it’s not a terrible idea when you consider that the quality of the drivers in cars, portable speakers, and TVs has improved greatly.

I know guys who use them for location acoustic measurement work. The powered monitors are linear phase and small. They are easy to characterize and use for in Situ acoustic measurement of a room treatment.

 

[shadyJ]

I think the Aventones deserve special mention for those not familiar.

http://www.avantonepro.com/mixcubes-passive-creme.php

These are not designed to sound good. They are designed to provide a reference monitor which simulates the sound of cheap speakers like TV’s, Bluetooth speakers, crummy car audio systems, etc. it’s actually a problem solver and very good for its intended purpose. Aventone has upgraded the original with better parts, which honestly, I question. I suppose it’s not a terrible idea when you consider that the quality of the drivers in cars, portable speakers, and TVs has improved greatly.

I know guys who use them for location acoustic measurement work. The powered monitors are linear phase and small. They are easy to characterize and use for in Situ acoustic measurement of a room treatment.

Not long ago I was talking to a guy who used this type of speaker for exactly this purpose (although he was using those full-range driver Behringer knock-offs). He said if he can make his recordings sound good on those speakers, than he knows his sound mix will sound good on any system. Although I didn't say anything when talking to him, my thought was that bad speakers will find different ways to sound bad, so that isn't a great solution for getting a reasonable sound out of a mix from a subpar sound system. I think that professional sound recordings should be mixed on a system with a flat response.

I don't think there is a need for speakers that sound deliberately bad, when you could just use some kind of effects processor to simulate bad speaker sound. Better yet, you could make that processor emulate different bad speakers, like a bad full-range driver speaker with breakup distortion, or a bad two-way with a suckout in the crossover region. Maybe a bad public address horn system too? How about the speakers used at drive-through restaurant menus? The world is a rich tapestry of bad speakers, and one bad speaker can't hope to capture all of that low-fidelity glory.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Not long ago I was talking to a guy who used this type of speaker for exactly this purpose (although he was using those full-range driver Behringer knock-offs). He said if he can make his recordings sound good on those speakers, than he knows his sound mix will sound good on any system. Although I didn't say anything when talking to him, my thought was that bad speakers will find different ways to sound bad, so that isn't a great solution for getting a reasonable sound out of a mix from a subpar sound system. I think that professional sound recordings should be mixed on a system with a flat response.

I don't think there is a need for speakers that sound deliberately bad, when you could just use some kind of effects processor to simulate bad speaker sound. Better yet, you could make that processor emulate different bad speakers, like a bad full-range driver speaker with breakup distortion, or a bad two-way with a suckout in the crossover region. Maybe a bad public address horn system too? How about the speakers used at drive-through restaurant menus? The world is a rich tapestry of bad speakers, and one bad speaker can't hope to capture all of that low-fidelity glory.

James there is far too much logic and science behind your claims. They will never work in sound engineering!

In all seriousness i think the concept for these speakers goes back decades and predates modern dsp techniques.

My point was that those speakers measure bad on purpose.

There’s a digital dsp version of them with a flat response but the same limited bandwidth.

What kills me is that those speakers cost a lot of money. You could buy a lot of the cheap speakers people are trying to emulate for what those cost. And you know, any Eq is the final mix to sound good on a crap speaker is just preconditioning the signal. Why not make the speaker makes do that. They are the ones who should be fixing their speaker sound. Maybe If recordings sounded bad on most cheap speakers consumers would understand the need for better speakers. The rest of us wouldn’t have to turn the bass down when it’s mixes way too hot.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think the Aventones deserve special mention for those not familiar.

http://www.avantonepro.com/mixcubes-passive-creme.php

These are not designed to sound good. They are designed to provide a reference monitor which simulates the sound of cheap speakers like TV’s, Bluetooth speakers, crummy car audio systems, etc. it’s actually a problem solver and very good for its intended purpose. Aventone has upgraded the original with better parts, which honestly, I question. I suppose it’s not a terrible idea when you consider that the quality of the drivers in cars, portable speakers, and TVs has improved greatly.

I know guys who use them for location acoustic measurement work. The powered monitors are linear phase and small. They are easy to characterize and use for in Situ acoustic measurement of a room treatment.

That is a really dumb idea. When I visit studios far more often than not the speakers are awful and the sound dreadful.

Engineering standards are now almost universally bad in the studios. Usually when I get a recording for mastering I have to send it back multiple times for corrections of basic errors and worse. I'm talking isssues like the spectrascope showing pretty much a straight vertical line.

I think things are especially bad in the US where there are no good didactic training programs. You have to go to Europe to get a Tonemiester degree, like is on offer at the University of Sussex.

 

[Alex2507]

That is a really dumb idea

Quoting pieces of your posts out of context with coffee ... priceless.

Many thanks.

 

[Mark Henninger]

Hahaha, I had no idea this thread existed. Very amusing to read it in hindsight.

So in the time that has passed, most definitely a few interesting things happened. I suppose the most relevant is that I gave up reviewing passive speakers. Why?

Because, the room and ears and personal taste and a whole bunch of subjective preference as well as aesthetics and exposure to marketing materials and what's available at a really good deal with free shipping ont he day the buyer feels that impulse to spend... that's what really goes into a speaker buying decision.

And that's before getting to the travesty of people thinking that speaker cables and power cords are added to the system.

In other words, all the measurements in the world are not enough to convince most speaker shoppers of anything. And that's before we get into the VERY thorny issue of whether measurements taken by reviewers are accurate enough. Because when you add up the variables (unit to unit variation, the lack of an anechoic chamber, the likely "less than perfect" accuracy of the mic used to measure) who know how much error creeps in.

According to Harman, even a company with an anechoic chamber is going to have meausrements that deviate from the true response by up to 3 dB if they only do a handful of measurements, instead of hundreds of measurements executed with robotic precision. That makes things tough for the home reviewers to claim theirs are accurate measurements. You don't see reviewers posting a margin of error for their own measurements (and without a proper reference, there's no way for them to really know what it is)... yet surely one exists.

Anyhow, having separated myself from that world, I now laugh because I very well know the PR folks who supply the gear to reviewers, the engineering folks who design the gear, and of course the reviewers who make their living focusing on speakers. Good on them all, I'm happy to just read the reviews these days.

As for Gene and AOAB, he rejoined the group and we get along fine.

 

[lovinthehd]

Hahaha, I had no idea this thread existed. Very amusing to read it in hindsight.

@gene can't help but say now's your chance to do what Mark likes to do at his whim

 

[Mark Henninger]

@gene can't help but say now's your chance to do what Mark likes to do at his whim

For what? Gene rejoined my group and we get along great.

 

[lovinthehd]

For what? Gene rejoined my group and we get along great.

What, you allow re-joins or was Gene a special case?

 

[Mark Henninger]

What, you allow re-joins or was Gene a special case?

I let people rejoin, yes. Usually just takes a short private chat.

 

[pcosmic]

Before Mark got hurtfeelioma and banned me from his group, I was going to post this:
https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/why-we-measure-audio

Rock on Beowulf. I used to chill out on avs back then. Didn't know Mark had a whiny lil hiney.

 

[lovinthehd]

@Mark Henninger How does one do that if banned?

 

[Mark Henninger]

@Mark Henninger How does one do that if banned?

Depends on how you define banned. To me, banned means kicked out, i.e. blocked and never allowed back in.

Rejoining if kicked is easy enough as long as someone is not blocked, they typically can just request to join again. I only actually block if someone is a full on troll, or makes an egregious personal attack.

If someone gets kicked for just escalating a debate with taunting, they'll typically DM me or leave a message on the AOAB page. Advances in moderation tool features from Facebook have largely made this unnecessary kicking people for any reason is now a rare last resort.

It's been a looooong time since I've had any drama that rises to the level of a ban.

I agree with Gene on this one as this Mark guy likes to throw up silly stuff to get people lathered up and, of course, for clickbait points. It was an interesting page at first, but, like everything else on FB, the crazies ooze out of the cracks and hijack the whole premise. Plus, the AVS guy is a bit too liberal with his ban authority - compensating for something? Hmm... If there are any serial instigators on our beloved AH site, go over to FB, sign up for the AOAB page and give 'em hell!

How nice of you to help recruit members to my group, I would have thanked you sooner had I seen this thread before today.

Rock on Beowulf. I used to chill out on avs back then. Didn't know Mark had a whiny lil hiney.

Lol. I've been called worse. Many times.

 

[lovinthehd]

Without communication when being "exited" hard to know what your reasons were....but really haven't had a lot of desire to rejoin either of your groups in any case myself....but was curious how one might communicate when you've blocked it for whatever reasons only known to you.

 

[Mark Henninger]

Without communication when being "exited" hard to know what your reasons were....but really haven't had a lot of desire to rejoin either of your groups in any case myself....but was curious how one might communicate when you've blocked it for whatever reasons only known to you.

Due to the size of the group (57K members) and the fact I make no money off of it, one of the concessions is that I don't spend any more time than necessary on moderation duties, and that includes skipping providing reasons when someone is kicked.

If someone is actually blocked, as opposed to merely kicked, they will not be able to message the group or ask to rejoin.

Also worth mentioning, I have nothing to do with moderation on AVS Forum.

 

[lovinthehd]

Due to the size of the group (57K members) and the fact I make no money off of it, one of the concessions is that I don't spend any more time than necessary on moderation duties, and that includes skipping providing reasons when someone is kicked.

If someone is actually blocked, as opposed to merely kicked, they will not be able to message the group or ask to rejoin.

Also worth mentioning, I have nothing to do with moderation on AVS Forum.

You don't choose or manage the moderators on avs?