8 ms·

> Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and

> Love or hate the Yamaha NS10, this unassuming little speaker has found a place in the studios of many of the world's top producers. We trace its history, and investigate why a monitor whose sound has been described as "horrible" became an industry standard. I see people use this all the time as their main speaker? I usually ask why and if they say because it is a standard I stop talking music production. If they say they use them because they use it to hear the sound distorted then I am 100% in the conversation. These are used to hear what the "real world" crappy speaker system would sound like. Problem is EVERY speaker made the last 20 years is better than these speakers. The main response to why they use a NS-10 is "If it sounds good on NS10s then it'll sound good on anything." I HATE HATE HATE the NS10 speaker. It was used because it was such a BAD speaker. In front of me I have Genelec speakers. They sound so good and clear. NS 10 sound like a brown paper bag with foam is covering the speaker and all low end and high end sounds were scooped out and I have my hands covering my ears!

acconrad 9y ago
> "If it sounds good on NS10s then it'll sound good on anything." Spot on. I dabble in electronic music production and this is precisely why it's such a "good" speaker, because you want your music to sound good on all systems, and the NS10 is going to simulate what your music sounds like on stock Apple earbuds. If it can sound good on those, you can bet they will sound even better on virtually anything else.
- mastazi 9y ago
  But parent is making a point that technology has moved on and your Apple Earbuds made in 2017 sound way better than the NS10s, and I think after all these years that might be the case
  - mrob 9y ago
    It's not fair comparing speakers to headphones/earphones, because speakers have to move a lot more air. Cheap earphones can have excellent bass response because they're coupled directly to the eardrums. The NS10s only have 18cm (7in) woofers, so it's not surprising their -3db bass cutoff is 70Hz. As "Hoffman's Iron Law" of loudspeaker design says: deep bass, small size, high efficiency: choose two.
    - mastazi 9y ago
      > It's not fair comparing speakers to headphones/earphones True, but we are not comparing for the purpose of finding the "best value for money", we are trying to find an answer to the question: do the NS10s reflect the situation of today's average listener? My argument is that they suck so much that they are now below average... So I think they're not the right monitor choice in 2017
      - romwell 9y ago
        >My argument is that they suck so much that they are now below average... Ahahahaha no. You can't convince me they're worse than cell phone, tablet, and laptop speakers, which is how an awful lot of music is being consumed.
        baldfat 9y ago
        Those "speakers" are not meant to be a primary sound source, but I have heard some phones from HTC that sounded MUCH better than NS10.
        romwell 9y ago
        >Those "speakers" are not meant to be a primary sound source What the manufacturer means doesn't matter, the real-life use does, and there they are often the primary sound source (if only by the virtue of being the only option available when one doesn't have their headphones handy, or, even more often, wants to share sound with someone). >I have heard some phones from HTC that sounded MUCH better than NS10. Maaaaybe. Now try something that's not a flagship, but what 98% of the people have.
      - gregsq 9y ago
        There have been high quality loudspeakers available since at least the 60's, and arguably since before then. For example the quad electrostatic from 1957 or there abouts, a selection of which far exceeds the quality of apple earbuds or similar. Or Grado SR60's from 1992 or Stax SR1 headphones from 1960. Or Hartley loudspeakers evolved from an idea originating in the 1940's. My brothers studio, where music for UK film and TV music was made, had NS10's as near fields. They sounded atrocious, I mean really bad. Leaving aside their electromechanical benefits, which are pretty well covered in the article, the accepted notion was that if you could make sounds sound ok with them with all their colourisation, then you'd get a fair result on televisions, radios and so on. In fact thinking about it, if you wanted music to sound good on Beats, then they'd still make a good reference choice. Their listenability was pretty well irrelevant.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
batmansmk 9y ago
I like mixing and mastering on my pair of NX-N500 and some Beyerdynamic DT 990 for the bass and mastering. Very revealing. How does the NS-10 compare to the modern incarnation like the NX?
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  The NX series is a spiritual sequel to the NS10. It was designed with a similar philosophy to the NS10, though most reviews I've read indicate they are less harsh and more accurate due to modern manufacturing improvements. I'd guess the NX series is just a better NS10. I have a high level of confidence in Yamaha's mid-range pro and prosumer audio gear, though I've never used that specific speaker.
abtinf 9y ago
Is there a speaker equivalent of Sony pro headphones like the MDR-7506? Something that produces high quality, accurate, flat response at a relatively inexpensive price point?
- dharma1 9y ago
  Active speakers for studio use? https://www.thomann.de/gb/topseller_GF_studio_monitors.html https://www.thomann.de/gb/topseller_GF_studio_monitors.html Take your pick - so much choice for good speakers these days. Your room will be a larger factor in the sound than any difference between two decent pairs of speakers (of same size).
- secabeen 9y ago
  Do you have an amplifier, or do you need internally-amped speakers?
  - matwood 9y ago
    I have some fairly old paradigm floor speakers. I’d like to move to some decent bookshelf’s. I have an amp. Any suggestions? I use them for music, TV, and movies.
    - secabeen 9y ago
      Wirecutter has a fairly recent review: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/ https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/
    - mnutt 9y ago
      I recently got the KEF Q150s (wirecutter-reviewed below) to replace some old JBL horn floor speakers and can attest that the Q150s sound really good.
    - throw-away-8 9y ago
      https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2017-edition-loudspeakers https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2...
andybak 9y ago
The article both covers your point and goes beyond it. Did you read it before posting?
- baldfat 9y ago
  I read and even quoted text? I don't get where I didn't read the article when I have few quotes from different parts?
4ad 9y ago
> roblem is EVERY speaker made the last 20 years is better than these speakers. I disagree heres. "Real" speakers might be better, but most people listen to music on crappy laptop speakers or crappy bluetooth 1-inch mono speakers. The quality of the average sound reproduction device has been getting worse the last 20 years.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  On the other hand, there are some seriously impressive bluetooth speakers out there now. I just picked up an Audio Pro Addon T3 on sale the other day. It's obviously no match for my room corrected studio monitor setup with dual 12" subs in regards to sub bass, detail and overall SPL, but I'm absolutely astounded at how much sound (and bass!) they've managed to cram into a speaker that's smaller than a sixpack and plays for ~30 hours on battery. They're probably doing a ton of DSP and probably some missing fundamental bass trickery, but it does sound really convincing. I wouldn't buy any bluetooth speaker much smaller than this one, though. You can only cheat physics so far.
SwellJoe 9y ago
"I see people use this all the time as their main speaker?" What are you talking about? Nobody uses the NS10 as their main speaker today. It's been a decade since they were in common use and nearly two decades since they were even manufactured.
- timc3 9y ago
  There still are... I have seen a couple of studios recently on Gearslutz that only have NS10
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    Sure, every old piece of equipment has somebody that loves it. But, the number of high-end studios (the kind working on records any of us may have heard on the radio) with NS10 speakers, even in a secondary role, is vanishingly small these days. I used to know engineers who kept a set in the trunk of their car, "just in case" the studio didn't have any when they got there (it was their "source of truth", that allowed them to get their bearings in a room even if they used the regular speakers in the studio for most of the work), but even they weren't doing that as far back as ten years ago. These speakers still have a small cult following based on the strength of the brand during their reign, but it makes little sense to pay "vintage" equipment prices for them when you can buy better new speakers for a similar or lower price. Speakers don't get better with age. Regardless of the continuing existence of these speakers in active roles I am wildly skeptical that the person I'm responding to sees them "all the time". Unless they keep going to the same old studio that hasn't been upgraded since 1989 and having the same conversation with the owner every time. That'd be weird.
    - baldfat 9y ago
      But I am talking about people in small studios. Since around 1998 or so the recording studio was revolutionized and 90% of studios are very small one bedroom or basement size spaces. My "all the time" is going from the late 1980s to 2007. Though I still see people with only NS10. There was a studio in my city 2 blocks away. NS10 were on the wall and was the primary ears for the mixing.
Nokinside 9y ago
70% of studios I have been in have Genelec's. Rest seem to be Neumann or Quested. I don't know much about professional audio, why these are good speakers?
- sp821543 9y ago
  A legendary engineer educated me about NS10s. With a great amp and a sub, they sound fantastic - especially when listening at low volume. As in... lower than the volume of a normal conversation.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    They don't sound fantastic, they sound accurate, which is a vital distinction to make about monitors in a studio environment. Consumer speakers should sound good, studio monitors should sound exactly like what's on tape or disk. NS10s sound a little harsh in the mid-range and brittle on the high end. But, you can discern all the frequency ranges (except the low end, where they roll off and need to be filled in with subs) with great precision (for the era). The reason for their good reputation among many was their accuracy and pervasiveness. The reason for the poor reputation was their fatiguing harshness, making them less comfortable for long mixing sessions. Both can be true; we can recognize the good and the bad.
    - Applejinx 9y ago
      I'll correct even that. I have NS10s, somewhat modified (drivers are almost totally stock though), and I'm driving them off Channel Islands D100 monoblocs, not to terribly high levels, and I have subs to reinforce the lows. They sound REVEALING. That's not the same as 'good' or 'accurate'. I'm not contradicting you: you can discern all the frequency ranges, and all the tones, and the things you did on other speakers that people complained about in your mix and you went 'but, but, I did a really good mix!' and then you listen on the NS10s and the complaints you got are suddenly right there staring you in the face, so you can't miss 'em. That's largely because of the exceptional time-domain performance as the article correctly reports. These are not the only speakers that can do that, but they're really good at it. That plus the harsh mid-emphasis and brain-fryingly bright tweeters means the things are ruthlessly revealing. Accurate would be more sympathetic to good mixes and let you slide, but NS10s are merciless and you must get things exactly right: in mixes, in getting sounds, in auditioning things like plugins.
jdietrich 9y ago
> It was used because it was such a BAD speaker. You clearly haven't read the article. The NS10 is an exceptionally good speaker in certain respects that are not immediately obvious and that convey vital information about a mix. It has superlative time-domain performance due to the sealed box design and the extremely stiff and well-damped woofer. This time-domain accuracy reveals immense amounts of detail that are lost on a conventional reflex-ported nearfield monitor. Crucial decisions about phase and balance in the bass and midrange frequencies are far easier on an NS10 than almost any other monitor. They're not pleasant to listen to, but they produce good mixes, which is entirely the point of studio monitors. A speaker with similar performance and a similar role is the Auratone 5C, or the more modern Avantone MixCube. In hi-fi terms they are absolutely atrocious, but few other speakers are so revealing of mixing errors. It is only relatively recently that full-range nearfield monitors have managed to approach the time-domain performance of the NS10 - the Neumann KH310, the Unity Audio Boulder and the Barefoot Sound Micromain achieve that feat, but at vastly greater cost than the faithful old NS10. If you do not understand why the NS10 is such an iconic and useful piece of equipment, you fundamentally do not understand mixing.
- baldfat 9y ago
  > You clearly haven't read the article. The NS10 is an exceptionally good speaker in certain respects that are not immediately obvious and that convey vital information about a mix. How so? They were "GOOD?" Where did I miss that? At the conclusion: "And the practical? Well, it's certainly true that the NS10s have a mid-heavy balance and little bass extension. This is especially so if they are not mounted close to a suitable boundary — such as a big desk or a rear wall — to provide low mid-range reinforcement. They're also just as revealing of any shortcomings in the monitoring chain as they are of the mix, and they don't take very kindly to being driven loud. While Newells and Holland showed they have very low levels of distortion, they do suffer from thermal compression, which will not only cause wide-band dynamic attenuation in response to high levels of drive, but will upset the characteristics of the crossover filters as the voice-coil resistance of the drivers increases. As temperature rises, the bass/mid low-pass filter frequency will increase significantly (and the tweeter high-pass filter frequency will reduce), and begin to give prominence to the resonances at the top end of the bass/mid driver's response. When NS10s are driven too hard by a poor amplifier, fed by a sub-standard monitor output, and mounted without any boundary reinforcement, you might well find that they sound horrible to the point of being unusable." ALSO???? If you do not understand why the NS10 is such an iconic and useful piece of equipment, you fundamentally do not understand mixing. Okay your super off putting. I owned my own studio and small record label with successful bands. I don't know how in the world anything you just said is fundamental to mixing? NS10 are a bad sounding mixer that is a displeasure to listen to. Not one modern near field attempts to be a NS10. Some people think that it is a bonus but NO ONE is saying these were a technical work of greatness. This articles point was that it is odd that they were successful and that they are Hate or Love. They list out some interesting points but nothing is saying they are "Too Good." Quote me some text.
PascLeRasc 9y ago
I HATE my friend's vintage Porsche. It doesn't even have Bluetooth like my Yaris! And the exhaust sound is so obnoxious. Who even needs to drive fast on the way to Olive Garden? Every car made in the past 10 years is better than that old Porsche.
rorykoehler 9y ago
Genelecs are notoriously hard to mix on. They take a long time to learn. Probably the hardest speaker to work with out of the box. I know someone who earns 6-7 figures annually mixing some of the biggest acts around. The only speakers on his console are NS10s. The reason being is that they are the best tool for the job. They have a flat and clear response which is what you want when mixing. On the other hand I have heard enough mixes coming out of Genelec equipped studios that sounded amazing in the studio and like garbage anywhere else. I've also heard great mixes on Genelecs but only from engineers who have used them in the same room for a few years.
- baldfat 9y ago
  > The reason being is that they are the best tool for the job.... They have a flat and clear response which is what you want when mixing. Did you not read how these things are not flat and not clear in any range besides the mids in the article and totally depended on volume, environment and positioning? NS10 are the Vim vs EMACS arguement but it is more Vim vs ed. > I've also heard great mixes on Genelecs but only from engineers who have used them in the same room for a few years. Rooms don't matter on Genelec and yes you will notice that the majority of high end studios mostly use Genelec due to the fact that rooms matter much less with them and the skill can transfer anywhere. That was my whole point on why Genelec are the most popular near field monitors in high end studios.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    Rooms always matter unless of course Genelecs somehow break the laws of physics.

acconrad 9y ago

> "If it sounds good on NS10s then it'll sound good on anything." Spot on. I dabble in electronic music production and this is precisely why it's such a "good" speaker, because you want your music to sound good on all systems, and the NS10 is going to simulate what your music sounds like on stock Apple earbuds. If it can sound good on those, you can bet they will sound even better on virtually anything else.

mastazi 9y ago
But parent is making a point that technology has moved on and your Apple Earbuds made in 2017 sound way better than the NS10s, and I think after all these years that might be the case
- mrob 9y ago
  It's not fair comparing speakers to headphones/earphones, because speakers have to move a lot more air. Cheap earphones can have excellent bass response because they're coupled directly to the eardrums. The NS10s only have 18cm (7in) woofers, so it's not surprising their -3db bass cutoff is 70Hz. As "Hoffman's Iron Law" of loudspeaker design says: deep bass, small size, high efficiency: choose two.
  - mastazi 9y ago
    > It's not fair comparing speakers to headphones/earphones True, but we are not comparing for the purpose of finding the "best value for money", we are trying to find an answer to the question: do the NS10s reflect the situation of today's average listener? My argument is that they suck so much that they are now below average... So I think they're not the right monitor choice in 2017
    - romwell 9y ago
      >My argument is that they suck so much that they are now below average... Ahahahaha no. You can't convince me they're worse than cell phone, tablet, and laptop speakers, which is how an awful lot of music is being consumed.
      - baldfat 9y ago
        Those "speakers" are not meant to be a primary sound source, but I have heard some phones from HTC that sounded MUCH better than NS10.
        romwell 9y ago
        >Those "speakers" are not meant to be a primary sound source What the manufacturer means doesn't matter, the real-life use does, and there they are often the primary sound source (if only by the virtue of being the only option available when one doesn't have their headphones handy, or, even more often, wants to share sound with someone). >I have heard some phones from HTC that sounded MUCH better than NS10. Maaaaybe. Now try something that's not a flagship, but what 98% of the people have.
    - gregsq 9y ago
      There have been high quality loudspeakers available since at least the 60's, and arguably since before then. For example the quad electrostatic from 1957 or there abouts, a selection of which far exceeds the quality of apple earbuds or similar. Or Grado SR60's from 1992 or Stax SR1 headphones from 1960. Or Hartley loudspeakers evolved from an idea originating in the 1940's. My brothers studio, where music for UK film and TV music was made, had NS10's as near fields. They sounded atrocious, I mean really bad. Leaving aside their electromechanical benefits, which are pretty well covered in the article, the accepted notion was that if you could make sounds sound ok with them with all their colourisation, then you'd get a fair result on televisions, radios and so on. In fact thinking about it, if you wanted music to sound good on Beats, then they'd still make a good reference choice. Their listenability was pretty well irrelevant.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

batmansmk 9y ago

I like mixing and mastering on my pair of NX-N500 and some Beyerdynamic DT 990 for the bass and mastering. Very revealing. How does the NS-10 compare to the modern incarnation like the NX?

SwellJoe 9y ago
The NX series is a spiritual sequel to the NS10. It was designed with a similar philosophy to the NS10, though most reviews I've read indicate they are less harsh and more accurate due to modern manufacturing improvements. I'd guess the NX series is just a better NS10. I have a high level of confidence in Yamaha's mid-range pro and prosumer audio gear, though I've never used that specific speaker.

abtinf 9y ago

Is there a speaker equivalent of Sony pro headphones like the MDR-7506? Something that produces high quality, accurate, flat response at a relatively inexpensive price point?

dharma1 9y ago
Active speakers for studio use? https://www.thomann.de/gb/topseller_GF_studio_monitors.html https://www.thomann.de/gb/topseller_GF_studio_monitors.html Take your pick - so much choice for good speakers these days. Your room will be a larger factor in the sound than any difference between two decent pairs of speakers (of same size).
secabeen 9y ago
Do you have an amplifier, or do you need internally-amped speakers?
- matwood 9y ago
  I have some fairly old paradigm floor speakers. I’d like to move to some decent bookshelf’s. I have an amp. Any suggestions? I use them for music, TV, and movies.
  - secabeen 9y ago
    Wirecutter has a fairly recent review: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/ https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/
  - mnutt 9y ago
    I recently got the KEF Q150s (wirecutter-reviewed below) to replace some old JBL horn floor speakers and can attest that the Q150s sound really good.
  - throw-away-8 9y ago
    https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2017-edition-loudspeakers https://www.stereophile.com/content/recommended-components-2...

andybak 9y ago

The article both covers your point and goes beyond it. Did you read it before posting?

baldfat 9y ago
I read and even quoted text? I don't get where I didn't read the article when I have few quotes from different parts?

4ad 9y ago

> roblem is EVERY speaker made the last 20 years is better than these speakers. I disagree heres. "Real" speakers might be better, but most people listen to music on crappy laptop speakers or crappy bluetooth 1-inch mono speakers. The quality of the average sound reproduction device has been getting worse the last 20 years.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
On the other hand, there are some seriously impressive bluetooth speakers out there now. I just picked up an Audio Pro Addon T3 on sale the other day. It's obviously no match for my room corrected studio monitor setup with dual 12" subs in regards to sub bass, detail and overall SPL, but I'm absolutely astounded at how much sound (and bass!) they've managed to cram into a speaker that's smaller than a sixpack and plays for ~30 hours on battery. They're probably doing a ton of DSP and probably some missing fundamental bass trickery, but it does sound really convincing. I wouldn't buy any bluetooth speaker much smaller than this one, though. You can only cheat physics so far.

SwellJoe 9y ago

"I see people use this all the time as their main speaker?" What are you talking about? Nobody uses the NS10 as their main speaker today. It's been a decade since they were in common use and nearly two decades since they were even manufactured.

timc3 9y ago
There still are... I have seen a couple of studios recently on Gearslutz that only have NS10
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Sure, every old piece of equipment has somebody that loves it. But, the number of high-end studios (the kind working on records any of us may have heard on the radio) with NS10 speakers, even in a secondary role, is vanishingly small these days. I used to know engineers who kept a set in the trunk of their car, "just in case" the studio didn't have any when they got there (it was their "source of truth", that allowed them to get their bearings in a room even if they used the regular speakers in the studio for most of the work), but even they weren't doing that as far back as ten years ago. These speakers still have a small cult following based on the strength of the brand during their reign, but it makes little sense to pay "vintage" equipment prices for them when you can buy better new speakers for a similar or lower price. Speakers don't get better with age. Regardless of the continuing existence of these speakers in active roles I am wildly skeptical that the person I'm responding to sees them "all the time". Unless they keep going to the same old studio that hasn't been upgraded since 1989 and having the same conversation with the owner every time. That'd be weird.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    But I am talking about people in small studios. Since around 1998 or so the recording studio was revolutionized and 90% of studios are very small one bedroom or basement size spaces. My "all the time" is going from the late 1980s to 2007. Though I still see people with only NS10. There was a studio in my city 2 blocks away. NS10 were on the wall and was the primary ears for the mixing.

Nokinside 9y ago

70% of studios I have been in have Genelec's. Rest seem to be Neumann or Quested. I don't know much about professional audio, why these are good speakers?

sp821543 9y ago
A legendary engineer educated me about NS10s. With a great amp and a sub, they sound fantastic - especially when listening at low volume. As in... lower than the volume of a normal conversation.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  They don't sound fantastic, they sound accurate, which is a vital distinction to make about monitors in a studio environment. Consumer speakers should sound good, studio monitors should sound exactly like what's on tape or disk. NS10s sound a little harsh in the mid-range and brittle on the high end. But, you can discern all the frequency ranges (except the low end, where they roll off and need to be filled in with subs) with great precision (for the era). The reason for their good reputation among many was their accuracy and pervasiveness. The reason for the poor reputation was their fatiguing harshness, making them less comfortable for long mixing sessions. Both can be true; we can recognize the good and the bad.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    I'll correct even that. I have NS10s, somewhat modified (drivers are almost totally stock though), and I'm driving them off Channel Islands D100 monoblocs, not to terribly high levels, and I have subs to reinforce the lows. They sound REVEALING. That's not the same as 'good' or 'accurate'. I'm not contradicting you: you can discern all the frequency ranges, and all the tones, and the things you did on other speakers that people complained about in your mix and you went 'but, but, I did a really good mix!' and then you listen on the NS10s and the complaints you got are suddenly right there staring you in the face, so you can't miss 'em. That's largely because of the exceptional time-domain performance as the article correctly reports. These are not the only speakers that can do that, but they're really good at it. That plus the harsh mid-emphasis and brain-fryingly bright tweeters means the things are ruthlessly revealing. Accurate would be more sympathetic to good mixes and let you slide, but NS10s are merciless and you must get things exactly right: in mixes, in getting sounds, in auditioning things like plugins.

jdietrich 9y ago

> It was used because it was such a BAD speaker. You clearly haven't read the article. The NS10 is an exceptionally good speaker in certain respects that are not immediately obvious and that convey vital information about a mix. It has superlative time-domain performance due to the sealed box design and the extremely stiff and well-damped woofer. This time-domain accuracy reveals immense amounts of detail that are lost on a conventional reflex-ported nearfield monitor. Crucial decisions about phase and balance in the bass and midrange frequencies are far easier on an NS10 than almost any other monitor. They're not pleasant to listen to, but they produce good mixes, which is entirely the point of studio monitors. A speaker with similar performance and a similar role is the Auratone 5C, or the more modern Avantone MixCube. In hi-fi terms they are absolutely atrocious, but few other speakers are so revealing of mixing errors. It is only relatively recently that full-range nearfield monitors have managed to approach the time-domain performance of the NS10 - the Neumann KH310, the Unity Audio Boulder and the Barefoot Sound Micromain achieve that feat, but at vastly greater cost than the faithful old NS10. If you do not understand why the NS10 is such an iconic and useful piece of equipment, you fundamentally do not understand mixing.

baldfat 9y ago
> You clearly haven't read the article. The NS10 is an exceptionally good speaker in certain respects that are not immediately obvious and that convey vital information about a mix. How so? They were "GOOD?" Where did I miss that? At the conclusion: "And the practical? Well, it's certainly true that the NS10s have a mid-heavy balance and little bass extension. This is especially so if they are not mounted close to a suitable boundary — such as a big desk or a rear wall — to provide low mid-range reinforcement. They're also just as revealing of any shortcomings in the monitoring chain as they are of the mix, and they don't take very kindly to being driven loud. While Newells and Holland showed they have very low levels of distortion, they do suffer from thermal compression, which will not only cause wide-band dynamic attenuation in response to high levels of drive, but will upset the characteristics of the crossover filters as the voice-coil resistance of the drivers increases. As temperature rises, the bass/mid low-pass filter frequency will increase significantly (and the tweeter high-pass filter frequency will reduce), and begin to give prominence to the resonances at the top end of the bass/mid driver's response. When NS10s are driven too hard by a poor amplifier, fed by a sub-standard monitor output, and mounted without any boundary reinforcement, you might well find that they sound horrible to the point of being unusable." ALSO???? If you do not understand why the NS10 is such an iconic and useful piece of equipment, you fundamentally do not understand mixing. Okay your super off putting. I owned my own studio and small record label with successful bands. I don't know how in the world anything you just said is fundamental to mixing? NS10 are a bad sounding mixer that is a displeasure to listen to. Not one modern near field attempts to be a NS10. Some people think that it is a bonus but NO ONE is saying these were a technical work of greatness. This articles point was that it is odd that they were successful and that they are Hate or Love. They list out some interesting points but nothing is saying they are "Too Good." Quote me some text.

PascLeRasc 9y ago

I HATE my friend's vintage Porsche. It doesn't even have Bluetooth like my Yaris! And the exhaust sound is so obnoxious. Who even needs to drive fast on the way to Olive Garden? Every car made in the past 10 years is better than that old Porsche.

rorykoehler 9y ago

Genelecs are notoriously hard to mix on. They take a long time to learn. Probably the hardest speaker to work with out of the box. I know someone who earns 6-7 figures annually mixing some of the biggest acts around. The only speakers on his console are NS10s. The reason being is that they are the best tool for the job. They have a flat and clear response which is what you want when mixing. On the other hand I have heard enough mixes coming out of Genelec equipped studios that sounded amazing in the studio and like garbage anywhere else. I've also heard great mixes on Genelecs but only from engineers who have used them in the same room for a few years.

baldfat 9y ago
> The reason being is that they are the best tool for the job.... They have a flat and clear response which is what you want when mixing. Did you not read how these things are not flat and not clear in any range besides the mids in the article and totally depended on volume, environment and positioning? NS10 are the Vim vs EMACS arguement but it is more Vim vs ed. > I've also heard great mixes on Genelecs but only from engineers who have used them in the same room for a few years. Rooms don't matter on Genelec and yes you will notice that the majority of high end studios mostly use Genelec due to the fact that rooms matter much less with them and the skill can transfer anywhere. That was my whole point on why Genelec are the most popular near field monitors in high end studios.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Rooms always matter unless of course Genelecs somehow break the laws of physics.