Wow. Amazing musical instrument.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why Your Speakers Suck
Sound on Sound just published a retrospective on the Yamaha NS-10. A studio monitor that become a surprise industry standard for over 30 years and now out of production. Known for its brutally honest reproduction of sound, NS-10 sell for more than their original price. The article breaks down why this unassuming box became the industry giant, and indirectly introduced a new trend in how speakers will be rated.
What makes a good monitor? The early adopters for the NS-10 favored its mobility. When traveling from site to site, a consistent mixing sound is important for an engineer. Practicality made it catch-on, but why did it stick around? The article quells the rumors circulating the net, and cites an academic paper comparing 30 studio monitors.
Frequency response is the current standard for monitors. The NS-10 performs less desirably here. It outperforms in one area: Response time.
A bass delay of 10 milliseconds(ms) will the kick drum appear 4 meters behind the mids and highs of the guitar. The NS-10 delivers the lows, mids and highs within 2-3 ms of each. The ear hears everything at once. Tight and punchy. As other speakers would introduce delays between the frequency ranges, and the sound becomes muddled.
Marketing folks rejoice. A new standard for comparing speakers. But will this carry over into other areas? Plugins? I’ve heard accounts of how eqs can alter the time delay and phase between harmonics. And I wonder if certain mixing consoles start introducing delays as you send sound through its eqs and aux sends. Each of these little bits result in a loss of punchiness and tightness.
Does this really make a difference in the sound? Yes.
Does it tell if you something sounds better? No. Trust your ears, not marketing charts. Good sound remains subjective. Tools like this are useful. But not gospel. Accuracy of time-domain, does not equate to sounding good. The unpleasant sound of the NS-10 is proof of that. If you think your speakers sound good then use it. If you think your eq sounds good, then continue using it.
But be prepared for a new wave of marketing literature explaining why your speakers suck.
What makes a good monitor? The early adopters for the NS-10 favored its mobility. When traveling from site to site, a consistent mixing sound is important for an engineer. Practicality made it catch-on, but why did it stick around? The article quells the rumors circulating the net, and cites an academic paper comparing 30 studio monitors.
Frequency response is the current standard for monitors. The NS-10 performs less desirably here. It outperforms in one area: Response time.
A bass delay of 10 milliseconds(ms) will the kick drum appear 4 meters behind the mids and highs of the guitar. The NS-10 delivers the lows, mids and highs within 2-3 ms of each. The ear hears everything at once. Tight and punchy. As other speakers would introduce delays between the frequency ranges, and the sound becomes muddled.
Marketing folks rejoice. A new standard for comparing speakers. But will this carry over into other areas? Plugins? I’ve heard accounts of how eqs can alter the time delay and phase between harmonics. And I wonder if certain mixing consoles start introducing delays as you send sound through its eqs and aux sends. Each of these little bits result in a loss of punchiness and tightness.
Does this really make a difference in the sound? Yes.
Does it tell if you something sounds better? No. Trust your ears, not marketing charts. Good sound remains subjective. Tools like this are useful. But not gospel. Accuracy of time-domain, does not equate to sounding good. The unpleasant sound of the NS-10 is proof of that. If you think your speakers sound good then use it. If you think your eq sounds good, then continue using it.
But be prepared for a new wave of marketing literature explaining why your speakers suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)