Yamaha NS10

Don McR

Well-Known Member
I was recently involved in a thread on the Sansui forum that delved into studio monitors and one suggestion was to consider the ubiquitous NS-10 for this purpose. For those that don't know this is the most common studio monitor in use today, even though it has been discontinued for a couple of years now. I have always hated the sound of these speakers (screechy squawk boxes), especially in comparison to the magnificent NS-1000. Everyone I have ever talked to in the pro sound industry also hates these speakers so that their status as the industry standard monitor has always been a bit of a mystery. A partial explanation can be found in the post I made some time ago here:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=94680#post94680

However, even that rationale never fully explained how professionals could work with a tool that was so widely recognized as being deficient. Then I came across this great article on studio monitors:

http://www.tweakheadz.com/studio_monitors.htm

Contained in that article is this wonderful excerpt:

A good monitor does not artificially exaggerate frequencies. You do not want a speaker that sounds like a "disco smile". That's where the bass and the treble are boosted and the mids are cut. They call it a "smile" because that's how it looks on a graphic equalizer. Lots of people really like that sound. If you like that sound, mix up a nice smile for your monitors. Then it might actually translate on other systems. But if your speakers make that automatically, your mix will be shown lacking in bass and high transients. Using that principle was the secret behind the Yamaha NS-10s, the most horrible sounding speaker ever made. On an NS10 there was no bass, no high end, just screeching awful sounding peaky mids. People who referenced on them had to boost the bass massively and cut the mids. The resultant mix? Yep, the disco smile. It made hit after hit and people thought they were magic. If you could make the shrill box sound passable, it would sound great everywhere else.

Mystery solved. They're pre-designed to end up with an exagerated radio mix. In addition, now I know why these little shit boxes command as much as $1,000 on Ebay – superstition. People believe that studio magic will rub off on them if they use the same monitors that the “hits” were made on.
 
Last edited:
The set that I sold last month was near mint, they were by far the nicest ones that I have ever seen. But they only brought $385. So maybe the era of high prices for those is ending.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you've got to admit...

... in addition to (or in spite of) all that Don's said above, the NS-10's are also cute little speakers! Much more attractive than, say, those dowdy BBC LS3/5a monitors

... sans grilles, in both cases...

:)
 
I have spent many years on both sides of the console, and yes, just about every studio has NS10's. Even though I had a pair in my own studio, I rarely used them myself. They were there for artists that brought in their own engineers and producers. To me it was a case of "not thinking outside of the box". The only reason they became so popular was because the industry needed a standard. any producer or engineer could walk into any studio and mix on the same monitors without having to lug their own around. They also knew where the downfall of the NS10's were, and adjusted for it (like toilet paper over the tweeters). It's like Windows for the PC. Always seems to be unstable, always crashes, and is loaded with bugs. But everybody uses it (I'm a Mac user myself).
Now, having worked with many producers, some of the biggest names I know did not use the NS10's. They used Auratones for the main "nearfield" mixing monitors. Yep! the little 5", single driver, sealed cube monitors. If you can hear everything in those little guys, chances are you have a good mix. I always mixed with auratones then cranked the mix on large mains like Westlake's for a reality check.
 
The story behind the toilet paper mod to the NS-10 is a hoot in its own right (it doesn't work since it creates an even worse response through comb filtering). It came about because of an interview with an engineer that was in the midst of a streak of hit records. He mentioned his home grown mod of placing tissue paper over the NS-10 tweeter. This was immediately copied by scores of engineers, certain that using tissue covered NS-10's would result in hits of their own.

This reached mythic proportions in the story of a young engineer that complained to the manager of a prominent New York studio. He claimed that he could not work with their montors. The manager didn't understand since they were using the industry standard NS-10's. The engineer explained that they were using "the wrong toilet paper" over the tweeters.
 
Last edited:
I think its funny how some people just love Studio Monitors for home use. To be honest most sound horrible at home. My Tandberg Monitors are about the only ones I could handle for extended listening.
 
I've been using these for more than 10 years. Mine are highly tweaked (no toilet-paper, though), and they still are a reference point to me, among others. They're not the only speakers I use and, yes, like all boxes (nearfield or not), they have their weaknesses and strengths, but it would not have become such a standard if it didn't have some qualities!

I finally decided they were better standing up and not that close... The most common mistake I've seen with these was to feed them with small amps. As tiny as the NS-10s are, they need an amp with balls - two of them. Otherwise, it'll be screeching all over. Maybe I'm biased because I've been using them for so long (daily), I now know them by heart (there's a dip here and another here - no 'speaker is linear) but if you tweak 'em a little they can be quite revealing. I know the amp that feeds them, too, and I've never had a bad surprise when entering a studio with a pre-mix made with them, never.

As for the "disco smile", the box doesn't make it, even if one uses huge Tannoys, JBLs, tiny Auratones or whatever - that's magazines' hype. A good mix comes from an engineer who knows his gear.

NS-10s've been replaced since long by active speakers (some good, some horrible) - the NS-10 WAS a standard 10 years ago. Been a while since I've seen a pair of these in studios... and if a madman spends 1000$ on a pair of them - they go for much less than that in Europe!
 
I had a set for a while...

Didn't listen to them much but did A/B them with a set of Yamaha NS-625, another two way(with an 8" woofer). In addition to the 625 having more bass, they also had a warmer laid back sound more to my liking. I got about 650US on ebay, guy used BIN so I may have been able to get more. I only paid 89.00 bucks for them and didn't want to be greedy :D
 
grumpy said:
I think its funny how some people just love Studio Monitors for home use. To be honest most sound horrible at home. My Tandberg Monitors are about the only ones I could handle for extended listening.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with studio monitors for home use. It's no different from the home market in that there are both good and bad studio monitors. The first thing to recognize is that that vast majority of speakers with "Studio Monitor" in the name have never been inside a studio. For example, Infinity long pushed their SM "Studio Monitor" series even though Infinity never once made a professional monitor. There are countless other speaker companies with this same marketing strategy. Your Tandbergs appear to be another such example.

Currently, the finest names in studio monitors are speakers I would be very envious to have in my home. ATC and PMC monitors are amongst the finest speakers I have ever heard bar none. The JBL LSR6332 is amongst the best bookshelf sized speakers I have encountered.

Studio monitors tend to vary from home speakers in both their ruggedness and dispersion characteristics. The former generally translates into high output, dynamic response which I greatly prize. The latter tends to be more tight in monitors, which I consider an asset in a home speaker, but which may be at cross-purposes to other listeners preferences in a home environment.

Getting back to the subject at hand, it should be recognized that the NS-10 was never designed as a studio monitor. It was designed as a very inexpensive home speaker. Engineers began bringing them into studios to replace the Auratone cubes that had previously served as the lowest common denominator in checking mixes. It was only when Yamaha discovered that a significant number of these speakers were being sold into the pro market that they came up with the NS-10M, a slightly modified version that they could market directly as a monitor.
 
Last edited:
Ns10t

I recently found a pair of these and was wondering if anyone knew what the differences were between the t's and m's besides the fact that they don't have the white woofer, and if there are differences, are the t's any more liked than the m's?

True to everything I read about them, they are super accurate and on the shrill side with a very small sweet spot (as a studio monitor should be as I've learned).
What amazes me is that on some tunes with a fade out at the end you hear the fade right up to the end without the sound disintergrating (that's the best I can describe it) and sometimes on quiet parts in songs you actually hear an echo effect.

Also, if tubes generally calm down screechy speakers, do you suppose mating these with a tube amp might produce some pleasing results... just a thought that I may try. And I read that giving them a lot of power might make them sound better(warmer) but am not sure why?

Anyway, don't know if I'll keep them (probably not), but glad I found them so I now know what a nearfield monitor sounds like. Nothing like first hand experience.

As always, thanks for any feedback.

- Pete -
 
JoZmo,

as noted in another AK thread, there are many versions of the NS-10 and all of them probably have a "sound" of their own... From the original 1977 NS-10 (yes: 1977!) to the later NS10, to the M, the Pro, the MPro, the Studio, the japanese Pro, the japanese Studio, the downgraded versions, the bigger version (NS-40M)....
 
JoZmo said:
True to everything I read about them, they are super accurate- Pete -
Did You read the messages above before posting this? :lmao:
 
Last edited:
Don McR said:
In addition, now I know why these little shit boxes command as much as $1,000 on Ebay – superstition. People believe that studio magic will rub off on them if they use the same monitors that the “hits” were made on.
:yikes: SHIT BOXES?! C'mon, stop dissing Yamaha. I take serious offense to that. :twak:
 
Once you add a Zobel to the woofer on a NS10, it sounds just fine. Just get rid of that awful 7dB peak at around 1500 Hz... that's all you need to do, to make a perfectly fine sounding, relatively accurate speaker out of it...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
GordonW said:
Once you add a Zobel to the woofer on a NS10, it sounds just fine. Just get rid of that awful 7dB peak at around 1500 Hz... that's all you need to do, to make a perfectly fine sounding, relatively accurate speaker out of it...
What is a Zobel?
 
There's a set for $450 in Portland... ridiculous. I just got AR90's for $200. Duh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoZmo,

There are many versions of the NS-10 and all of them probably have a "sound" of their own... From the original 1977 NS-10 (yes: 1977!) to the later NS10, to the M, the Pro, the MPro, the Studio, the japanese Pro, the japanese Studio, the downgraded versions, the bigger version (NS-40M)....

What is interesting to me is that some are acoustic suspension designs, and others bass reflex, and even a mini-monitor and tower thrown in towards the end.

Also:
NS10MC
NS10MM
NS10MMF
NS10MT
NS10X
 
Back
Top Bottom