I need to get some monitors for my little recording setup. I have heard that Yamaha's NS 10's are the way to go as far as reference monitors. Are there any that are better that are cheaper. i do not want to spend over $150 and with the ns 10's i would need to get an amp too.
Topic Tags
Comments
Well, if you send your 'way back machine' back to 1985, then yea
Well, if you send your 'way back machine' back to 1985, then yeah. They were great at that time, because there was nothing like them prior.
Since then, things have changed. There's hundreds of different types of nearfields to choose from now.
Those that grew old with them, will still swear by them. (but they have probably lost a bit of hearing in the midrange)
I find them dreadful. (and painful)
(BIG K beat me to it, so this is now redundant)
I'd really like to see a pair for $150. Thats never going to hap
I'd really like to see a pair for $150. Thats never going to happen.
I had my pair for about a year. I bought em as a 'second opinion' to my JBL's. Never did like em much except for really guitar heavy rock and only to hear if the guitars were too loud in the mix.
As always....YMMV.
moresound, post: 362594 wrote: Start saving big, for not only wi
moresound, post: 362594 wrote: Start saving big, for not only will you need monitors, you'll need (more than likely) to acoustically treat your room and it wouldn't matter what monitors you end up with till that is done.
Well, I don't know if I could agree with that. Monitors are going to affect the mix as much as the room. In fact a good set of near field monitors in an untreated room will be better than a well treated room with poor monitors IMHO. Someone with more experience might argue that. Spending money on both would be ideal. I would look into at the very least $400 for a pair of entry level monitors. KRK or Yamaha HS50M or better. $600 will have you sitting in the mid entry level. KRK RP8 or Yamaha HS80. Still not awesome but fair for the price.
I've never been able to use NS 10's. I couldn't stand them. It d
I've never been able to use NS 10's. I couldn't stand them. It didn't matter how much toilet paper I used! Bright & horrific sounding. So, no. It's certainly not a please all oriented speaker. I like some of their others but I just generally steer clear. Too many Japanese speakers all sound the same to me also. And so yeah, China included. But some of these Chinese built speakers today are knockoffs from the earlier inception of the company. In that respect, many manufacturers have tried to keep a certain traditional aspect to their Chinese cuisine. So, some are making some decent sounding pieces that were essentially originally designed in the US and elsewhere and have retained a certain amount of consistency.
A lot of us are old JBL guys. I particularly liked my 4311's with Crown amplifiers. Meanwhile, my studio partner liked his 4311's with a Macintosh 2100 and I designed and built his studio. So I did a lot of mixing and recording with the McIntosh amplifier even though I prefer Crowns. And they were the difference between night and day in deference. So that amplifier manufacturing difference could make for huge differences even with the same speakers.
My next option was to find a smaller 2 way monitor to use as an alternate smaller source in my control room. I had used JBL 4308's and loved those. But then those darned polyurethane suspensions died. Even though I knew I could get those fixed. Instead, I had heard these KRK speakers that I liked. I also tried 2 different pairs of Tannoys that didn't translate well to my JBL world in my control room. But 3 different pairs of KRK's, both passive & active monitors did. I really enjoyed the RP 5's, currently have a pair of V6's & KRock-it passives and find that they translate well to my JBL worldly perceptions. Sure, there are plenty of other speakers I've heard, that sound good, that I can and do work on at other facilities. What I've suggested, these are both ultra-affordable and have a great rock 'n roll flavor to them that is classic in its nature. The company has since changed hands from their original Californian inception inception with Keith Klawitter or something like that. To some other Chinese manufacturer now. A lot of folks got to know them because of their, back in the day, unique, amber colored Kevlar woofers. In a way it sort of matched those white/beige woofers on my 4310's, 4311's, 4312's, 4411's. And I only purchase my speakers in pairs & rarely part with any.
So it really helps to try and audition as many active self-contained mini monitors as you can. What sounds good in the store may sound completely opposite to you at home. And I've had problems just like that so make sure you've got a good store with a good exchange return policy. The simple fact is is that everything affects everything.
The biggest trick is, you do have to become intimate with your monitors. To become one with your monitors. To understand them before you go to bed and understand them once you wake up. It's sort of like your underwear, generally stick with a single brand you like but you may vary a bit from time to time. Once you know what your favorite songs sound like on your favorite monitors, you'll understand how to work on any other monitors as long as you bring the same CDs with you as your reference jumping off point.
Active monitors are perfectly suited to work with most any professional computer audio interface. These kinds of monitors go way beyond the silly consumer utilitarian specifically labeled " computer speakers". Those are fine for personal enjoyment but not fine for reference monitors. So go for a small professional active monitor. I even have a small pair of these Radio Shaft looking active self powered monitors. They use a single 4" full range driver, (instead of the Radio Shaft version with its 1 inch additional Tweeter, passive Minimus 7's) with internal 10 want amplifier by Fostex. You can mix albums on these things because they are not hyped in the low-end or the high-end like computer speakers are. And you don't need sub woofers. I only occasionally mix in another facility that has sub woofers and I deal with them. I really don't like the timing errors introduced by sub woofers. Even though the experts tell you that's not a problem. It is a problem. It will always be a problem. Of course, if you wanted to utilize 2 subwoofers and put them directly underneath the other two speakers, I might consider it. Of course that would look too much like a 3 way speaker system and then you wouldn't have that single sub to look at. Boo-hoo especially for those 5.1 kiddies out there.
To sub or not to sub? That is the question.
Mx. Remy Ann David
Here's some Yammy dope: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.scribd.c
Here's some Yammy dope: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.scribd.c…"]ns10m[/]="http://www.scribd.c…"]ns10m[/]
Yes they are that bad. They do however perform well in the metrics we can't readily hear...... well except with test tones and training.
Dan
I guess the allure of the NS10s is that they aren't that great b
I guess the allure of the NS10s is that they aren't that great but that they "transfer" very well - meaning they transfer to most consumer stereo systems - which is after all, the main market for your music. We have a pair of NS10s here in both studios and a lot of engineers like using them as one reference (not the only reference). They're passive speakers, so they require an outboard amplifier, which will color the sound a little bit. So they are just one reference for your mix, one of hopefully a few (car system, headphones, etc etc).
I'm not really sure they transfer all that well. There are a mi
I'm not really sure they transfer all that well. There are a million ways to screw up a speaker and the NS10 only accomplishes half a dozen of them or so. Ha ha. Market research might lead to a better "final check" monitor, but good luck getting ahold of that. That's one of the biggest problems with producing music--too many screwed up speakers/headphones available on the market in every price bracket. If companies had to show their speaker's performance in the metrics correlated with our perception, we could make real progress though listening environments would still be a sizable obstacle. Maybe the NS10 is as ideally screwed up as we can reasonably do.....
Dan
Definitely don't feel like you're required to use NS-10s. Go to
Definitely don't feel like you're required to use NS-10s. Go to a few different audio equipment stores and try out a few pairs, start getting used to what different pairs can offer and figure out exactly what it is you're wanting from them. As has been mentioned, the NS-10s became the standard low quality speaker to test mixes on. Before that were the Auratones. If what you're wanting is a set of speakers that mimics most home scenarios, I'd suggest just getting a nice pair of computer speakers -- after all, earbuds and laptop speakers are the new norm for most home systems.
My point really was that there's no point checking your mix on a
My point really was that there's no point checking your mix on a bad speaker as there are just too many ways to screw up a speaker to account for them all or even a majority. Same goes for ear buds and cans. Without some standards, the thing is somewhat a crapshoot. My goal is to just make my mixes sound great on good speakers in a good room or on good headphones/ear buds. That way when you sell music to people who care deeply about the quality of the recorded music, they'll appreciate your efforts. Heck, recent studies have shown that even teenagers prefer good sounding recordings and accurate loudspeakers. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://seanolive.bl…"]Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction[/]="http://seanolive.bl…"]Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction[/]
Dan
what i know about the ns-10's. get some tissue paper. they origi
what i know about the ns-10's. get some tissue paper. they originally started as a comsumer 'bookshelf' type speaker didn't sell. since (already) professional engineers were using them to hear what their mixes done on mains, sounded like on on a very limited comsumer type speaker yamaha renamed them the ns-10m. The are good for hearing if your guitars are too loud. I've heard they should be used with a very overpowered amp like 250w per channel,(that one comes from a guy who worked on new kids' hanging tough). i think that is to keep amp distortion out of the question, with plenty of headroom they are quite expensive for a 'reality check'. a pair of 'em plus a couple halfer's could will cost well over $1000. And some people love 'em, since i haven't used them myself, i'm spitting out whats been told to me. I use meyer hd1's in the studio i work at. just installed the last cloud, wow what a difference in bass detail...we're still finalizing everything.
My mixes translated better from my low end consumer stereo, in an untreated bedroom room, than they did in my treated bedroom w/ mackie hr's. The learning curve was fairly steep for me. All i did was try to make the sounds sound good on my consumer stereo, cuz thats what they'll likely sound like on everyone else's avg stereo untreated room.
What you get w/ studio monitors in a good room, is the ability to here 'more', like detailed pick articulation, drum pedal noise, details that would get masked, or not even reproduced on a consumer system. With this type of system, the room is already sort of compensated for, so you can make it sound like you want it in the room. With monitors, unless you have them in an acoustically designed (not just treated) room, you need to mix for how you know it will sound outside. For instance, in my bedroom, i get the bass-end the way i like to hear it, then turn it down a couple notches, this makes me confident it won't be boomy in my car.
The reason i like mixing at the studio so much, is that i can make it sound the way i want to hear it in there, and be confident it's going to translate well. But that took us a lot of time, money, and a bit of trial and error (speaker placement, aditional room treatments, learning the control room.
One of the main features in powered monitors is the amp built into it, this has been designed to work nicely w/ the speakers, and encloseure, and takes away alot of the research, trail/error in a passive speaker.
My boss uses hs80's at his studio. they work there. My hr's mk2's took me a while to learn in my bedroom, althought good mixes sound really good on them. The meyers i like very much at the studio. Hr's work nicely in my cousins project studio. And my friend likes his behringer's, i don't.
Anytime you switch your monitors, you will have to relearn them
Anytime you switch your monitors, you will have to relearn them and it will take some time depending on how different they are than the previous ones. I used to mix on poorly engineered speakers, but my mix would not translate well on other poorly engineered speakers or even good ones. It was frustrating. Then I learned of just how many ways there are to screw up a speaker and it became obvious why this is. There's just no way to account for all the bad designs out there. If people are not picky enough to choose good sounding speakers and set them up in a good location for listening, are they going to be upset if the sound isn't very good? Yes, some of them will. Hopefully they'll figure out that it was there poor reasoning. Truth is, the end user doesn't even need a well treated room--it helps, but it's not make or break. There was an experiment done several years ago where listeners were taken to four different room with a number of loudspeakers behind a giant grill cloth screen. All the rooms were radically different in size, shape, and acoustical properties. In every instance, the most accurate speaker was preferred and the least accurate despised. Our ears/brain have the ability to adapt to the acoustics of a room minutes after arriving. That's not to say that a better room isn't worth it, but the end user doesn't need one to enjoy stereo reproduction. They do however need decent speakers. There are several decent speakers that are cheap. The most interesting part of that experiment is that they also dummy head recorded each room then later played it back to the same listeners through individually HRTF compensated ear buds(almost seems redundant I know but apparently they wanted to leave no doubt). From the recorded version, the room became the dominant factor for preference--not the speaker. The ear had no chance to learn the room acoustics and couldn't be separated from the source. At the moment I can't remember if this was a Floyd Toole experiment or not, but that's what my memory is telling me.
Dan
the whole point is the avereage listener doesn't have 'decent sp
the whole point is the avereage listener doesn't have 'decent speakers'. the person in their toyota corolla probably has paper cones, well at least in the older ones.
Your quoted as "I used to mix on poorly engineered speakers, but my mix would not translate well on other poorly engineered speakers or even good ones". What seems to be the problem, the engineer?
Gotta know what your listening for reguardless of room. I've made decent mixes in the corner a bar room just left of one of the mains. i've made bad mixes in the best studio i've worked at.
Dude really...i mean really....really... what experience is this one coming from "Truth is, the end user doesn't even need a well treated room--it helps, but it's not make or break."
the truth really is we all don't have properly treated rooms, And all worthwhile studio's will!
You sound like you google more than you record man. don't get me wrong i read alot too.
I also have been building/mixing everyday professionally for the last 2 years, and for fun for the last 12yrs.
Our ears sure do compensate for room acoustics, doesn't mean we all have the skill to critically adjust the playback material in a manner that will paint the picture elswhere that fast. just beacuse you make it sound good in one room, which is realatively straighforward, doesn't mean it will sound good evrywhere else. it is the point, and very expensive necessity of a nuetral room/honest monitoring system.
The first thing any mixer does is check his mix elsewher why? beacuse unlike numbers, physical rooms, speakers, equipment, ain't perfect. Both the studio's and the end-listener's. Balance, is it man.
The reason i did so well on a home stereo was beacuase it compensated for my untreated room, which is what the majority of listeners will be in. It was well before i knew what room treatment was, even what a studio monitor was. i just tried my best to make my stuff sound like what i was used to hearing. speaker companies spend alot of money on RD so that consumers get a pleasing/perhaps exaggerated depiction of the sound from the recording in an untreated room, figuring the typical painting, couch, ect.
Studio monitors assume you have a very flat room and pick their components based on that.
If your talking audiophile stuff then that's different consumer stuff, and out of my realm.
do you have any experience on ns10m's, or the profound amount of amps they (could) run on?
Studio monitors are designed for just that, monitoring in a studio situation. some for project studio's some for pro level, some custom design for the control room. there are no, i mean none, 0, zilsch, 'untreated' professional control rooms.
Kmetal, try not to take it personal or make it personal. My rat
Kmetal, try not to take it personal or make it personal. My rationale is stated and sound. Read the $500 thread you posted in to see the reply to your points that were brought up by another forum member. I see a pattern again here. I assume you've read it as you've posted in it, but you just brought up the exact same issues I just addressed in it. I'd hope that the mudslinging is beneath you. Maybe you'd like to edit your post?
Your point about mixing and one room, listening in another, and it sounding different should let you see the same about speakers. There's no way to account for every flaw. Checking your mix elsewhere is fine, but making it sound good on bad speakers is less than optimal for the obvious reasons I stated.
Dan
My point was that graphs and specs aren't the whole picture. Th
My point was that graphs and specs aren't the whole picture. That's it. Also we'll have to agree to disagree on whether graphs not made in an anechoic chamber have substantial validity especially when there isn't a scientifically significant percentage tested. And my concerns regarding one specific company. Other than that, carry on. I've never been a fan of NS10's for anything which would agree with your graphs ;-)
When did this turn hostile and why? I've gone back to read three
When did this turn hostile and why? I've gone back to read three times and I still can't see where the animosity began. At any rate NS10s are still used in plenty of studios. There certainly are better ones out there. I think most of us can agree on that. No need to get all worked up about it.
still don't know how effective a super accurate set of speakers
still don't know how effective a super accurate set of speakers would be in an inaccurate room, for critical listening. hey if it works, it works, then that's all that matters. the end result is more important than how ya got there to the the client/end listener. the ns10's seem out of op's budget anyway, i wonder wat would be a good set in that range? maybe some krk's?
This is easy to define: In a screwed-up room, a better monitor h
This is easy to define: In a screwed-up room, a better monitor helps.
The rest what you say is a Milchmädchenrechnung.
You can cross a desert by plane or by foot*.
Planes do crash, but chances to reach the other side by foot are much smaller and you arrive much later.
Plane costs money, shoes are cheaper. Do it professionally or do it for hobby... We have to distinguish what we are talking about.
*
Hint: if you walk through expanded sandy areas like deserts, wear two pairs of woolen socks.
Turn the outer pair over the edge of the boots and laces.
The sand can't get into your shoes that easily, anymore ....
We are talking about near field monitors here. The closer they a
We are talking about near field monitors here. The closer they are to you, the less affect the room has. That's not to say that they won't be affected by the room but, turning them up and listening to a few commercial mixes should get you accustomed to any of the rooms anomalies. You should be able to mix "around" the rooms deficiencies.
Poor monitors in a well treated room? Now you have to deal with the monitor's deficiencies. It's a lot harder to mix what you can't hear than it is to mix while dealing with something you know you're going to hear too much of. It can be done and yes, you can compare to a commercial mix but there's still a bit more guesswork IMHO.
TheJackAttack, post: 364344 wrote: My point was that graphs and
TheJackAttack, post: 364344 wrote: My point was that graphs and specs aren't the whole picture. That's it. Also we'll have to agree to disagree on whether graphs not made in an anechoic chamber have substantial validity especially when there isn't a scientifically significant percentage tested. And my concerns regarding one specific company. Other than that, carry on. I've never been a fan of NS10's for anything which would agree with your graphs ;-)
Actually they have been correlated many times over the last 40yrs! Is no one reading the links I post? They've broke it down to which anechoic specs matter and to what degree by percent. I don't think I've posted that part before, I was just trying to get everyone up to speed.
Dan
hueseph, post: 364359 wrote: When did this turn hostile and why?
hueseph, post: 364359 wrote: When did this turn hostile and why? I've gone back to read three times and I still can't see where the animosity began. At any rate NS10s are still used in plenty of studios. There certainly are better ones out there. I think most of us can agree on that. No need to get all worked up about it.
kmetal, post: 364268 wrote: ...
Your quoted as "I used to mix on poorly engineered speakers, but my mix would not translate well on other poorly engineered speakers or even good ones". What seems to be the problem, the engineer?
......
Dude really...i mean really....really... what experience is this one coming from "Truth is, the end user doesn't even need a well treated room--it helps, but it's not make or break."
......
You sound like you google more than you record man.
.....
Where I come from, that's getting hostile--at least starting to. I just wanted to nip it in the bud. Facts are not something to be upset about. I don't care if I never heard a stereo. Experiments have been done and repeated by several people from all over the planet with the same results, variables have been isolated and the data has been compiled. No, Psychoacoustics is not 100% understood precisely, but much of the dark ages dogma has been dispelled a dozen times or more--some of it hundreds. Being in the business, it's a good idea to brush up up what is known. I certainly do not want to upset someone, just share a little know how. That's not a reason to try and call someone out. Just because you don't know something does not mean someone else has no experience. Web cred on a messaging board is unimportant. Learning sticks with you for a long time. I am not a credentials guy. I remember when I was young and my alternator was crapped out. My uncle insisted it was my battery. I expressed the case for the alternator. He replied "How long have you been working on cars Dan?" I said that I have never did anything more than hand my Dad wrenches. He came back with "I've been working on cars for 30yrs." Well, it didn't make him more correct.
If you guys think I'm saying what I'm saying to show you up or prove you wrong--well, I'm a bigger man than that. Take it or leave it.
I don't care to brag about who I am or what I've done. I'll let my words stand for themselves.
Dan
I'm not saying it didn't get hostile, I just don't see the reaso
I'm not saying it didn't get hostile, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't see any reason to get all uptight about something so trivial. And for the most part, I agree with you that Monitors are more important and that the room doesn't have to be the deal breaker.
I really wanted to read the link you gave but I don't want to pay to have to do it and the posting on the site is too small for my poor eyes.
hueseph, post: 364409 wrote: I'm not saying it didn't get hostil
hueseph, post: 364409 wrote: I'm not saying it didn't get hostile, I just don't see the reason behind it. I don't see any reason to get all uptight about something so trivial. And for the most part, I agree with you that Monitors are more important and that the room doesn't have to be the deal breaker.
I really wanted to read the link you gave but I don't want to pay to have to do it and the posting on the site is too small for my poor eyes.
Your not really agreeing with me--you are accepting demonstrated psychoacoustics. It's certainly nothing to feel hostile over--that we agree on. :)
You have to pay? Do you mean by reading the small print? It basically says that the NS10 is not very good. There are worse speakers for sure. Now that we do have a good fundamental comprehension on what is and is not audible we know there are better places to look for good monitors. Check out my posts in the $500 thread and follow the links through Dr. Olive's blog. There are good reasons why Mackie, JBL, Neumann, Genelec, etc... graphs look so similar--that's what's been shown to sound good in a room. Switch the room, same sound is preferred. Fortunately that is also accurate. This shouldn't be a surprise really, but to many it is.
This is a decent place to start if you want to understand what we hear from a loudspeaker and a bit into why: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/]="http://dtmblabber.b…"]****DanTheMan's blog****: Psychoacoustics[/] and follow the links. Keep in mind that what I say on there is by no means the whole of the situation by any means. I don't even touch on masking or fooling the ear at all. I'm just laying out basics in my spare time so the information can be easily understood by anyone interested. People who record or are into home theater should be interested I'd think, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge.
if you have questions I'll do my best to answer what I can,
Dan
OK, so I have to throw my $.02 in on the NS10. They sound bad an
OK, so I have to throw my $.02 in on the NS10. They sound bad and translate really really well. They sound bad for several reasons: They are very accurate in the critical midrange - I think they even have a nice wide bump through the region - they don't smooth your highs at all and they don't port the cabinet to artificially extend the bass lower than the resonance of the enclosure/driver system. They translate well because the lows are damped well and don't "ring" like most small ported monitors, and the unforgiving mid and high range really draw your attention to anything out of whack in the most critical frequency range.
You'd probably never want to monitor through them while tracking, because they really don't do the lows well and you'd need to get an accurate notion of the sound you're capturing as you track. Assuming your tracks are captured with all the appropriate frequency balances, the brutally harsh NS-10 pinpoints all the stuff you should be focussing on to get the mix right. If it sounds right in the NS-10, it is right.
DanTheMan, post: 364419 wrote: Your not really agreeing with me-
DanTheMan, post: 364419 wrote: Your not really agreeing with me--you are accepting demonstrated psychoacoustics. It's certainly nothing to feel hostile over--that we agree on.
Pardon me for assuming to be in agreement with you. Your obvious expertise has put you on a pedestal far beyond my reach. One day I hope to climb the mountain upon which you sit and ask you for guidance.
All due respect but you sound like your on a rather tall horse. Maybe you are "right". Congratulations. Enjoy it. I'll move on to other things. Thank you very much.
bicasaur, post: 364439 wrote: OK, so I have to throw my $.02 in
bicasaur, post: 364439 wrote: OK, so I have to throw my $.02 in on the NS10. They sound bad and translate really really well. They sound bad for several reasons: They are very accurate in the critical midrange - I think they even have a nice wide bump through the region - they don't smooth your highs at all and they don't port the cabinet to artificially extend the bass lower than the resonance of the enclosure/driver system. They translate well because the lows are damped well and don't "ring" like most small ported monitors, and the unforgiving mid and high range really draw your attention to anything out of whack in the most critical frequency range.
You'd probably never want to monitor through them while tracking, because they really don't do the lows well and you'd need to get an accurate notion of the sound you're capturing as you track. Assuming your tracks are captured with all the appropriate frequency balances, the brutally harsh NS-10 pinpoints all the stuff you should be focussing on to get the mix right. If it sounds right in the NS-10, it is right.
I'd say this is a pretty good summary, although Dantheman points out the NS10's are not actually that accurate. In regards to the original poster they would not be a good investment as main speaks for a starting studio. However, as the studio progresses the NS-10's can be a great weapon to have as a 2nd reference monitor to check how your frequencies are doing, at low levels. I have heard it said many times that the NS-10's sound like 'crap', but if you can get your mix to approach 'good' on the NS-10's then you are doing pretty 'good'.
For the original poster: get some KRK's for your first pair and get to know them really well.
Let me redefine this in a different way. It really makes no dif
Let me redefine this in a different way.
It really makes no difference whose monitor you use big or small. Specifications mean absolutely nothing here. And that you can believe. Mobile control rooms have been set up on location in numerous bad acoustical environments. Any monitors you get to know well become your reference jumping off point. This only happens after you have lived with & understand the monitors upon which you are working on. Whoever's they may be. That's why I always keep some reference CDs with me when going into different control rooms as everyone needs a reference.
If your mixes haven't translated well to numerous other systems, you haven't gotten to know your monitors at all. I've worked in numerous back room control rooms and never had this problem because I have experience & technique. And I do not rely upon a single brand/type of monitor. But when only presented with a single set of monitors, I have to play my reference CDs first. So should you. It's from that, that you will develop technique through your experience.
Not an amateur but a +40 year professional.
Mx. Remy Ann David
The NS 10s are probably the worst monitors that ever found their
The NS 10s are probably the worst monitors that ever found their way into pro studios.
BUT they were one of the first speakers used for monitoring and, thus, many engineers have worked and learned the NS10s.
They have next to no bass fundament and suck in their hights.
Therefore, some engineers stick a piece of toilette paper or kimwipe ( tune to taste...LOL ) in front of the tweeter.
If you want , you can use the old saying: if it sounds good on these, it sounds good on any other crate out there.
Not entirely correct, but widely true.. .IF you know their sound and IF you can compensate their limitations by heart, when mixing.
Nevertheless those are classic standart, per se, and many are still preferring them over any other ( unknown ) monitors when working out of house.
I have a pair on my shelf... if anybody wants them... not cheap, and don't forget the shipping costs.