by JD Mars
And what is someone to do, otherwise, in a 5.1 setup? Buy five mono power amps, or three stereo? The power amp that is included in a powered monitor is designed specifically for that speaker system. This can be viewed as a definite plus in the monitor/power amp decision making process.
Using a series of power amps is doable, of course, but it brings us to the #2 issue—reasonably priced. Powered monitor packages, comparatively, are priced well against separate component purchases, i.e. power amp and speakers. And the Yamaha MSPs, compared to JBL, Mackie, Event, or KRKs, are the most moderately priced of the bunch. Very affordable, in fact, and I will argue, a great bang for the buck.
The Yamaha NS10-Ms are well known as an anomaly. Words like accuracy and imaging are thrown around when discussing studio monitors, and the phenomenon of the NS10 causes us to question ourselves and these terms. Having become something of a studio standard, I learned to relate to them, and I think that relating to your monitor speakers becomes the more important issue. Making a mix sound good in the NS10s seemed a constant challenge, but when I made it sound good in the NS10s, the mix sounded good in the rest of the world. I looked for, in the Yamaha MSP10s, something I could relate to.
The Auditions
I visited a local music retailer to listen and compare the powered monitors on the market. I've always loved JBLs, and in my professional career, A/B-ing between NS10s and Urei/JBLs during tracking and mixing was a constant. For me, JBLs were great for full-range speakers since much of the club and sound reinforcment world uses JBLs, and again, they were easy for me to relate to. The JBL LSR Series sound great, but were the most expensive of the group of speakers that I've mentioned.
KRKs have nice definition with a robust low-end, but the other powered speakers have a "whoofy" lower mid-range. Hip-hop sounds great on them, and they almost seem optimized for this type of music (wild conjecture on my part). What's bad about that is that they're unrealistic. What I imagined would not translate well to the outside world did not translate well to the outside world. The Yamaha MSPs had that Yamaha sound (a little too bright), but with much more definition across the upper mids and mids than NS10s, clarity in the lower mids, and a rich low end. And, again, I didn't think they could be beat for the price.
Most powered speakers these days have some high and low filter capability, good for minor tweaks, but certainly not recommended to compensate for adverse room acoustics. MSP particulars and details are fully described in George Petersen's Yamaha MSP10 review. The MSP10s use the same driver components as Genelec does, something that deserves a mention.
The Wrap-up
Accuracy is an objective quality, desirable for any type of monitoring system. Monitoring, after all, is about objectivity. Accuracy in any monitor speaker is going to be relative to a number of variables, and therefore any speaker will sound different in every room.
I believe that a "standard" is a positive result in the evolution of a technology, and that technology blossoms around a standard. Any bloom has its season, and the death of a standard is, again, part of evolution. The point here is that for whatever reason(s) the NS10s became a standard, they became a sound that many used to relate what they heard in the studio to the outside world. There are great numbers of monitoring systems to choose from, low to extremely high in price. What remains most important is that your choice works for you in your room, and that you're able to translate what you hear in your studio to the outside world. I don't know if the Yamaha MSP Series will achieve the same notoriety as the NS10s, but I know that I can use these speakers to relate to.
And I think they understand me, too.
JD Mars is the producer of the Digital Pro Sound website, and for the most part, feels understood (by most of his gear, anyway).
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
