Yamaha HS50M Nearfield Monitors for Home Use

Of course the notion of "transparency" is subjective...it's a metaphor. It has nothing to do with sound. Sound or gear isn't literally transparent. It's one of those words and notions borrowed from other senses and applied to audio. And so, as such, how it's applied by people, is wildly all over the place. But I think most commonly it is associated with the sort of thing you're talking about with regard to low level detail and there are many different ways one piece of gear my present solo level detail -- one may be lower noise than another (the biggest factor in that regard), one my have a different frequency balance than another which may emphasis transient detail in certain frequencies vs. another, etc.

But when someone says "transparent" as applied to a piece of audio gear, we don't really know for sure what the heck they're talking about or if, when they say one piece of gear is more transparent than other, what the two piece of gear sound like, why how and in what way is one different than another. For example, if something seems transparent to a given person because its lower noise, that piece could actually sound very different for the piece that sounds transparent to someone because it has goosed highs and lower mid suck out and no bass. "Transparent" doesn't really communicated any of that. It's personally not a word I would ever use to describe audio and I don't think it's very useful or meaningful and any work that has to be defined by the phrase "I know it when I hear it," is f communicative value to no one. It' s meaningless because everyone's meaning is their own.

With respect to measurements of audio gear and of sound, that's just another language for describing what a piece of gear is doing. But, because it's based on measurements which have no psychological component unlike your hearing. One's impression of what one hears is entirely psychological -- make a change like a suck out in the 250 Hz range and one person might describe the change as a great advancement in clarity and transparency and might love the sound; another person might describe it as a sound without any body or weight or warmth and hate the sound. It's the same sound, the perceptions of the people are just different. So, we hear something and, if we step back and ask why it sound the way it does? Well, the numbers will probably tell you that and then you don't need to rely on someone saying X is warm or Y is transparent and have not idea what the gear really sounds like. It's also enormously more precises.

If you've spent tie with audio production, you know that if you cut the octave and a half or two octaves centered around 250 Hz, and shelf off the bass below 70 Hz, the result will be a clean, lean sound that will emphasize certain kind of upper frequency information and that it will sound, to some people, highly "transparent," but, at the expense of warmth and body, and timbral realism. That, it seems to me, is what those monitors are doing. Is that useful in production? Sometimes maybe I guess. Will that reveal detail? Some kinds of detail. Does it sound good? Subjective. Does it sound accurate? Not really.

I don't know anything about the Pink Floyd track you're talking -- I never much cared for Pink Floyd and so, while I've heard those songs on the radio, I've never owned those albums or listened to them on a really resolving stereo or listened to them closely, so I'm unfamiliar your example, but over the many decades I've been listening to audio, I've been through myriad system changes large and small, that revealed more low level detail -- coins bouncing on tables and people taking in the audience in the club in the Bill Evans '61 recordings, the bass creaking on Dave Holland's instrument on his solo bass album One's All. There's all kinds of little low level detail thing we listen for and it's always thrilling in audio to hear things in albums you never heard before. It's less immediately thrilling some times to make a change that results in more natural and realistic timbres, but long term it's usually more fulfilling.

Now, I have no personal opinion about the HS50 speakers, I've never heard them. But I have heard a lot of studio monitors -- including the HS50's predecesor the NS10 -- and a lot of home hifi speakers. From a design perspective they're not a different kind of animal altogether -- home hifi speakers and studio monitors (in fact the NS10 was originally designed as a home speaker). And some of 'em may be good for allowing people to listen through to different elements of a mix, but might otherwise sound horribly unnatural timbrally with screechy, exhausting highs. Certainly that's the way I would describe the sound of the NS10's. If you or the OP or anyone likes the sound of your 5" woofer Yamaha monitors, well, I have no beef with that. We like what we like. But I wouldn't make the presumption that the OP does that because a speaker is marketed for the pro or prosumer market it's inherently operationally different that a speaker marketed to the home hifi market, and that a cheap pair of 5" woofer studio monitors is, because they're marketed to pros, inherently designed to sound more accurate or something that a home hifi speaker. Or that a speaker like that with no bottom two octaves and a recessess midrange and upper bass isn't "artificial" the way home hifi speakers are, as the OP suggests. Or that that's something a musician knows that an audiophile doesn't. That's all just bunk.

 

Yes, that was EXACTLY the point with the NS10M. They could be a bit harsh which made the "tissue paper over the HF transducer" a popular mod.
I've mixed many a project on the NS10M but would never choose them for listening at home. YMMV.

 

Wasn't referring to headphones. I can clearly hear the "cough" on that recording through the mono speaker built into my phone, as one can (given adequate hearing ability) with almost any speaker. If one listens intently to almost any speaker at close range, they'll likely notice details they haven't heard before. The first time I noticed the throat- clearing cough in that song, I was listening to a cheap Aiwa boombox.

 

I know what you are getting at.

 

it's the difference between actual studio monitors that are surgically transparent and revealing vs. audiophile home speakers which run the fine line between transparent and "pleasing" to the ear.

 

But I don't think a hard line like this exists as a matter of design. I mean the Yamaha NS10, which for years was a default studio monitor, was designed for the home market. The BBC monitor was designed for broadcast monitoring and became an audiophile classic (and certainly isn't ruthlessly revealing). Ths Genelec studio monitors are made for the pro market but some pros think of them as too hifi. There are durabilty and features and aesthetic considerations that play into design decisions for the different markets, but I don't think it's possible to posit a rule of thumb that one speaker is designed to be "surgically transparent" and one is not just by virtue of the markets they targetted at.

 

I use Transparent Audio cables exclusively, thereby eliminating any doubts concerning transparency.

 

I think it's unfair to compare NS10 with the new HS series. It's been nearly 45 years since the original NS10 was introduced (for home use). They are passive speakers and use different drivers than the new active HS50M (designed for the pro audio market), even-though they are both designed by the same engineer Akira Nakamura (now retired).
But, Nakamura also designed the legendary NS1000 (for home use) which uses beryllium dome midrange drivers and tweeters. I read in the 70s that Swedish Broadcasting Corporation bough 100 pairs of NS1000 to use in their studios. Nakamura later revised it as NS1000M (for studio use) which achieved a cult status among audiophiles, including the Hi-Fi world editor David Price who uses them at his home and wrote many articles about them.
My point is, you need to actually own (or borrow) a piece of equipment and test it to see how it works in different environments such as your home or your studio. Other than that, any comments on a piece of equipment without first hand experience would not be valid, me thinks.

 

All speakers are a compromise, but those where the amps are tailored to each driver arguably less so.

Whether or not the HS50 (or the successor in the HS5), is a good speaker is moot. Is it fit for purpose for the user's needs to the quality standard they require? Then they're good to go.

I don't need convincing that Pro audio monitors work well in domestic settings any longer. As with traditional hifi speakers, you find the right ones for the job. They are, however, a much neater technological solution, and, I find, a better audio experience pound for pound.

 

Of course, nobody is forcing nobody to buy the HS50M. I bought them to use as my studio monitors. I was so impressed by them I wrote a letter to Hi-Fi World magazine and they published it with David Price commenting about his NS1000M monitors were also designed for studio use and he also added that they are very transparent.

Anyway, a couple of nice active studio monitors I've tested that might be better for audiophiles in a home environment.

Samson Resolv RXA6 uses very nice sounding ribbon tweeters and they are very musical.

Yamaha MSP7 STUDIO They are also very musical to be used as Hi-Fi speakers. I'm not sure if they are very transparent though. I only heard them at a music store. The salesman played a CD - Steely Dan's Aja album which was nice. I immediately recognized Steve Gadd's drumming.

 

Of course all speakers are a compromise. All design, certainly all design to a price point, involves compromises. There are potential design advantages to active crossovers where you split the frequencies before the amps -- the can be cheaper to make, they can be more power efficient, and they can have lower distortion. But that doesn't mean any and every product made is better than any or every product made another way. And you can certainly mate amps to speakers with passive crossovers and get great results as well. It's always really more about the specific realization of the product than the theoretical pluses and minuses of one approach or another in my book.

I have no doubt studio monitors can be great in a home environment. I'd love to live with a set of the Genelec 1032 speakers and a Genelec sub. I love those. I could happy live with those at home.

I just thing it's wrong to presume that because a speaker is marketed as a monitor it's inherently different or more "transparent" than a speaker marketed as a hifi speaker or because a speaker is marketed as a hifi speaker it is, as the OP suggested, it's designed to be "artificial" and "big" sounding. It's really more about the specific speaker.

 

I do agree that you need to hear the speakers, obviously, to know what they sound like. And I only bring up the NS10 for two purposes -- one, because it became almost a default studio monitor but it was designed and marketed for home use, so, to make my point that whether a speaker was designed for a home or a pro market really doesn't mean they're necessarily going to sound very different; and two, because I -- and many others -- thought they sounded horrible and tizzy and fatiguing and not very natural or accurate when it came to timbre, so, to make my point that just because they're used as monitors for some reason in a pro environment doesn't mean we should presume that they're more accurate or "transparent" sounding than a speaker made for the home.

Also, the use does matter. I hate headphone listening -- I find it unnatural in terms of space and frequency. It doesn't sound really or accurate to me. I'd never listen with headphones for pleasure. But I do a lot of audio editing, and I have to use headphones for that because it's much easier to isolate the details I need to isolated to do edits.

I don't know how the HS50M's sound so I have no opinion on them particularly.

I do think, however, just by looking at the measurements, you can tell for certain one thing: they don't reproduce much of anything below 70 Hz, and you really need relatively flat output down at least past 40 Hz if you want a natural, accurate, frequency balance and sense of space. One would want to use 'em with a sub or subs for a transparent look into the whole of the music, unless you're doing a capella stuff or solo violin or something. There's a lot of fundamental musical information in the 40-80 Hz octave in anything that has bass or drums or piano, etc., that's MIA in a speaker with such a steep roll off at such a relatively high frequency and that speaker literally can't produce a natural frequency balance from the lowest fundamental note on a bass guitar up, never mind low notes on pianos, or, if you're talking orchestral music, bass drums and such. (Also, because transients possess energy at all frequencies, you always lose some of the naturalness of transient response with these LF limited speakers). That's the sort of thing you can tell without hearing a speaker. But of course, that's the nature of the beast with small monitors.

 

Well, apparently numbers don't tell much about how HS50s sound.

Couple of examples: I was listening to the Pink Floyd song "Mother" with Jeff Porcaro on drums. I turned up the volume to the max. position on the speakers. Pink Floyd sounded like a "live" band in my room. With dynamics and scale when you hear a live band perform (only limited with the max volume available).

Another example: I downloaded a song from the John Lennon Song Contest website - a jazz recording which won a prize. It was an acoustic jazz recording with double bass doing a scale which kept going very very low. HS50Ms did an excellent job of handling every bass notes with accurate timber and finger noises on stings etc. It was actually sounded totally "transparent" as (I keep saying this) the bass player was actually performing "live" in my room without "physically" being present - Virtual Reality music reproduction if you will. There is nothing further than this in term of transparency as far as I am concerned.

 

To each, his own. If any pair of mini monitors with 5" speakers is giving you the experience of the scale of a live performance of a band (or an orchestra), your experience of listening to recorded music is very different from mine, regardless of equipment. But there's no doubt that a speaker that is -20 dB at 40 Hz, which is around the fundamental frequency of a low E on a bass guitar, is not, in fact, giving you an accurate picture of the input sound of a bass guitar that was recorded flat to its lowest fundamental. I'm sure it IS emphasizing stuff like finger noises on the strings, because it's giving you all that high harmonic info, but less of the low fundamental info. That's my whole point about frequency balance and apparent transparency. A speaker with that kind of frequency balance is going to deliver a lot of that kind of detail, but is going to be missing other things. But if you love your speakers, I'm happy for you.

 

Let me share my personal experience concerning the notion of “transparency”. Very simple.

Equipment having minimal possible non-linear distortions and noise, and REALLY acoustically efficient, without roll-off, from 25…27 to 20000 Hz, is your “transparent” equipment.

I must accentuate: acoustically efficient, without roll-off, from 25…27 Hz.

In “big” recording and/or broadcasting studios’ products, “booming” microphones with “p” and “b” by vocalists and announcers, is practically non existing. But in some publicity clips on TV, and on some broadcasting studios, this can be heard, and watched on real-time spectrum analyzers (with presentation from “0 Hz” chosen), on sound systems REALLY acoustically efficient, without roll-off, from 25…27 Hz. Non existing or badly used pop-filters.

Then, a rather well acoustically treated listening room.

 

agree completely. there are overlaps among "studio monitors" "home audio monitors" and "home audio speakers" that do not sound typical for the type of speaker they are billed as. probably the exception rather than the rule.

 

Since you like numbers so much, I will give you an example: A well known mastering engineer friend of mine had sent me several test tones when I was designing my audio apps (he also helps major audio software companies).

One of the test tones was in 16hz.

I first tested it using headphones. Then I ran the 16hz test tone through HS50s. They locked on to that like they do with any bass note and made a very decent audible C note. This means that if there is 16 hz recorded in music, such as church organ pedal notes, HS50M will reproduce it. I'm not saying it can give you the level of a proper well designed subwoofer, but the C note will be there in the mix. It's up to you to hear it.

Also, I kind of feel that trying to judge Nakamura's final design by numbers is being unfair to him. He had the best test equipment at his disposal, acoustic chambers etc. and he knew what he was doing. The man was designing home and pro audio monitors even before probably you were born (I was around).

Another design he finished before retiring is Yamaha Saova 1 speakers for home use ($2000). Hi-Fi magazines raved about this product. David Price tested it for Hi-Fi World magazine and concluded that you get similar transparent sound from Saova speakers like his NS1000M monitors he uses at his home. Oh, also Saova uses 5inch white coned midrange driver similar to the one used in HS50s.

 

Like I said, I'm happy you love your speakers.

 

You said "But if you love your speakers..."
There is no "But" my friend. You never used those speakers. If you noticed, I wasn't impressed with your math. either.

 

I have a pair of Yamaha HS50M monitors and I really like them a lot but I use them with a Yamaha sub.

 

Have you ever listened to Norah Jones - Come Away With Me album through HS50s ?
If you didn't, you should buy the CD (or Vinyl) in a hurry today.
It will the best investment you will ever make in your life.
Private Norah Jones "live" concert in your room whenever you want (I hope you are not married ).
Enough said?

 

I think you should read the article written by Phil Ward for Sound On Sound magazine about the NS10 monitors.
The Yamaha NS10 Story |

He found their time domain information to be excellent because the mid/bass unit responds to transients very quickly. This is also what HS50M does. Their midrange units are lightning quick in handling bass/mid frequencies. I came to the conclusion that this is what makes a monitor "transparent".

In his reveiew Phil Ward also wrote: "if a monitor handles transients accurately, its frequency response is much less important than you probably think."

I believe this piece of information is very important for you because for some reason you are stuck with frequency response curves. Frequency response has only 2 Dimensions in space. But don't forget that Space-time is in 3D.

Remember I wrote about the Pink Floyd's "The Wall" album I listened on HS50Ms with volume at the max level. Even at such a high level the midrange driver was barely moving. This would result in silver quick transient response resulting the "live, transparent" music feeling I get from them.

I think you should try the HS50M (or the new HS5) to hear it yourself.

I also started a new thread: The misconceptions about the Yamaha NS10

 

Fanboys are funny.

D.D.

 

Small drivers in active monitors work very well. Here's the blurb from the AVI site for their DM5 and DM10 actives. The latter features onboard preamp and DAC. A subwoofer is also available.

AVI Hi-Fi | a passion for sound