Talk:Yamaha NS-10

GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yamaha NS-10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

• Considering all the images available on Commons and the ability to make a cropped derivative from those versions, is there a good reason why the current image was chosen, and why other images from Commons don't appear here? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• I found the current lead image aesthetically more appealing than almost all of the others. The image of the speaker itself could indeed be cropped a little more, but the subject is relatively clear and well-lit, its edges well-defined; the out of focus tangled wires in the foreground make it interesting by bringing a splodge of colour. There is only one which I think might be an alternative, with a little cropping, but the orientation is horizontal and I would prefer it to be vertical. Two other images from Commons, showing the speaker in the studio environment, are already in the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strange. When I look at the image, I see a poorly composed image of a speaker in the background (the topic should usually be in the foreground) with unfocused cables taking up a considerable part of the frame. I have a hard time seeing how this image is "aesthetically more appealing" than any of the others, but I will admit, everyone has an opinion, so I will gracefully defer to yours and consider this matter closed. However, I personally find the image unacceptable for the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• I also think the image of File:API 2098 (32in,16bus,24mon, API550A&550eq) - RCA Studio B.jpg should be replaced as well due to the reflections. This is not an aesthetically pleasing image in any respect. It should probably be deleted from Commons as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. now changed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Holy crap, the new lead image is amazing! Nice work. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• Referred to as "the most important loudspeaker you never heard of", the NS-10M has been used to monitor a large number of successful recordings by numerous artists. Yamaha discontinued the product in 2001.[1]""
  • Any particular reason the citation for the quote appears at the end of the paragraph instead of after the quote? Per WP:V, WP:LEADCITE and other guidelines, best practice is to cite right after the quote. I realize the entire paragraph is supported by the citation, and while I personally prefer citing at the end of a paragraph, I've never seen this done in a lead section for a direct quote used several sentences earlier. Have you? I could be wrong, but I thought that when WP:V says "quotations...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" that usually means following the quote directly with a cite, regardless of the other material in the paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think we need two identical citations on that sentence, so I've removed it outright as it's already in the body. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I realize you mean well, but the reason it was cited in the lead is because it was a quote. All quotes have to be cited wherever they appear, even if they are already cited in the body. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the hall of fame link, you've got a lot of information that I would expect to see in the lead which is currently missing. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To summarize, the lead is a bit thin. Do all of the major points that a reader would expect to see summarized, appear in the current lead section? I'm going to answer no. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I made some copyedits. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

History

Resolved

• Yamaha stopped manufacturing the speaker in 2001, citing problems sourcing the wood pulp for the drivers. Even years after it was discontinued in April 2001, the speaker continued to be found in studios everywhere.
  • I don't see a reason to mention the date twice. Why not mention it once in the first instance, like this: "Yamaha stopped manufacturing the speaker in April 2001, citing problems sourcing the wood pulp for the drivers. Even years after it was discontinued, the speaker continued to be found in studios everywhere." The reader already knows when it was discontinued the first time you mentioned it, so there's no reason to say it again in the same paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. now removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember this speaker, & it was not poorly received in the world of hi-fi. It was well-regarded, a prime example of a Japanese speaker that did not have the infamous 'Kabuki sound.'

Design and construction

Resolved

• Unlike the typical manufacture of speakers, it is formed into conical shape not through moulding or pressure, but by curling and then gluing the two ends together.
  • Into a conical shape. Please add "a". Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Against the black finish of the cabinet, the white bass/mid driver cone is a distinctive and iconic feature to the product.
  • Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but shouldn't the word "to" be changed to "of" here? "To the product" sounds quite odd. Is this accurate? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. now changed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature sound

Resolved

• On the other hand, it ruthlessly reveals...
  • You should avoid alliteration. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• ...and may be uncomfortable to live with in the domestic setting.
  • What is that supposed to mean to the reader? Do you mean for home entertainment? Then say so. Or do you mean something else? Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• A study by researchers undertaken for Studio Sound at Southampton University in 2001...The authors of a study for Studio Sound magazine suggested that had the speakers' grilles been used in studios...
  • You refer to this study twice, but I think there is a better way to do it. In the first instance, instead of saying "researchers" say Newell et al. so it reads like this: "A 2001 report by Newell et al. for Studio Sound at Southampton University..." Then, in the second instance, don't say "authors of a study for Studio Sound" at all, because you've already said this. Simply say in the second instance: "Newell et al. suggested that had the speakers' grilles been used..." Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The header "Urban legend" seems misplaced or misnamed. It isn't clear what is an urban legend here, and if it is just referring to the first sentence, rather than the entire paragraph about the use of tissue paper, then the section heading really needs to be removed or changed. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The initial product was disliked by many engineers, and it became a legend that Bob Clearmountain, then a rising star in record production, had chosen them because they were the worst speaker he could find.
  • Bob chose the speakers, not the engineers. This is a bit confused. Why not say instead: "Many engineers disliked the initial product. A legend emerged that Bob Clearmountain, then a rising star in record production, had chosen the NS-10 because they were the worst speaker he could find". Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. All points have been changed per your recommendation. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Resolved

• The NS-10 then dominated the music mixing of pop and rock music throughout the world for at least 20 years.
  • Rewrite: "The NS-10 dominated pop and rock music mixing for approximately 20 years." You don't need to say "then" and the wording of "music mixing of pop and rock music" is muddled and redundant. "Throughout the world" is unnecessary, where else would they be dominating the industry? Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Bob Clearmountain is often credited for the popularity of the speaker he trundled from studio to studio for his work.
  • Seems like all of the Clearmountain information should be in one section, not mentioned in multiple sections. Group like with like. I think the Clearmountain content in the previous subsection should be merged with this paragraph and the "urban legend" section header should be deleted. You are talking much more than just "reception" here. You are talking about usage history in the field of recording. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just an example merge for you to review. Obviously, there are any number of different ways to order and compose this material. Try to think a bit beyond "reception" and "urban legend":

Introduction

The NS-10 probably reached American shores through a recording engineer's visit to Japan. The engineer, likely to have been Greg Ladanyi, monitored a recording session through the speaker in a Japanese studio, and brought a pair on his return to the US. Ladanyi then used these in a studio in Los Angeles. Other engineers who heard them were impressed by its sound. Use then spread to New York, where the NS-10 was adopted in The Power Station, among others. Early users of the NS-10 among engineers include Bob Clearmountain, Rhett Davies, and Bill Scheniman in the US, and Nigel Jopson in the UK. Top independent producers' reliance on the NS-10 became a viral phenomenon, and thousands of studios would equip themselves with the NS-10s to attract the big named producers – to the extent the speaker was considered an industry standard.

Bob Clearmountain

The initial product was disliked by many engineers, and it became a legend that Bob Clearmountain, then a rising star in record production, had chosen them because they were the worst speaker he could find. Clearmountain is often credited for the popularity of the speaker he trundled from studio to studio for his work. He was the rising star among a new breed of creative freelance recording engineers and producers, who would hop studios equipped with their own gear that included microphones, and a pair of Yamaha NS-10 as a reference. Phil Ward, writing in Sound on Sound, suggested that Clearmountain was probably not the earliest, but was certainly the most influential early adopter.

Usage

The Auratone and the NS-10 are two of the most influential nearfield monitors used in professional mixing of sound recordings. Clearmountain set up a pair of NS-10 as the main monitors in his own mixing room. Even in 2008, the speaker was to be found "in almost every studio". The sound quality has polarised opinions, characterised as "love them or hate them". Many professionals find them indispensable, even though they may not particularly enjoy listening to them; others refuse to give them space in their studio but will happily admit that they are an effective professional tool. The speaker came to be relied on by independent engineers, who needed equipment they were familiar with as reference point. Throughout the 1980s, engineers and producers worked widely with the speaker to monitor "[almost] any album you love from the 80s or 90s" – from Born in the U.S.A. (Bruce Springsteen), Avalon (Roxy Music) Let's Dance (David Bowie), to Big Bam Boom (Hall and Oates).

Tissue paper effect

Clearmountain was also said to have been one of the first to hang tissue paper over the tweeter of his pair, to tame the over-bright treble that would result in mixes that were treble-deficient when replayed on normal domestic hi-fi. The authors of a study for Studio Sound magazine suggested that had the speakers' grilles been used in studios, they would have had the same effect on the treble output as the improvised tissue paper filter. The phenomenon became the subject of hot debate and an investigation into the sonic effects of many different types of tissue paper. The author of the tissue study found inconsistent results with different paper, but said that tissue paper generally demonstrated an undesirable effect known as "comb filtering", where the high frequencies are reflected back into the tweeter instead of being absorbed. The author derided the tissue practice as "aberrant behaviour", saying that engineers usually fear comb filtering and its associated cancellation effects, and suggesting that more controllable and less random electronic filtering would be preferable.

• OK, let me think about it a bit... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm more concerned with the top portion of this section. See the above timestamp for the comment posted at 23:13, 10 June 2014. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Noted, thanks. I'll do something about this at the weekend. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
      • @Viriditas: After having slept on it, I made a few more tweaks to the article and now feel that it has been organised like you suggested. I'd be grateful for further comments or promotion. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
        • @Ohconfucius: I'm not sure what "He was one of a new breed of creative freelance recording engineers and producers who would hop studios equipped with their own gear that included microphones, and a pair of Yamaha NS-10 as a reference" means. Did you mean to use the word "help"? Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Nevermind, I went ahead and made some simple changes to the narrative structure.[1] As the reader, this makes a lot more sense in terms of history, the tissue paper effect, reception, and influence. Please review and/or make changes. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
          • @Ohconfucius: "The speaker came to be relied on by independent engineers, who worked in different studios and needed equipment they were familiar with as reference point." Do you mean as a reference point? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
            • er, yes. Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Product revisions

Resolved

• As mentioned below, the first paragraph of the "legacy" section looks like it was supposed to be the third paragraph of "Product revisions". Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Re queries raised below:

• "There were many other versions of the NS-10". It would be nice to know exactly how many versions there were considering it is now defunct.
• "The "professional" version launched some nine years after". Exactly when? What is the date of launch?
• "A miniature version named Natural Sound Surround Speaker NS10MM was launched in 1997 or 1998." Which is it?

There does not seem to be any definitive answer, and the sources are none too clear on these specific points. Should I strip back on some of these? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it was a suggestion for future improvement. It is fine for now. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

Resolved

• Also in the product line-up were NS-10M X, NS-10MC, NS-10MT.
  • This sounds more like a "Legacy" heading was slapped on to it, rather than a sentence addressing the legacy of the product. Was this originally in the previous section? In fact, the only thing having to do with the "legacy" is the second paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• The NS-10 is inducted to the Mix magazine TECnology Hall of Fame (entry for 1977).
  • Let's rewrite this: "In 1977, the NS-10 was inducted into the Mix magazine TECnology Hall of Fame." Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've rearranged the sections, and merged the last lonely sentence into Reception. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• If comparisons have been made between the LS3/5A and the NS-10 then it should be merged into the body. If not, then it is probably OK for the moment. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Resolved

• Something is wrong with the way this quote/paraphrase is formatted, and it's difficult to tell if you are quoting the press release or something else. There's also no closing quotation. This needs to be fixed. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Quote mark added and note reformatted slightly. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There's still a problem. First of all, it isn't clear to the reader that the entire note is a direct quote because you aren't using quotations correctly. Second, the source you are citing is currently down or a dead link. (Archived here) Third, this is an unusual use of a note. If you want to cite the press release in full as you are doing, you need to make it clear upfront that you are citing the press release. You haven't done that, and you haven't even added quotation marks to the first paragraph. There are several ways to do this. The easiest is to move the closing attribution (Yamaha NS10 Press Release: Buena Park, CA, 21 February 2001) to the top instead, and open the quote with the following: "From the 2001 Yamaha NS10 Press Release:" Then, follow that with a blockquote of the two paragraphs. By doing so, you don't have to add quotation marks, and the introductory attribution makes it clear that what follows is a direct quote from the press release. I can do this for you if you like. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and fixed it here. Let me know if you have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

• OK, I guess. I'm always amazed to find that a company won't support or honor their product with a basic web page. Really poor business practice, probably the result of bad business majors who aspire to bean counter-hood rather than developing long-term relationships with their customers. Whichever business school they attended should probably be shut down. Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Recommendations above.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Brief expansion of lead recommended.

   Layout of "Signature sound", "Urban legend", "Reception", "Product revisions" and "Legacy" sections are less than ideal. See recommendations above.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   As expressed above, I personally dislike the image in the lead (and the image of RCA Studio B) but my personal preference does not change the fact that it meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

   Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Mostly minor issues to address, however, the "Signature sound" and "Reception" sections have overlapping topics and material that demand improved layout, headers, and merging of like material. I've provided rudimentary examples for the nominator to consider up above. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

   Everything is fixed except for the concerns raised in the reception section. Nominator says they are currently working on it. I will check back in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

   It looks like everything has been addressed. I'm going to read through it again, however, as there have been some minor errors with the last few edits (including my own). Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

   1. Lead. Done.
   2. History. Done.
   3. Design and construction.

   The statement "The early version of the speaker has press-down type output terminals; later models had screw terminals" seems to lack a citation. Otherwise, this section is fine. Done.

   1. Signature sound. Done.
   2. Product revisions.

   "There were many other versions of the NS-10". It would be nice to know exactly how many versions there were considering it is now defunct. Something to add in the future, perhaps?

   "The "professional" version launched some nine years after". Exactly when? What is the date of launch?

   "A miniature version named Natural Sound Surround Speaker NS10MM was launched in 1997 or 1998." Which is it?

   1. Reception. Done.
   2. Tissue paper effect. Done. I made some copyedits. Please review for accuracy.
   3. Influence.

   Please try to distribute images throughout the article rather than bunching them up in one section. Please also try to add more links, if necessary. Further suggestions for future improvement listed above. This article now passes. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the care and attention you have given to the article. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legobot (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)