Do the monitors even matter in an untreated room? Debating JBL 305P MkII vs PreSonus Eris 4.5 or 3.5

[_leras]

The room is about 13' x 21', and is completely untreated - it just has regular room stuff like bookcases a couch and chairs. I'm not going to be doing any professional work, and I have a decent pair of headphones - Philips Fidelio X2. I'd be using the monitors primarily for monitoring - playing along with a drum track or existing tracks.

Given that the room is untreated, does the quality of the monitors even matter? Could I just get the cheap Eris 3.5 and call it a day? Or is it still worth stepping up to something larger and better like the Eris 4.5 or JBL 305P?

Your room size is pretty good, and the sofa will help a bit with absorption.

Get the best monitors you can afford. Move them around a bit so you can check you're not accidentally nulling anything in a really obvious way.

Anecdotal: I once hired a studio space and my setup sounded terrible, couldn't figure it out at first. There was a vocal booth with a hard door at an angle that bounced back to one monitor. When I realised it might be that, I moved the desk about 2 feet to the right and it made a huge difference. Speaker position in a room really can matter.

[chk071]

Anecdotal: I once hired a studio space and my setup sounded terrible, couldn't figure it out at first. There was a vocal booth with a hard door at an angle that bounced back to one monitor. When I realised it might be that, I moved the desk about 2 feet to the right and it made a huge difference. Speaker position in a room really can matter.

Absolutely. It takes a lot of experimenting though, to find a good spot.

Regarding the treatment of the room: Well... as usual, it really depends on your demands. And, on the possibilities in the room, and on your budget. I'm sure you can mix perfectly fine in any untreated room, before sending your production to a mastering studio, which gives it that final touch. Rather a matter of getting used to the environment, and realising the shortcomings, or the advantages. I've heard some stuff from a guy who used Reason 2.5, and mixed his music on some 2" bog standard computer standard, and it didn't sound hopeless. Just like with anything in regards of software or hardware, it's rather looking for those final 5% or something, or for more comfort. E.g., I really don't see much point in any treatment here, because, the room is a multi purpose room, and I wouldn't want to have all that shit hanging and standing around here, plus I really can't be bothered to figure all that stuff out, just to get a 5% better sound. AND, the real issue I have here, standing/overlapping bass waves, won't be easily solved anyway.

[recursive one]

I'm sure you can mix perfectly fine in any untreated room, before sending your production to a mastering studio, which gives it that final touch. Rather a matter of getting used to the environment, and realising the shortcomings, or the advantages. I've heard some stuff from a guy who used Reason 2.5, and mixed his music on some 2" bog standard computer standard, and it didn't sound hopeless. Just like with anything in regards of software or hardware, it's rather looking for those final 5% or something, or for more comfort. E.g., I really don't see much point in any treatment here, because, the room is a multi purpose room, and I wouldn't want to have all that shit hanging and standing around here, plus I really can't be bothered to figure all that stuff out, just to get a 5% better sound. AND, the real issue I have here, standing/overlapping bass waves, won't be easily solved anyway.

I can only speak from my own experience, but in my case doing basic acoustic treatment in my living room made a huge difference, in terms of that my mixes actually became masterable.
A mastering engineer, no matter how good he is, can only do so much if a mix has a completely wrong balance.

So in my case it was not 5% difference, it was a 100% difference in terms of being able to pull off a mix of which a ME could make a releasable master. I still have a lot to learn about mixing and production but al least having a a more or less accurate picture of the sonic difference between my mixes and the reference tracks is indispensable.

And I'm not talking about something huge and expensive, it was basic DIY treatment with rockwool. It looks ugly tho, but who cares if it works (except my wife lol)

Replacing my old 5 inch Krks with 7 inch Dynaudios was another important factor but this would have been moslty useless if I had done that before the room treatment.

[BONES]

It's feasible but it's not easier. Also, with nearfields you'll still have a fuckton of standing waves that will exist regardless, and while you increase dry/wet ratio with moving closer to speakers you're not making it an unechoic chamber - that would be headphones then.

Where that sort of thing happens, you can hear it as you move around the space so you'll know immediately if it's a problem. For me, it would be a problem if I was trying to mix while standing in my galley because the bass really booms when you stand slightly off-axis and behind where I sit. But where I sit while I am working, there are no standing waves, I get the largely pure sound of my speakers.

The simple, common sense rule is that if you can't hear any problems, there are no problems. If there are problems, you'll know about it and you can fix them, there is no mileage in trying to prevent things that probably won't come up.

I'm not saying it's not possible to work with it, it's not impossible to mix on earpods if you know what you're doing

You don't have to know what you're doing, you just have to know the speakers you are using. If you spend enough hours using the same set-up, you get to know how your mixes will sound on your ear-pods, in your car and everywhere else. It will allow you to overcome the shortcomings of your equipment and do good work on even the cheapest monitors. I've done my best production work on a pair of $100 powered speakers because they are the speakers I listen to all music on and I know them intimately.

i haven't even seen a professional control room that would have speakers 60cm from you. How do you propose you even work like that if two people are in the room?

Lots of seat swapping. $500 a day doesn't get you time at Studio 301, it gets you a converted garage at somebody's home in the 'burbs (who still needs room for the family car). At least he had two SPX900s and an ADAT, which is better than any of the studios I had used beforehand.

[chk071]

So in my case it was not 5% difference, it was a 100% difference in terms of being able to pull off a mix of which a ME could make a releasable master.

Dunno... 100% sounds quite excessive. I don't think you produced as if you had ear plugs in, and didn't hear a thing, and now you suddenly hear everything.

Fair enough when you say that treating your room helped a lot. I guess it depends on the room.

Where did you put it in your room, and what was your strategy? I never know where to begin really.

[recursive one]

So in my case it was not 5% difference, it was a 100% difference in terms of being able to pull off a mix of which a ME could make a releasable master.

Dunno... 100% sounds quite excessive. I don't think you produced as if you had ear plugs in, and didn't hear a thing, and now you suddenly hear everything.

Fair enough when you say that treating your room helped a lot. I guess it depends on the room.

Where did you put it in your room, and what was your strategy? I never know where to begin really.

Yes, it does depend on a room, when I was starting out I had an untreated but large room and somehow I managed to place my rig in a more or less favourable position. My mixes from that time sounded bad but not really godawful. Later we moved and I've got a smaller room and here I never managed to get my bass right. For my genre a well balanced, punchy and clean bassline is crucial, but this was impossible to make in that room untill I treated it.

I did everything according to that guide, also read our local forums to learn about the suitable materials available where I live. There's a lot of info in the web, forums (like GearSomething) Youtube etc.
https://www.masteringmastering.co.uk/ch ... ixing.html
Basically I made floor to ceiling superchunk type rockwool bass traps in all 4 corners and rockwool panels with an air gap on sidewalls in the first reflection points. Later I also covered the ceiling with acoustic foam but I'm not convinced it changed much.

There was also a thread over here about this
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=515430&hilit=treatment

[chk071]

Thanks man, I'll read up on it a bit.

[BONES]

I can only speak from my own experience, but in my case doing basic acoustic treatment in my living room made a huge difference, in terms of that my mixes actually became masterable.
A mastering engineer, no matter how good he is, can only do so much if a mix has a completely wrong balance.

So in my case it was not 5% difference, it was a 100% difference in terms of being able to pull off a mix of which a ME could make a releasable master. I still have a lot to learn about mixing and production but al least having a a more or less accurate picture of the sonic difference between my mixes and the reference tracks is indispensable.

And I'm not talking about something huge and expensive, it was basic DIY treatment with rockwool. It looks ugly tho, but who cares if it works (except my wife lol)

Replacing my old 5 inch Krks with 7 inch Dynaudios was another important factor but this would have been mostly useless if I had done that before the room treatment.

Really? If that's all true, then I must be some kind of genius/savant because I get plenty of praise for our production quality in reviews without worrying about any of that. "Sounds good, is good" is my motto and after paying some highly regarded mastering engineer 1000 euros to master our first album, from stems not rendered mixes, our label has let me do it ever since.

[Ploki]

if you use 99% synths you have a very controlled source, there's much less you can f**k up than doing recordings.

and mastering from stems is practically mixing anyway. i have no clue why people call it stem mastering.

[BONES]

They weren't individual stems. From memory, I think we gave him 6 rendered parts to play with - kick, bass, drums, lead, vox and everything else. Or something like that. What we got back didn't sound as good as the rough masters I'd done a few months earlier, although I'm sure it was technically perfect and looked great on a spectrum analyser. And this was 2003, when he should have had a massive technical advantage over me.

[recursive one]

Really? If that's all true, then I must be some kind of genius/savant because I get plenty of praise for our production quality in reviews without worrying about any of that. "Sounds good, is good" is my motto and after paying some highly regarded mastering engineer 1000 euros to master our first album, from stems not rendered mixes, our label has let me do it ever since.

Good for you

I know a guy who produced few goa trance albums with nothing but his smartphone and a pair of cans sitting in a train, and released some of that on decent labels.
https://www.discogs.com/ru/artist/6412899-The-Maniac-4

Sure there are many ways how one can get good results in a not optimal environment but you can't deny that the more accurate acoustic response you have the easier it will be to make mixes that sound good not only in your room.

if you use 99% synths you have a very controlled source, there's much less you can f**k up than doing recordings.

True for romplers or presets from something like Avenger. If you make your synths from scratch there are plenty of ways to f*ck everything up, believe me

[Ploki]

if you use 99% synths you have a very controlled source, there's much less you can f**k up than doing recordings.

True for romplers or presets from something like Avenger. If you make your synths from scratch there are plenty of ways to f*ck everything up, believe me

sure, but it's still consistent. recordings aren't consistent, so then a bass note sticks out. what's wrong:
- your room
- recording
- your speakers

now do that for every thing that sticks out - or that disappears. with synths you can at least assume it's consistent.

They weren't individual stems. From memory, I think we gave him 6 rendered parts to play with - kick, bass, drums, lead, vox and everything else. Or something like that. What we got back didn't sound as good as the rough masters I'd done a few months earlier, although I'm sure it was technically perfect and looked great on a spectrum analyser. And this was 2003, when he should have had a massive technical advantage over me.

yeah sure, but working from 6 stems is a lot more control than working from a stereo mixdown.

can you for once not be edgy for the sake of being edgy?
Treatment makes work easier, more consistent and more reliable. If nearfields worked they way you propose they do, close miking would 100% eliminate the room - even more because mics are cardioid, speakers are rarely - yet that NEVER, EVER happens.

[BONES]

Sure there are many ways how one can get good results in a not optimal environment but you can't deny that the more accurate acoustic response you have the easier it will be to make mixes that sound good not only in your room.

Maybe if it's an unfamiliar environment, like someone else's studio that you've hired, but my whole point is that if you know your equipment and your environment, none of that stuff matters. I honestly don't believe I could do a better job at the best studio in the world than I can do on my boat. I reckon I'd probably enjoy the experience a lot more, assuming someone else was paying and the beer fridge was full, but I doubt there would be any tangible improvement in the result. And I would absolutely turn up with my Eris 3.5s and insist on having them set up, front and centre, in the control room. (My Diamond Pro 8.1s could stay in storage.)

Treatment makes work easier, more consistent and more reliable.

No, it doesn't. Familiarity makes work easier, more consistent and more reliable. If I went out and bought a pair of Genelecs tomorrow and paid an expert $20k to treat my salon, it would be months before I could do good work with them. I'd have to listen to all my favourite albums a dozen times each and listen to all our old albums over and over, just like I did with the Eris 3.5s. And at the end of that process, I bet it wouldn't improve the quality of my output at all.

If nearfields worked they way you propose they do, close miking would 100% eliminate the room - even more because mics are cardioid, speakers are rarely - yet that NEVER, EVER happens.

So what? You don't want that stuff in your recordings because when other people hear it, it won't make sense to them. But in your own, trusted environment, you can compensate for all those shortcomings and no-one listening to the finished song will be any the wiser. That's why the first time you try and place a close mic in a room, you'll fuss around for ages and probably not do a good job but 6 months later, after you've placed the same mic in the same room a hundred times, you'll do it 10 times better without even thinking about it. You'll know the best place for the equipment, the best place and orientation for the mic and all the rest of it.

Don't underestimate your brain, it can compensate for a lot. Any shortcomings in the monitors I use every day will, after a time, be compensated for in my head without me having to think about it. I'll know that if I leave the bass where it is, even though it sounds great, it will be too boomy in the car and on my portable Bluetooth speaker. I won't make that decision consciously, it will just happen in my subconscious, like you positioning the mic in your own studio space. It's a massive advantage we have as home producers over the big, fancy studios.

[Ploki]

No, it doesn't. Familiarity makes work easier, more consistent and more reliable. If I went out and bought a pair of Genelecs tomorrow and paid an expert $20k to treat my salon, it would be months before I could do good work with them. I'd have to listen to all my favourite albums a dozen times each and listen to all our old albums over and over, just like I did with the Eris 3.5s. And at the end of that process, I bet it wouldn't improve the quality of my output at all.

when i soffited my speakers and sorted out treatment, i didn't have to "car check" after a week - and things i did car check were fine.
when i was doing "nearfields acoustics doesn't matter" it was a million back and forths.
moreover, when people come over to check the mix - what they hear is what exists, when they come home, shit sounds as expected. no disclaimers about "it's okay my 150-350hz region has 20 dips"

So what? You don't want that stuff in your recordings because when other people hear it, it won't make sense to them.

no, you don't necessarily explicitly hear room verb, it can be short and manifests itself as muddy garbage, short slapback that make mixing harder.
not like a car driving by...

But in your own, trusted environment, you can compensate for all those shortcomings and no-one listening to the finished song will be any the wiser. That's why the first time you try and place a close mic in a room, you'll fuss around for ages and probably not do a good job but 6 months later, after you've placed the same mic in the same room a hundred times, you'll do it 10 times better without even thinking about it. You'll know the best place for the equipment, the best place and orientation for the mic and all the rest of it.

I'll try to illustrate this.
I wrote something here:

Code: Select all

This is an acoustic dip/null. Try to compensate for it.

Don't underestimate your brain, it can compensate for a lot. Any shortcomings in the monitors I use every day will, after a time, be compensated for in my head without me having to think about it. I'll know that if I leave the bass where it is, even though it sounds great, it will be too boomy in the car and on my portable Bluetooth speaker. I won't make that decision consciously, it will just happen in my subconscious, like you positioning the mic in your own studio space. It's a massive advantage we have as home producers over the big, fancy studios.

Treatment =! big fancy studios.
and i didn't say you can't work with it.
I said that nearfields not being prone to acoustic garbage is incorrect, which it is.

i know plenty of people that work in suboptimal environment, but they consistently ask me if they can check shit out here because there's no guesswork and "filling the blanks" - you simply hear what it is.
I don't have a big fancy studio, i just don't have a "home" studio because i live in the city and it's not feasible, a space for a studio was 6x cheaper than same m2 would be in a home. (i'm not exaggerating)

[recursive one]

I honestly don't believe I could do a better job at the best studio in the world than I can do on my boat.

I wish I could live on a boat (we have a nice looking river here but 6-8 months in a year it's frigging cold).

It all obviously depends on the room a lot, I can't afford having a separate studio space for my music hobby so I had to make something workable of my living room, which was about 11 square meters with very poor natural acoustic response because of the wall materials etc. I couldn't properly hear the bass and the lower mids below approx 300 Hz - it all was a cloud of mud with the corners resonating like crazy. I don't pretend my room has perfect acoustics after the treatment but at least I can hear the bass now.

If your mixing spase doesn't have such problems, and you know it well and know how things translate then there may be no need for any additional treatment.