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

[Ploki]

Lobing and dispersion.
Good mtm is hard to make

[BONES]

some people enjoy things such as punk rock, industrial, black metal, underground electronica produced with some sh!t equipment and mixed in someone's basement..

That's because those people are into music, not music production. Those people don't abandon their favourite artists when they get noticed and can start spending money on production, do they? I sure as hell didn't. Quite the opposite. While I sort of liked a lot of early Industrial acts, like SPK and Cabaret Voltaire, I didn't really get into that genre until those artists got better equipment and were able to improve their production values.

Of course, there is also live music where, for a proper band, production is considerably more basic. Yet that's how a lot of bands make their money these days, so it can't be much of an issue for the punters. Electronic musicians are fortunate, in that we can take our full production rig with us on stage, but a rock band in a support slot might have 20 minutes at sound check to get their production right, pretty much from scratch. And they manage so why do we sweat the small stuff so much?

Yet there are laws of acoustics that don't depend on anyone's taste, they are objective things. If your room has poor acoustics mixing here is like painting in a poorly-lit room with your sunglasses on.

Very poor analogy. Imagine instead a room with a single spotlight. If you want to paint in that room, you just have to set your easel up where it will get the good light. It doesn't matter than most of the room is in darkness. The audio equivalent of that spotlight would be nearfield monitoring. Treating your room would be the same as installing a couple of bright flouro lights in the ceiling - it makes it less critical where you put your easel but it doesn't necessarily allow you to do better work.

this may even happen that "wrong" mixing actually adds some charm and uniqueness to your music.

I find this attitude quite disturbing, Music is art, there is no right or wrong. If it "adds some charm and uniqueness", then it can't possibly be wrong. Rules are for accountants, for artists everything is always on the table. When you watch a YT video, you should be looking to learn techniques that you can later decide to use as necessary. You should NOT be seeing anything as a rule. It should not be "if you want to achieve this, you MUST do that". It should be more like "if you want to achieve this, TRY doing that and see how it goes".

But improving your acoustics will eliminate a lot of guesswork, reduce the need of cross-check and make your progress faster, I don't see how anyone can deny that.

I can deny it because my direct experience tells me it is not the case. I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to anything I'd been doing somewhere else and it didn't sound exactly the way I wanted it to.

[Ploki]

I can deny it because my direct experience tells me it is not the case. I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to anything I'd been doing somewhere else and it didn't sound exactly the way I wanted it to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
My experience tells me that this absolutely is the case.

in the end it doesn't matter - the question is whether acoustics affect near-field monitoring or not - they do. Whether or not that bothers you is personal experience of it and is up to every individual to discern and decide.

i've heard some people send me mixes with no treatment mixed on HS7s that sounded absolutely perfect, and i had some who's mixing has severely improved since sorting out acoustics.
It depends on genre, workflow and probably type of person you are.

[licasto2]

if you listen at a really low, like whisper quite low, volume and really know your speakers you can get good results. I've done it before and my ears don't have magical powers. Low playback volume equals inaudible reflections. It takes longer to get the low end sorted out but you can use decent headphones for that.

[recursive one]

Low playback volume equals inaudible reflections.

But also skewed frequency balance in what you hear because of the Fletcher-Munson's curve.

Well, some will say you should make sure your room reponse is completely flat and you've listened to 20 different pairs of monitors and chosen the absolutely best one before you even attempt to mix anything, some will say "dude, I've been mixing my stuff for 20 years in my toilet with a pair of Logitech speakers and my music sounds amazing". What is actually practical and workable for most people is somewhere between these two extremes. All rooms are different, in some cases you may find a good spot to place your monitors and get by with that + headphones and regular cross-checks, some rooms just don't have such as spot. Better monitoring may not necessarily make your mixes better but it most cases it will mean easier and faster way to make better mixes.

[Ploki]

if you listen at a really low, like whisper quite low, volume and really know your speakers you can get good results. I've done it before and my ears don't have magical powers. Low playback volume equals inaudible reflections. It takes longer to get the low end sorted out but you can use decent headphones for that.

By what physical concept is lower level = lower reflections? How could all things equal that possible be true unless you use single layer tissues as obsorbers

[recursive one]

if you listen at a really low, like whisper quite low, volume and really know your speakers you can get good results. I've done it before and my ears don't have magical powers. Low playback volume equals inaudible reflections. It takes longer to get the low end sorted out but you can use decent headphones for that.

By what physical concept is lower level = lower reflections? How could all things equal that possible be true unless you use single layer tissues as obsorbers

I've read about that, e.g. here

https://www.masteringmastering.co.uk/ch ... ixing.html

"If you cannot go down the entire route of full acoustic treatment try monitoring more quietly and much closer to the speakers – 40cms or so if possible. (I hasten to add with the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness contours firmly in mind) This will reduce the amount of sonic energy being dispersed into the room. (and thus reflections will not be so apparent) Along with your ears getting more direct vs reflected sound waves".

This sounds logical to me, as the walls will likely not throw 100% of the sonic energy back the reflected signal will be quieter than the direct one, so by making the direct signal itslef quieter you minimize the influence of reflections in the point where your head is.

Still no replacement for a proper treatment I guess, but probably may work if there's no other option (with regular cross-checks at full volume, in the headphones etc)

[BONES]

That's pretty much a description of nearfield monitoring. See below for an explanation of why I see no point in using lower volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
My experience tells me that this absolutely is the case.

Did you bother to read the link before you posted, or did you forget that we have released five albums, which provide ample, concrete evidence to substantiate my conclusions? It's kind of why I refer to them fairly regularly, to remind you that there is actually plenty of actual evidence that you can go through at your leisure. OTOH, you don't provide any evidence to support your claim, not even a link to some of your output, making your contribution largely worthless.

the question is whether acoustics affect near-field monitoring or not

No, that is not the question. The question is whether or not it is possible to do good, accurate work using nearfield monitoring without room treatment and I have a body of work that, according to reviews, shows that it is.

What you need to realise is that "room treatment" doesn't help your argument unless it is 100% effective, which is not something you can guarantee. So it is possible, likely given how little you seem to understand, that your room treatment is less effective than a good nearfield set-up.

if you listen at a really low, like whisper quite low, volume and really know your speakers you can get good results. I've done it before and my ears don't have magical powers. Low playback volume equals inaudible reflections. It takes longer to get the low end sorted out but you can use decent headphones for that.

That likely won't work because with nearfield monitoring you rely on the output from the speakers dominating your perception. Any problematic reflections will be in proportion to the output volume, so while you may be minimising reflections, you're also not doing enough to drown them out.

[recursive one]

we have released five albums, which provide ample, concrete evidence to substantiate my conclusions? It's kind of why I refer to them fairly regularly, to remind you that there is actually plenty of actual evidence that you can go through at your leisure. OTOH, you don't provide any evidence to support your claim, not even a link to some of your output, making your contribution largely worthless.

I can show how the room treatment affected my stuff
One of the very few tracks made in my old room I'm not ashamed to show people
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/m ... p-with-mtr
It's mastered by a pro ME though
More recent stuff I did in a treated room
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/the-distance
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/i ... andscape-1

I still have a lot to learn (and I realize the genre is not to everyone's liking) but i think one may hear some improvements in bassline definition and the overall mixing clarity.

I know your music and like some of it, I used to listen to stuff like FLA, Wumpscut and Haujobb a lot. It sounds fine, but compared, e.g., to the recent FLA stuff (Wake Up the Coma) your tracks sound more raw and upolished. You may say it's deliberate choice though, I could believe that and it doesn't sound bad. But you've been doing that for like 20 years I think. Someone who is just starting out could read your posts and think that room acoustics and treatment are not worth bothering about, that Bones guy is doing it just fine on his boat - and then they will likely face much more struggle and frustration than if they had sorted their room acoustics early on.

[chagzuki]

I had a look at detailed analyses of the Eris 3.5 and it looks to be one of the worst choices for mixing, a Humongous scoop between 100Hz and 1000. Bones must be very much dialed in to its quirks to get a decent result out of it. Unless of course his room boosts everything around 300Hz. I'm leaning towards the Mackie 524s. The 624 would probably sound great but they're a bit big.

[Passing Bye]

You can't go wrong with Mackies.

[BONES]

I can show how the room treatment affected my stuff
One of the very few tracks made in my old room I'm not ashamed to show people
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/m ... p-with-mtr
It's mastered by a pro ME though
More recent stuff I did in a treated room
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/the-distance
https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/i ... andscape-1

They alll sound great to me. If anything, I don't think the bass works as well in the second or third ones but that feels like creative decisions, nothing to do with production values, which are very high on all three tracks. The first one reminds me of later X Marks the Pedwalk, without the song structure.

I still have a lot to learn (and I realize the genre is not to everyone's liking) but i think one may hear some improvements in bassline definition and the overall mixing clarity.

Not really. If you had asked us to pick blind, I'd have said the second one was the one done before you treated the room. The mix isn't quite as well balanced to my ears.

compared, e.g., to the recent FLA stuff (Wake Up the Coma) your tracks sound more raw and upolished.

Thank you, that's a nice thing to say. FLA's output, in particular, has been horrendously over-produced for along time now. It tends to happen with a lot of artists, they lose their edge over time, for whatever reason. It's something we are conscious of and we're determined not to fall into the same trap.

Someone who is just starting out could read your posts and think that room acoustics and treatment are not worth bothering about, that Bones guy is doing it just fine on his boat - and then they will likely face much more struggle and frustration than if they had sorted their room acoustics early on.

I sincerely doubt that. It's something I've never bothered with and it's never affected our output. It's just not a thing. As I said, the main impediment to me doing better work has always been me, not my equipment and certainly not any lack of room treatment. And, honestly, anyone listening to your examples would, I think, show anyone that you can do really good work with or without room treatment. Your examples actually back up what I'm saying. You may feel more comfortable now with your treated room but the work you did beforehand would pass muster for any commercial production.

[recursive one]

And, honestly, anyone listening to your examples would, I think, show anyone that you can do really good work with or without room treatment. Your examples actually back up what I'm saying. You may feel more comfortable now with your treated room but the work you did beforehand would pass muster for any commercial production.

Thanks, well, if I release something that means I think it sounds at least acceptable. And I'm still the same guy doing the same kind of stuff, so the room treatment didn't radically change my output, that was not the point. As you say, I indeed feel more comfortable as I have to spend much less time on cross-checks and backs and forths and feel more confident that my mixes actually sound how I want them to sound. Which in turn means more time and energy left for actual creative work instead of working around the flaws of my environment.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your own way of doing things and years of experience, I'm just telling you that your experience is not universal (neither is mine ofc)

[Mike Meengs]

Hello!
I have the Eris E5 and Tembler T8 sub combo in my room. It's a very small studio apartment. I put cloth covers over the windows and a rug on the floor. It's a tight and punchy little system that rarely gets cranked more than halfway due to my neighbors. I've learned to work at moderate levels, but the sub really adds that oomph when I need it to. I'm not sure how much I'd like the E5's without it. Moving out of the sweet spot really changes the low end balance, so I always sit right in front to take advantage of the near-field setup. The desk is pulled away from the curtained window behind it by about 16 inches, and the desk is centered in the room.
I use headphones for critical listening situations that demand more volume and isolation, but am plenty happy using this setup for all my audio needs...T.V., cellphone audio, and music production. The system is all I listen through, so I really know how it sounds...very important IMO.
It's been a great setup for me for the last three years, and my mixes translate well with very few exceptions!
My advice? Buy the best speakers you can afford...that are the correct size and appropriate volume for your listening environment.

[hoxclab]

Mackie and Presonus are junk. Get the JBL. If I were you I'd invest in some nice mixing headphones as well.