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

[ssl4000]

I'd still rather mix in that with a pair of Dynaudio's than use Rokits in the treated room.

what a terrible choice, but there are 99% of amateurs here after all

[Ploki]

20-30cm causes SBIR, which directly translates to dips in low end frequency response

No, it doesn't. SBIR is a made up term to make some dickhead seem like he knows something you don't. It's bullshit. It's something that might be an issue for normal hi-fi speaker placement but a) it is just as much an issue for front and rear ported speakers and b) it is EXACTLY the kind of thing that nearfield monitoring takes out of consideration. As long as the port is clear and can suck the air in and out, it's fine.

C'mon BONES you're surely my favorite angry aussie on #kvr but putting rear ported speakers near to the wall, especially in a small Room wont do you any Good and surely cause much more Trouble than Benefits

20cm is not 'near" to a wall. It's far enough away to allow the ports to do their thing, which is all that matters. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself and you'll see, but don't believe something just because you read it online.

Why do you guys make everything so f**king difficult for yourselves? The concept of nearfield monitoring is just about the easiest thing to get your head around in th eentire production process, but it seem sto illude so many of you. It's common sense and as soon as someonen starts explaining it to you, you shoudl get it straight away.

Let me go over it one more time -the point of nearfield monitoring is that it doesn't matter if the room is big or small, if the speakers are near a wall or anything else because all you hear is what comes out of the front of the cabinet. Because you place the speakers really close to your ears - I can lean back in my chair and still place my fingers on top of my Genelecs - everything else is drowned out and becomes irrelevant. Surely this is completely obvious to anyone? Stop overthinking it, it really is as straightforward as it seems.

Imagine being so wrong yet so loud

[Ploki]

SBIR (and room modes) cause dips. You can’t get used to dips because you’ll leave shit there that you simply can’t hear because you can’t EQ or get used to a dip. It’s like having a blindspot on your screen. No matter the adjustment there will always be a blind spot and while you can work around it to a degree you cant get used to it.

I’m not saying You need a perfect room but nearfields aren’t headphones. Physics apply.
20cm from the front wall just says you dont know physics.

Its easy to spot an SBIR. Moving your speakers doesnt change frequency of dip notches from room modes, but notches from SBIRs will move. You can also calculate them. Why do you think studios do soffit mounts? Because everyone is an idiot?

[Ploki]

Monitor speakers make a huge difference, even in a terrible room.

It's arguably easier to adjust your ears to a bad room than it is to a pair of crap monitors, although the law of diminishing returns applies here with gusto.

In a small room I would recommend using a smaller set of better speakers that are closer to your head. It's the 'wrong' way to mix using speakers, but you'll negate more of the room that way.

I've owned dozens of pairs of monitor speakers ranging from £100 to £4k in a terrible untreated room and a relatively well treated room that I'm in now, and whilst I wouldn't like to go back to the untreated room, I'd still rather mix in that with a pair of Dynaudio's than use Rokits in the treated room.

Here's a good example. Have you ever recorded vocals?
Now imagine having 5 different condensers and 5 different rooms and you record your vocalist merely 10cm from the capsule. (Your monitors are usually more than 10cm from the source). Now imagine putting that 5 condensers into
- a treated studio
- car
- toilet
- huge hall
- living room with little furniture

which do you think will have more of an impact, and why do you think taylor swift can record with a 600$ C12 replica but the room is still decent?

Thing is monitors speakers get "decent" really quickly.
I've had a pair of Tascam VL-X5 as a second pair i dragged with me through a few rooms as a point of reference, and they absolutely changed how they sounded even 70cm from my head - which is too close to be comfortable anyway.

and even in a -fully- treated room i am now, the difference between my 3-way mains down on the stands vs soffited? f**king mind blowing - same pair of speakers, same treatment, just different position.

Measuring microphone is your friend.

[chk071]

I'm really perplexed at what you write frequently (and about the devout vigour you present your opinion here). As far as I've always read (in different places), the distance to nearfield monitors is supposed to be 0.7 to 2 metres. So, 70 centimetres, while at the lower limit, seems to be perfectly fine. I'm about 85 centimetres away, and that surely seems fine to me.

Again, it's not possible in any other way in this room anyway, as much as it is not possible to improve room acoustics here. Simply limitations of a multi purpose room.

[Ploki]

I'm really perplexed at what you write frequently (and about the devout vigour you present your opinion here). As far as I've always read (in different places), the distance to nearfield monitors is supposed to be 0.7 to 2 metres. So, 70 centimetres, while at the lower limit, seems to be perfectly fine. I'm about 85 centimetres away, and that surely seems fine to me.

you have a dip at somewhere between 90-110hz, use a measurement microphone.
Frontwall/speaker dip is unrelated of room modes (but can amplify them if you also have room modes on the same nodes/frequencies)

In a lot of the cases, slamming the speaker against the front wall will clear SBIRs, however it will also cause a bass boost which you need to compensate with an EQ or just plug the port on your box (which will cause about 6dB drop in bass levels).

I know what it says all over the internet, but you will also read all over the internet " Why can't i mix bass in my home studio / mixes sound boomy in my car / why can't i get professional volumes" and a lot of shit like that.

edit:
SBIR deserves some explanation i see.
Speaker are omni-directional up to 100ish and some Hz (depends on a few factors) which means they will radiate in every direction. That sound then radiates from the front, and some of it radiates from the back and reflects back delayed (out of phase) and is summed with the original. You know what happens when you sum out of phase bass frequencies right?

Some speakers try to circumvent that by using a cardioid design (Dutch 8C, Kii Three).
Studios circumvent that by soffiting speakers and making them theoretically infinite baffle with no frontwall reflection because there is no front wall - front wall IS the baffle.

edit2:
also i can understand your scepticism. I had shared the same opinion as most of people here until an acoustician actually did my room and i tried countless position in my fully treated NRE room and ended up soffiting. It makes absolute sense when you think about it, and the results make absolute sense as well as you start moving shit around and what you hear correlates with theory of it

[BONES]

Imagine being so wrong yet so loud

Now, I know this is going to be a stretch for you, but imagine being able to provide evidence in support of you claim.

To give you an example, here are just a few quotes from different websites, explaining what nearfield monitoring is about -

"Near field monitoring is a way to sit closer to your monitors with the idea that sitting closer to the speakers will reduce the sound of the room in the mix." acousticfields.com

"Nearfield monitors reduce any external influence from the room acoustics on the audio. With a nearfield monitor, the effect of the room on what you hear is decreased." prostudiogear.com

"Learn to know your speakers inside and out and your mixing skills will go to the next level for sure! It is simply a fact: the more you work with them, the more you’ll understand the nuances of their performance. Indeed, they are, for engineers over thirty like me, the quintessential tools of the trade." stampsound.com

"The first main advantage from nearfield monitoring is that it reduces the need for having to acoustically treat your listening room or studio." louisebyrnemusic.com

When I searched for corroborating evidence for how far rear ported speakers should be placed from a wall, I didn't get much joy beyond this, which is based on a quote from a forum -

SEARCH.png

All of this evidence backs up everything I've said in this discussion. OTOH, look at your post - you introduced a made-up term nobody has ever heard of, without any explanation as to what it was (it took some digging around on the 'net to find out) or how it is applicable to the discussion. You assumed you could bullshit your way through by sprouting acronyms but once you know what SBIR is, you realise instantly that it is of no consequence in this discussion. So cut the personal attacks and give us some substance. Make us believe you are right.

[Ploki]

Imagine being so wrong yet so loud

Now, I know this is going to be a stretch for you, but imagine being able to provide evidence in support of you claim.

To give you an example, here are just a few quotes from different websites, explaining what nearfield monitoring is about -

"Near field monitoring is a way to sit closer to your monitors with the idea that sitting closer to the speakers will reduce the sound of the room in the mix." acousticfields.com

"Nearfield monitors reduce any external influence from the room acoustics on the audio. With a nearfield monitor, the effect of the room on what you hear is decreased." prostudiogear.com

"Learn to know your speakers inside and out and your mixing skills will go to the next level for sure! It is simply a fact: the more you work with them, the more you’ll understand the nuances of their performance. Indeed, they are, for engineers over thirty like me, the quintessential tools of the trade." stampsound.com

"The first main advantage from nearfield monitoring is that it reduces the need for having to acoustically treat your listening room or studio." louisebyrnemusic.com

When I searched for corroborating evidence for how far rear ported speakers should be placed from a wall, I didn't get much joy beyond this, which is based on a quote from a forum -


SEARCH.png


All of this evidence backs up everything I've said in this discussion. OTOH, look at your post - you introduced a made-up term nobody has ever heard of, without any explanation as to what it was (it took some digging around on the 'net to find out) or how it is applicable to the discussion. You assumed you could bullshit your way through by sprouting acronyms but once you know what SBIR is, you realise instantly that it is of no consequence in this discussion. So cut the personal attacks and give us some substance. Make us believe you are right.

oh wow google can really confirm any stupid shit one can think of

[Ploki]

oh look bunch of references to a made up term:
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/what-i ... erference/
https://www.sonarworks.com/blog/learn/s ... front-wall
https://gikacoustics.eu/speaker-boundar ... ponse-sbir

here's more
http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/speaker- ... erference/
https://www.prosoundtraining.com/2011/0 ... dspeakers/
https://www.acousticfields.com/solve-pr ... -response/

i mean i could go on, but just look into "Speaker boundary interference response" or you know just SBIR which is commonly used, before you accuse me of making stuff up.
for f**ks sake

[Ploki]

If anyone of you actually used a measurement microphone i could tell everyone exactly where a frequency dip would be based on distance from the front wall (a bit harder for rear ports because you need to account for speaker depth). Or you can read papers on it.

I dont know how to prove an ACCEPTED PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC FACT to you or why would i need to, you can remain ignorant if that’s your choice, why would i care whether you believe physics or not? Lot of people in the world lately deny physics.

[Hink]

If it aint broke, dont fix it...just sayin

Of course. If happy then it's fine.

But I really do think it's possible to get a pleasant and enjoyable listening experience and also get better sound quality, in accuracy, detail and dynamics.

Definitely people should listen to as much music as possible on their monitors.

well thank you for telling it's fine I have quite the issue with that response though

"But I really do think it's possible to get a pleasant and enjoyable listening experience and also get better sound quality, in accuracy, detail and dynamics."

No way, sorry but I think that is just wrong. The statement introduces extreme subjectivity and I believe the mixing phase to require considerable objectivity. The reason one mixes in mono is pure objectivity and extremely important. It is an accurate way to find issues and mistakes, mistakes often masked by the "enjoyable listening experience".

Just curious have you ever mixed in mono?

It makes far more sense to eq in mono when trying to find that balance so that spacial balance does not yet come into the mixing process. Things like isolating phase issues or if you have two instruments fighting for the same space (frequency). Mixing in stereo can quickly lead to false impressions as it might sound better at first simply because something has changed, yet the underlying issue still exists and you end up chasing your tail. There is a reason they are called reference monitors, low volume, often near field and simply not there for "a pleasant and enjoyable listening experience".

The time will come to polish it, but I have to be honest with you for me anyhow, at that point the monitors are not my only go to for sounding good, my home entertainment systems, my car, pc speakers, pretty much any listening experience I can duplicate here so as to make it the best listening experience possible.

That is not done in the mixing stage imo, however what we do in the mixing stage does indeed impact our ability to master a song that sounds much better. IMHO if you are putting the cart before the horse as well as shooting yourself in the foot.

[_leras]

swap out those Proto J for some K + H 210s. You'd probably have your mind and ears blown. You'd rediscover music that you have listened to lots before.

Not at all likely, I'm afraid. Good music works anywhere and Tannoy have been getting it right longer than anyone.

Good music does work everywhere, some setups don't allow you to hear enough to make the best mix that you can.

Not trying to specifically pick on Hinks Tannoys, they may be perfect already, but speaker technology has come a long way.

Modern monitor speakers can be very enjoyable for listening to music, and also be accurate and dynamic. If you can hear things like small changes to make things sit better together it makes mixing simpler.

If nothing else, for people who enjoy music so much, I think just having better speakers to listen on is a good investment, if they are also monitors for making music then it's win win.

[_leras]

If it aint broke, dont fix it...just sayin

Of course. If happy then it's fine.

But I really do think it's possible to get a pleasant and enjoyable listening experience and also get better sound quality, in accuracy, detail and dynamics.

Definitely people should listen to as much music as possible on their monitors.

well thank you for telling it's fine I have quite the issue with that response though

"But I really do think it's possible to get a pleasant and enjoyable listening experience and also get better sound quality, in accuracy, detail and dynamics."

No way, sorry but I think that is just wrong. The statement introduces extreme subjectivity and I believe the mixing phase to require considerable objectivity.

I get what you are saying, and mainly in agreement. My point is just that you can enjoy listening to music on accurate speakers. Also, probably totally flat probably doesn't help. If the speakers are accurate it's possible to add a gentle EQ smile for listening taste and still hear exactly what is going on.

I hear what you say about mono. If you can hear where two parts clash and a small dip on one and a small boost on the other can fix the issue then you're probably hearing enough.

More important is if the sound from the monitors translates well. If it does then all those secondary checks become just checks instead of safeguards.

I like listening to music on my reference monitors. Really useful to hear how tracks that I know sound huge on sound systems sound 'accurately'.

[mixyguy2]

so really - you don't know what you're missing, unless you know what you are missing.

Of course you do because you have headphones and you can listen in the car and through your home hi-fi and any number of other sources you know at least as well as your studio monitors.

? Your response doesn't address his comment. All of the speaker types you mentioned are very different and have nothing to do with knowing (or not) what you're missing in terms of quality studio speakers. Of course like anything, the devil's in the details.

SBIR is a made up term to make some dickhead seem like he knows something you don't.

Kind of like "nearfield monitoring" (and probably at least a half-dozen other goofball terms common in the industry - I never liked such pretentious BS tbh).

Imagine being so wrong yet so loud

We'll have to imagine it, since he's not wrong in reality (but he is oversimplifying and taking it too far). The truth lies somewhere in between the two of you. Nearfield monitoring can reduce room issues - the key word being reduce, not eliminate - and how much can vary. Personally I'd rather treat the room than have to sit ridiculously close to my speakers all the time, but to each their own.

Getting back to the original question: yes, Virginia, monitors matter, regardless of how well- or poorly-treated the room is. Obviously the better it's treated, the more any lacking quality in the speakers will stick out. Again it's all in the details...

[BONES]

Good music does work everywhere, some setups don't allow you to hear enough to make the best mix that you can.

NS-10s destroy this argument completely.

Not trying to specifically pick on Hinks Tannoys, they may be perfect already, but speaker technology has come a long way.

Actually, it hasn't really. My mate's 30 year old Kefs still sound better than pretty much anything I can think of. DSP has definitely come a long way but I don't know that I trust DSP in my studio monitors. It's why I ditched my JBLs for the Genelecs - the JBL's sound is definitely highly dependent on DSP and Genelecs are hardl ycutting edge these days, but they are still something of a benchmark.