outgrown my studio monitors?

[t3hw4h]

Three years ago I bought the Presonus Eris E5 monitors, with a KRK subwoofer, and they've done great up until now.
Recently I'm finding it hard to mix accurately.
I play it through my iPhone, car speakers, M-Audio crappy speakers and portable speaker and I hear some frequencies standing out. I wish I had a source of truth that highlighted frequencies without me having to resort to listening through all of these other smaller speakers.
My room is treated.
What I've been wondering recently is, is it my reference monitors that are letting me down? If I spend a few K on better monitors would I be able to pick out those frequencies without resorting to listen across all devices?

I mainly make electronic style music.

[Monkey Man]

The various non-linear responses of the other speakers you're checking the mix on are causing some things to poke out of the mix, and others to be lost, I'm betting.

This is normal and the very reason why mixes are checked through multiple monitors / systems.

The idea is to compensate for the anomalies by finding some middle ground whilst mixing. I use a pen and paper, and under the heading of each system tested, I write things such as Snare +2dB, Lead Vox -1dB and so on.

Sometimes the notes are instructions to boost / cut, other times they're a reflection of the perceived level relative to where it should be. Which descriptive method you choose is up to you; whichever feels more-comfortable.

Once you've taken notes from 2 or more systems, calculate an average boost-or-cut figure for each mix element noted and apply the changes to your next mix version.

This is what I do and it works for me. I came up with this back in the early '90s when there was no internet advice available; it just seemed logical 'cause I soon realised I couldn't remember all the changes I needed to make and therefore needed to jot things down, so I honestly don't know what others do, but it makes sense to and works for me.

Lastly, yes of course better monitors would help, but you're always gonna run into this varied-response issue across systems you test on, which is why I suggest you start here.

[ozonepaul]

...My room is treated...

Before you commit to spend more money on speakers measure your room whether your treatment works or not with your Eris E5 monitors/KRK subwoofer system (use the free Room EQ Wizard software https://www.roomeqwizard.com/).
I have seen measurements of "treated" rooms with more than 25dB peaks and valleys.
If your room is really working ( + you're itching to spend some money ) than go ahead and invest in better speakers, you're not going to regret it.

[roman.i]

In which range those frequencies are? Low? Mid? High?

[Milimart22]

What's your budget?

[telecode]

What I've been wondering recently is, is it my reference monitors that are letting me down? If I spend a few K on better monitors would I be able to pick out those frequencies without resorting to listen across all devices?

I am in a same boat. Except in my case, I am thinking of getting new monitors just because the ones I am using are still the same ones I have been using since mi 00s. Back when I was using a 16 track fostex portal studio and what not. i have changed everything else i am using, i figure new monitor technology must have improved along with VST and DAWs. Let us know what you decide on if you get them. I would be interested in your experienced with them.

This is normal and the very reason why mixes are checked through multiple monitors / systems.

The idea is to compensate for the anomalies by finding some middle ground whilst mixing. I use a pen and paper, and under the heading of each system tested, I write things such as Snare +2dB, Lead Vox -1dB and so on.

Thats been my understanding that thats hows everyone usually checks their mixes. I check on anything and everything I can get my hands on. and across multiple platforms such as local muisc player software as well as Spoty and Soundclound..

[Benedict]

Because you are starting to notice errors in your mix (assuming they are errors) doesn't mean you need new speakers. It may be simply that you are getting to the point where you are starting to understand how different speakers sound different. This leads (if you don't go buying new speakers every time) to learning to make mixes in one place that translate adequately* anywhere.



*adequate is all anyone ever gets so learn to love it. If the Story still shines then you done good.

[Michael L]

Has anyone calculated the statistically average frequency response curve of all the listening devices owned by everyone (weighted by number using each of them)?
It would save so much time and money, yesno?

[Monkey Man]

The problem is that it's not that simple, Michael.

You've got differing transient-and-dynamic responses and varying degrees and flavours of distortion across-the-board. IOW, it'd be an impossible task, and the result would be an impractical set of monitors to mix on, let alone even listen to.

[Michael L]

the result would be an impractical set of monitors to mix on

That set of monitors would be exquisitely practical!
They would have a frequency, transient, dynamic response and distortion equal to:

30% mp3 through earbuds,
15% YouTube through headphones,
20% iPhones through car stereos,
18% Spotify through computer speakers,
10% bluetooth speakers in the next room,
7% 5.1 surround speakers,
1.5% audiophile towers, and
0.5% decent monitors.

It seems quite simple to me.
Not to mention very cost-effective.
Am I the first person to ever think of this?

(Of course I am being a bit tongue-in-cheeky about this, but there's a point buried in here somewhere)

[ThePresent]

You could trial Sonarworks Reference for 21 days and see how their roomtone correction software works out for you. All you need is a trusted measurement mic and do as the tutorial guides you.

[telecode]

no one mentioned the IKM Arc system. Maybe that 'll help. Dont know.

https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/a ... c-system-2

[Ploki]

you probably outgrown your room tho.

SonarWorks and all other "room correction" softwares correct SPEAKERS, not ROOMS. you cannot correct phase response, standing waves and rooms waterfall with an EQ. it just doesn't work that way.

The various non-linear responses of the other speakers you're checking the mix on are causing some things to poke out of the mix, and others to be lost, I'm betting.

This is normal and the very reason why mixes are checked through multiple monitors / systems.

The idea is to compensate for the anomalies by finding some middle ground whilst mixing. I use a pen and paper, and under the heading of each system tested, I write things such as Snare +2dB, Lead Vox -1dB and so on.

Sometimes the notes are instructions to boost / cut, other times they're a reflection of the perceived level relative to where it should be. Which descriptive method you choose is up to you; whichever feels more-comfortable.

Once you've taken notes from 2 or more systems, calculate an average boost-or-cut figure for each mix element noted and apply the changes to your next mix version.

This is what I do and it works for me. I came up with this back in the early '90s when there was no internet advice available; it just seemed logical 'cause I soon realised I couldn't remember all the changes I needed to make and therefore needed to jot things down, so I honestly don't know what others do, but it makes sense to and works for me.

Lastly, yes of course better monitors would help, but you're always gonna run into this varied-response issue across systems you test on, which is why I suggest you start here.

Frankly, since i invested 4x the cost of my monitors into room acoustics, i don't have issues with translation on other systems - at all. I can comfortably and confidently finish a mix and send it into the world without checking it on various mixing systems.
Mastering engineers don't have 6 speaker systems. Nor do good mixing facilities.

[Ploki]

the result would be an impractical set of monitors to mix on

That set of monitors would be exquisitely practical!
They would have a frequency, transient, dynamic response and distortion equal to:

30% mp3 through earbuds,
15% YouTube through headphones,
20% iPhones through car stereos,
18% Spotify through computer speakers,
10% bluetooth speakers in the next room,
7% 5.1 surround speakers,
1.5% audiophile towers, and
0.5% decent monitors.

It seems quite simple to me.
Not to mention very cost-effective.
Am I the first person to ever think of this?

(Of course I am being a bit tongue-in-cheeky about this, but there's a point buried in here somewhere)

probably not, but it's unnecessary. If you mix on a good pair in a good room you've done your job.

you all talk about monitors, but the same set of monitors will sound dramatically different in a different room. So even if you make such a pair, you'd need calibrated acoustics. By the time you get acoustics done right it's not cheap anymore, so the whole point is defeated.

[Benedict]

Frankly, since i invested 4x the cost of my monitors into room acoustics, i don't have issues with translation on other systems - at all. I can comfortably and confidently finish a mix and send it into the world without checking it on various mixing systems.

Frankly, I have done almost nothing for room acoustics, I don't have issues with translation on other systems - at all. I can comfortably and confidently finish a mix and send it into the world without checking it on various mixing systems.

Nothing against people who do treat rooms*. If I were earning enough to buy wall-padding I'd maybe have some. Maybe, perhaps**. It is not the most important thing to me (or I think listeners) at all. I'd rather learn how things sound and have my brain do the adjusting as it is 80% more effective** at this than software or wall-padding.



*or you, in particular, Ploki - it just amused me to subvert your words.
**ok, probably not, I'd get a room with a window onto a garden or the sea.
***this stat must be true because I made it up.