Sounds like you did your homework and prepared your room well to have this type of clarity and definition from the monitors.

I am about to start a small room project and hope I can get that kind of result...maybe I can pick yor brain abit....

Brien Holcombe, post: 448002, member: 48996 wrote: maybe I can pick yor brain abit....

You know I'm always happy to help, Brien... but helping you with acoustics is, I think, kinda like me offering advice to my mechanic on how to fix my car. LOL

But, anything I can do, I certainly will. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 448000, member: 46114 wrote: dvdhawk , audiokid , pcrecord , Boswell , Kurt Foster , @Brien Holcombe , kmetal , et al...

On his visit to Cleveland last week, Dave Hawk was kind enough to bring me a pair of PreSonus Eris E8 monitors to demo. I didn't set them up right away, because I was trying to improve the sound of my space first; but after adding 3 bass traps, a cloud, and some broadband treatment, and listening to the results of this treatment, I felt that I could get a decent enough representation of their performance, so I finally set them up.

About the monitors:

The Eris E8's are active, ( 75 watts for the low frequencies, 65 watts for the high frequencies), they have an 8" Kevlar driver and a 1.25" silk dome tweeter. The X-Over is at 2.2k. They are front-ported.
The stated frequency range is 37Hz - 22Khz.
There are a variety of tonal and db modes on the rear of each cabinet:
Low Cut (Switch): Flat, 100Hz, 80Hz, @-12db slope
Mid Range (Pot); Band-pass type EQ, boosts or cuts 1k by as much as +/- 6db, (or anything in between). The manual does not state what the Q is for this BPF.
Hi Frequency : (Pot) shelf type EQ, boosts ( or cuts) at 4.5k and up by as much as +/-6db
Acoustic Space ( switch) cuts the level of all frequencies from 800Hz and down by either -2db or -4db.
According to the manual, this switch is provided to compensate for low frequency boosts that can occur when the monitors are placed in close proximity to walls or corners.

According to the manual, the monitors can be used either vertically or horizontally. (I've currently got them set horizontally with the tweeters on the outsides). The monitors are set off the walls by 32".

As a side note, these monitors are heavy - and built very well from what I can tell; rugged, with a "professional" look and feel to them. If you do ever try these, you'll want to use VERY solid speaker stands. ;)

My observations:
I started out by setting all controls on the monitors to flat ( or zero), and playing some commercial music that I am familiar with, and that I've used for reference purposes in the past. The level was around 77db at 36" away from the speakers.

The first song I chose was The Police's Wrapped Around Your Finger.
I found the lows to be tight and defined, the mid-range was a lot better than what I would have normally expected from monitors in this price range; I didn't find them to be at all harsh in that range as some other pro monitors I've used have been ( cough, ahem NS10's... cough)
The highs were beautiful; sparkly, silky... I could hear ultra-high frequency textures occurring in several of the songs I chose - this seemed to be a recurring facet from song to song.
I then played some heavier classic rock; my choice was The Stone's Can't You Hear Me Knockin' and Gimme Shelter.
Knockin' was (predictably) mid-range pronounced, with punch and energy - but not at all harsh.
Shelter was really nice. The imaging in that track is interesting to begin with, and the Eris monitors had a great depth and space. I could hear a few things going on, in different "front-to-back" layers that I hadn't heard quite as pronounced before.
The final piece I played through them was Seal's Kissed By A Rose; I chose this one because I know this song has serious multiple layering of different instruments, with textures in nearly all ranges across the spectrum.
This track is like an onion, as you peel away one layer, another emerges, and so on..
It was impressive, to say the least ( but it's also an incredible mix to begin with!) I was able to hear all kinds of different subtle and esoteric things going on. Bottom end was tight and defined, yet warm. I wasn't hearing any 300hz "mud". It didnt sound scooped at that range, just.. well, "even" is the term I would use.
The mid-range was ultra smooth, and the top end was gorgeous... air, silk, sparkling...
The imaging was where I felt these monitors really shined on this song. There was a beautiful depth and space, that I don't hear nearly as much with my Alesis Monitor Ones. I could actually hear placement of certain things - things like "just left of center", or "back and to the right"

Now, to be fair, I haven't yet tried mixing something of my own through them to check for translation.
I plan on doing this today, ( I wanted to wait until I had some acoustic treatment in place) and I will post an example of a track I've been having some difficulty with.

I cannot offer a comparison to monitors like Focals, or Adams, or Genelecs, because I don't own any of those monitors to do a true side by side comparison. I would have to leave that to guys who have the ability to A/B these with other models.
I can tell you that I have mixed through some very nice monitors over the years, in pro studios, and so far, based on what I've heard, I don't see any problems with using these to mix a record with... not yet, anyway.
We'll see how it goes with this song that's been giving me some trouble.
;)

FWIW

-donny

These were ones I demoed, and I went with the HS8's on a coin flip. I actually was surprised these were as good as they were, bc I hadn't heard much about them.

These just came in the mail : ) Dynaudio Esotars

DonnyThompson, post: 448000, member: 46114 wrote: dvdhawk , audiokid , pcrecord , Boswell , Kurt Foster , @Brien Holcombe , kmetal , et al...

On his visit to Cleveland last week, Dave Hawk was kind enough to bring me a pair of PreSonus Eris E8 monitors to demo. I didn't set them up right away, because I was trying to improve the sound of my space first; but after adding 3 bass traps, a cloud, and some broadband treatment, and listening to the results of this treatment, I felt that I could get a decent enough representation of their performance, so I finally set them up.

About the monitors:

The Eris E8's are active, ( 75 watts for the low frequencies, 65 watts for the high frequencies), they have an 8" Kevlar driver and a 1.25" silk dome tweeter. The X-Over is at 2.2k. They are front-ported.
The stated frequency range is 37Hz - 22Khz.
There are a variety of tonal and db modes on the rear of each cabinet:
Low Cut (Switch): Flat, 100Hz, 80Hz, @-12db slope
Mid Range (Pot); Band-pass type EQ, boosts or cuts 1k by as much as +/- 6db, (or anything in between). The manual does not state what the Q is for this BPF.
Hi Frequency : (Pot) shelf type EQ, boosts ( or cuts) at 4.5k and up by as much as +/-6db
Acoustic Space ( switch) cuts the level of all frequencies from 800Hz and down by either -2db or -4db.
According to the manual, this switch is provided to compensate for low frequency boosts that can occur when the monitors are placed in close proximity to walls or corners.

According to the manual, the monitors can be used either vertically or horizontally. (I've currently got them set horizontally with the tweeters on the outsides). The monitors are set off the walls by 32".

As a side note, these monitors are heavy - and built very well from what I can tell; rugged, with a "professional" look and feel to them. If you do ever try these, you'll want to use VERY solid speaker stands. ;)

My observations:
I started out by setting all controls on the monitors to flat ( or zero), and playing some commercial music that I am familiar with, and that I've used for reference purposes in the past. The level was around 77db at 36" away from the speakers.

The first song I chose was The Police's Wrapped Around Your Finger.
I found the lows to be tight and defined, the mid-range was a lot better than what I would have normally expected from monitors in this price range; I didn't find them to be at all harsh in that range as some other pro monitors I've used have been ( cough, ahem NS10's... cough)
The highs were beautiful; sparkly, silky... I could hear ultra-high frequency textures occurring in several of the songs I chose - this seemed to be a recurring facet from song to song.
I then played some heavier classic rock; my choice was The Stone's Can't You Hear Me Knockin' and Gimme Shelter.
Knockin' was (predictably) mid-range pronounced, with punch and energy - but not at all harsh.
Shelter was really nice. The imaging in that track is interesting to begin with, and the Eris monitors had a great depth and space. I could hear a few things going on, in different "front-to-back" layers that I hadn't heard quite as pronounced before.
The final piece I played through them was Seal's Kissed By A Rose; I chose this one because I know this song has serious multiple layering of different instruments, with textures in nearly all ranges across the spectrum.
This track is like an onion, as you peel away one layer, another emerges, and so on..
It was impressive, to say the least ( but it's also an incredible mix to begin with!) I was able to hear all kinds of different subtle and esoteric things going on. Bottom end was tight and defined, yet warm. I wasn't hearing any 300hz "mud". It didnt sound scooped at that range, just.. well, "even" is the term I would use.
The mid-range was ultra smooth, and the top end was gorgeous... air, silk, sparkling...
The imaging was where I felt these monitors really shined on this song. There was a beautiful depth and space, that I don't hear nearly as much with my Alesis Monitor Ones. I could actually hear placement of certain things - things like "just left of center", or "back and to the right"

Now, to be fair, I haven't yet tried mixing something of my own through them to check for translation.
I plan on doing this today, ( I wanted to wait until I had some acoustic treatment in place) and I will post an example of a track I've been having some difficulty with.

I cannot offer a comparison to monitors like Focals, or Adams, or Genelecs, because I don't own any of those monitors to do a true side by side comparison. I would have to leave that to guys who have the ability to A/B these with other models.
I can tell you that I have mixed through some very nice monitors over the years, in pro studios, and so far, based on what I've heard, I don't see any problems with using these to mix a record with... not yet, anyway.
We'll see how it goes with this song that's been giving me some trouble.
;)

FWIW

-donny

I can't say I know what the Eris sound like, they look good as does all PreSonus stuff. If they are anything like the PA speakers, they are built with a wood that I wouldn't expect to stay tight for ever. I had 3 sets here and they all went back because they arrived broken (speaker dropping out) = a combination of shipping problem, bad packaging, poor grade wood not built for longevity).
Looking at their build, and listening to them when they finally got me a pair that worked (great support), I thought they sounded okay. I originally wanted them as rentals but knew they would never last so I sold them while they still looked fresh. Are the monitors the same type of quality, don't know but I wouldn't invest in their speakers again.
Wood seems pretty important to me, maybe not so much for studio monitors. The wood seemed to not hold screws or take any sort of transporting. My overall impression was they are built with cheap (offshore?) wood and have cool electronics that work well with the SL systems.
The people behind PreSonus appear to be very smart and I like StudioLive consoles.

That being said, if they sound good to you, that's all that matters.
Looking forward to hearing more about them.

audiokid, post: 448009, member: 1 wrote: I can't say I know what the Eris sound like, they look good as does all PreSonus stuff. If they are anything like the PA speakers, they are built with a wood that I wouldn't expect to stay tight for ever. I had 3 sets here and they all went back because they arrived broken (speaker dropping out) = a combination of shipping problem, bad packaging, poor grade wood not built for longevity).
Looking at their build, and listening to them when they finally got me a pair that worked (great support), I thought they sounded okay. I originally wanted them as rentals but knew they would never last so I sold them while they still looked fresh. Are the monitors the same type of quality, don't know but I wouldn't invest in their speakers again.
Wood seems pretty important to me, maybe not so much for studio monitors. The wood seemed to not hold screws or take any sort of transporting. My overall impression was they are built with cheap (offshore?) wood and have cool electronics that work well with the SL systems.
The people behind PreSonus appear to be very smart and I like StudioLive consoles.

That being said, if they sound good to you, that's all that matters.
Looking forward to hearing more about them.

Imo, they are on par (or close) with the HS8's. For $500, those are the two I narrowed it down to. I haven't looked at the construction, or the amp, but sound wise, for the price, they are decent. Iirc, the HS8's were less forgiving, but the environment wasn't perfect.

You know they weren't meant to be an essay homework assignment, but I appreciate the time you took to give us your initial impressions. I'll be looking forward to the follow-up review (good or bad), after you've created a mix or two with them. I think just the fact that they're ported out the front may make your low end more predictable, rather than the lows reflecting around that bay window. I'm glad to hear that you think the DIY treatments behind the mix position made some audible improvement too. (y)

I mounted two traps behind me, at a downward angle, where the wall meets the (canted) ceiling. I offset these 3" from the wall at the center point of the trap, to allow an air gap behind them of 3" minimum (at center) and pitching up to 5" where the trap and the ceiling meet.
I've still got a 2' x 2', 3" thick cloud to hang above my mixing position, my plan is to suspend it at a distance equal to the cloud's thickness.
(Waiting on Alicia to get home from work to help me with this ;) ).
I don't feel as though these monitors are built to feel or look cheap. They seem very solid, and are fairly heavy. Whether that's the driver and amp, or the wood ( or whatever material makes up the cabinet), that makes up the majority of the weight? I can't say.

But, while I've liked the way they've sounded playing commercially released (pro) songs/mixes, in the end, the tell tale sign for me will be mixing, and that will be two-fold:
The first thing, is of course how the mixes I do thru them will translate to other systems.
The second thing will be the length of time that I can mix on them without being fatigued.
Obviously, these aren't Barefoot monitors, and at $500 a pair, I wouldn't expect them to be.

I'm still confidant, at least as of this posting, that I could mix a record on these, as long as I have a room that is being acoustically honest, and as long as they aren't wiping me out within 45 min.
Working at a reasonable volume (73-77 DB) with short, periodic checks at 85db (Fletcher-Munson Curve) is what I'm after.
So...we will just have to wait and see. ;)

FWIW

-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 448000, member: 46114 wrote: Shelter was really nice. The imaging in that track is interesting to begin with, and the Eris monitors had a great depth and space. I could hear a few things going on, in different "front-to-back" layers that I hadn't heard quite as pronounced before.

That's great! Depth of field makes things so much more fun. Never heard the Eris speakers before, sounds like their worth a listen.

DonnyThompson, post: 448022, member: 46114 wrote: I've still got a 2' x 2', 3" thick cloud to hang above my mixing position, my plan is to suspend it at a distance equal to the cloud's thickness.

@Brien Holcombe

Brien... I know I'm probably driving you crazy with these questions -lol.

I just realized, maybe I was just assuming that this would be the most efficient way of mounting this cloud.. ??
Questions:
1.) does leaving an air gap with the suspended cloud work the same way in increasing coefficients as with other traps?

2.) if so, and this air gap does work with all traps, does the improvement present itself by increasing the efficiency in terms of greater absorption at the frequencies the trap is tuned for, or ...

3.) does it actually increase the frequency rating ...say by full octaves (or maybe by 1/2 or 1/3 octaves?)
So that a trap that would normally bottom out at 100hz then begins to absorb 50hz?

So, if the trap is currently rated at .55 at 125hz, does leaving the gap improve the absorption rating, or would it mean that the trap could then absorb frequencies lower than what the trap is rated at?
Or both?
-d.

audiokid
Chris, I just realized that the above post should probably have been in the bass trap thread I started a few days ago, instead of in a thread about monitors.
Please feel free to move it there if you want.

Sorry 'bout that ;)

No worries. Just the one # 10)?, there seems to be a few on traps here? #8 as well?

DonnyThompson, post: 448027, member: 46114 wrote: @Brien Holcombe

Brien... I know I'm probably driving you crazy with these questions -lol.

I just realized, maybe I was just assuming that this would be the most efficient way of mounting this cloud.. ??
Questions:
1.) does leaving an air gap with the suspended cloud work the same way in increasing coefficients as with other traps?

2.) if so, and this air gap does work with all traps, does the improvement present itself by increasing the efficiency in terms of greater absorption at the frequencies the trap is tuned for, or ...

3.) does it actually increase the frequency rating ...say by full octaves (or maybe by 1/2 or 1/3 octaves?)
So that a trap that would normally bottom out at 100hz then begins to absorb 50hz?

So, if the trap is currently rated at .55 at 125hz, does leaving the gap improve the absorption rating, or would it mean that the trap could then absorb frequencies lower than what the trap is rated at?
Or both?
-d.

For the air gap to work the best...it is assumed the panel is open on the gapped side as it is on the front side. Meaning here is no hard boundary or closed back on the panel.
The air gap increases the low frequency range...it is an area that doesn't have a lot of data available except for those that make panels...they have data specific to thier panels.

But...the frequency spectrum can be attenuated by taking onto account the material used for the panel the thickness of the panel the density of the material, etc. Not the entire frequency spectrum mind you...but the gap can become a trap so if high frequency gets into it...it can be attenuated as well.

Does it increase the nrc of the materials used...no sir. Those numbers are directly related to the specific material in question, so a piece of heavy cloth with an nrc of .75 place 3 inches off the wall will still be a piece of heavy material with an nrc of .75.

But the low frequency range of absorbtion will be increased with this placement of 3 inches off the wall.

Outstanding. Thank you Brien. ;)