Yeah me too. We adapt. My experience in larger studios (control room) is that especially when you are moving mics around when tracking things it all just slots together much easier. But when taking it to a much smaller room to mix requires more work when dialling in reverbs etc.

Not a complete waste. They are good entry level monitors. But there is no magic. If you want to hear the music as it really is (uncolored and undistorted) it costs a fair amount. Read the measurements and test reports in Audio Science Review. It is really the only source of accurate information. The best monitors by far (flat frequency response, low distortion, uncolored) are Neumann monitors. Read, for example, the measurements and tests in ASR for the Neumann KH150's and KH 120's. After a lot of research I purchased eight pairs of Neumann monitors for my studio.

If you want to hear the music as it is, I’d do something about those hard surfaces in that room! Assuming you’ve not got really clever treatment that looks exactly like plasterboard…

Hi
I see you are in the Philippines
I have drywall walls.
I made up temp walls of 3"wide and above Bamboo
I started them at the bottom of the walls 100mm or a bit
more out from the walls.
My studio recording room became 100% better.
You just need apposing walls covered.

Bamboo should be dirt cheap where you are?
Just lay them on a frame of light wood at that angle
I used the keyhole thing to fit the individual bamboo pole
to the screws on the frame.
You just need two or three uprights at that angle they can just be 10mm thick if they are strong wood and about 70mm wide.
Oh I did treat my corners with rockwool too.

Pounamu

Excellent question

This is my home studio - TES Productions - also known as the Meadowlark label. It is not commercial in the sense that over 16 years I have never charged an artist for a production.

My approach is quite different that anyone else I have seen. Instead of consolidating things into one workstation, I like to have separate workstations for different productions/functions. Thus in this room I have the three primary workstations.

I also have eleven separate workstations for my keyboards - a few photos below. Most of my productions now are keyboard based - primarily smooth jazz at this time. But I also do country, pop and some hip hop.

As far as acoustics go, there is considerable attention to this, which I consider critical. The most important thing is the monitors and their setup. As you see, all of my primary monitors are Neumann (KH310's, KH150's, KH750, KH120A's and KH120 II's. These are all used in very nearfield mode - 1 to 1.2 meters from the listening position.

They are positioned from the front walls to avoid detrimental reflections. Since these are all in very nearfield use, the secondary reflections are relatively small compared to the direct sound.

There is some false information on the internet saying that there should be no room reflections. This is incorrect. A complete dead room would sound quite - dead. I room must have some reflections to allow the source music to be natural.

Next, all of the monitors are within one foot of the front wall. Since sound (in air) moves at the speed of one foot per ms. So the difference in timing between the direct sound and reflected sound is 2 ms. As you know, it has been shown that one cannot distinguish two signals are less than 6 ms.

On the other hand, the reflections from the ceiling has a difference of about 110 ms, which is perceived an interference and not good. However the dispersion patters of these Neumann monitors are narrow. The loudness of the ceiling reflections are far less than the direct sound (very nearfield advantage).

The side wall reflections are mostly greater than 20 ms. Reflections of this timing are perceived as echoes/reverb, not as interference. And as mentioned above, to some significant degree this is desirable.

The back wall of the room is 50 feet away, with lots of furniture and objects that disperse the sound.

Bass is always the most difficult issue. The size of the room, which as side opening of 8 and 10 feet are generally not a problem. One reason is that in every one of my productions, I cut off the frequencies below 45 Hz.

But I will repeat myself again - using very nearfield monitors completely changes the game. It is physics.

I appreciate your inquiry.

In most open studios, where monitoring and recording takes place in the same space, there’s a “dead end” (where we monitor), and a “live end” where we might want to record.

Your room, as it appears in photos (and we’ve been down this road before), has a lot of areas of concern, since you have no bass trapping, you have to have a buildup of bass frequencies in some areas, nulls (dips) in others.

Also, you have first reflections hitting your ears at too high a volume level and too soon.

You can improve the sound of your room by absorbing bass frequencies and first reflections - delaying the time of arrival of reflections, and keeping them at a low enough volume level, they won’t interfere.

You won't know how much better your room will sound until you treat it. The goal isn’t total dead, but rather, a good balance of absorption and live sound.

None of that is true.

Actually, it is. Although not all studios are built with an LEDE configuration, it's a not a bad way to configure a studio and it's a common one. The room arrangement you have sure looks like it's going to have a lot of early discrete reflections. I would definitely consider taking some room measurements and investing in some room treatment.
--scott

you live in your own world where you created your own physical laws?

Please reread my explanation -

Yeah, it’s all pretty accurate. Go ask in the acoustic forums! No one thinks a totally dead acoustic is the way to go.

As to the rest of your post, all i can say is if it works for you great, (but who talks about the speed of sound as 1 ft per ms - how dns you do maths with that measurement?! We use 330m/s in acoustics!)