[gregorio]

[1] I'm not here to argue with you, by all means educate those that are interested. But by no means am I of any significant relevance in solving the issue you have with audiophiles.
[2] You take issue with an irrelevant random strangers exhuberance with the new speakers he bought, studio monitors, because he was inspired by professionals ...
[3] We are here because we enjoy music and are fascinated by the science and artistry.
[4] Perhaps one day, you too will rediscover the youthful exhuberance you once had and not harbour a grudge with those that never lost it.

1. You started your post (#262) trying to make yourself look big/superior by lying about and insulting "pro audio guys", implying we don't care much about sound quality compared to discerning audiophiles like yourself. I challenged that lie/insult (and your continued litany of other utter nonsense) and now you're acting like I'm a big insensitive bully picking on you, the poor "insignificant" victim?!

2. If that isn't just another lie and you really were "inspired by professionals", then why would you insult/lie about them and make yourself out to be superior audiophile? If you really were "inspired by professionals" then why are you acting completely the opposite of professionals? Why are you focusing on the specifics of monitor construction rather than their actual performance in your acoustic space, why aren't you using your professional nearfield monitors as professionals would and why are you making utterly ridiculous statements and comparisons which no professional would?

3. Who do you think is responsible for employing the science and creating that artistry? And, if you really were "fascinated by the science" then you'd make some effort to understand it, instead of ignoring, perverting and/or just cherry-picking the bits of it which suit your agenda! It appears that like all extreme audiophiles, you are not in it for the enjoyment of music, for it's artistry and certainly not the science, you're in it for the audio equipment and you'll happily sacrifice the music, along with it's artistry, fidelity and the science to that end!

4. I do still have some exuberance for audio equipment and even some for the specifics of it's construction but most of my exuberance is focused on the artistry of the music/audio itself. If I do "harbour a grudge", it's for those who have lost or never had a "youthful exuberance" for music/audio and the science and artistry and instead, their "youthful exuberance" is restricted to their audio equipment and feeling/communicating their superiority over those who do!

For anyone else still reading; good professional nearfield monitors are good when used for what they were designed for: As nearfield monitors for professionals (IE. In a professional nearfield monitoring environment)! They are not so good when used for a task they were not designed for, such as: Not nearfield, if looking for anything other than an accurate/clinical sound and/or if used in an inappropriate acoustic space. None of this really matters to the more extreme (or aspiring) audiophiles though, because just owning a pair of mid priced "professional nearfield studio monitors" is enough and makes them feel a step above/superior, regardless of the monitors' suitability for the task or actual performance in situ! Comparisons and descriptions of performance in such situations are typically worse than worthless, IE. Massively misleading!

G

 

[Music Alchemist]

@gregorio

Since you do all that pro audio stuff ("Music Producer, Composer, Audio Engineer, Audio Post Production" as listed on your profile), do you have a list anywhere of albums you've contributed to? It would be interesting if I've heard some of them. (If you want to keep this info private, I understand.)

I'm also curious which speakers you use professionally.

Once I'm able to build a music studio, I'd like to record my own music someday. (I've already composed thousands of incomplete songs in all sorts of genres.)

 

[SP Wild]

1. You started your post (#262) trying to make yourself look big/superior by lying about and insulting "pro audio guys", implying we don't care much about sound quality compared to discerning audiophiles like yourself. I challenged that lie/insult (and your continued litany of other utter nonsense) and now you're acting like I'm a big insensitive bully picking on you, the poor "insignificant" victim?!

2. If that isn't just another lie and you really were "inspired by professionals", then why would you insult/lie about them and make yourself out to be superior audiophile? If you really were "inspired by professionals" then why are you acting completely the opposite of professionals? Why are you focusing on the specifics of monitor construction rather than their actual performance in your acoustic space, why aren't you using your professional nearfield monitors as professionals would and why are you making utterly ridiculous statements and comparisons which no professional would?

3. Who do you think is responsible for employing the science and creating that artistry? And, if you really were "fascinated by the science" then you'd make some effort to understand it, instead of ignoring, perverting and/or just cherry-picking the bits of it which suit your agenda! It appears that like all extreme audiophiles, you are not in it for the enjoyment of music, for it's artistry and certainly not the science, you're in it for the audio equipment and you'll happily sacrifice the music, along with it's artistry, fidelity and the science to that end!

4. I do still have some exuberance for audio equipment and even some for the specifics of it's construction but most of my exuberance is focused on the artistry of the music/audio itself. If I do "harbour a grudge", it's for those who have lost or never had a "youthful exuberance" for music/audio and the science and artistry and instead, their "youthful exuberance" is restricted to their audio equipment and feeling/communicating their superiority over those who do!

For anyone else still reading; good professional nearfield monitors are good when used for what they were designed for: As nearfield monitors for professionals (IE. In a professional nearfield monitoring environment)! They are not so good when used for a task they were not designed for, such as: Not nearfield, if looking for anything other than an accurate/clinical sound and/or if used in an inappropriate acoustic space. None of this really matters to the more extreme (or aspiring) audiophiles though, because just owning a pair of mid priced "professional nearfield studio monitors" is enough and makes them feel a step above/superior, regardless of the monitors' suitability for the task or actual performance in situ! Comparisons and descriptions of performance in such situations are typically worse than worthless, IE. Massively misleading!

G

You have got to be kidding me right? So you were offended by this:

'No...Just us audiophiles are a little neurotic. Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.'

Where I make fun of Audiophiles for being neurotic and praise professionals for being practical. Much like amateur mechanics would fuss over a ratchet and tooth count or whatever irrelevant issues, and a professional technician would use the right tool for the job at hand, because the end result is what counts.

Oh and what about my post previous to that one where I explicitly stated that I was inspired by Bob Katz from reading Inner Fidelity articles and took the plunge to purchase studio monitors?

 

[SP Wild]

What is the layout of your listening room?

Mine is about as basic as it gets: a table in the corner of a bedroom. I guess you could say I'm lucky because I haven't even touched room treatments and EQ yet, but already have phenomenal sound. And the stands are simply placed on either side of the table within arm's length. (I experimented with positioning and ended up preferring a more intimate placement.)

The most noticeable difference with the stands is that the bass doesn't resonate through the furniture and walls nearly as much. (I'd still like to improve the stand setup because it isn't fully isolated.)

The room I am doing all my nearfield auditioning us actually quite small about 2.8 metres x 3.8 metres. The speakers are on a solid desk along the shorter wall, 0.7 metres from the back wall and left wall, 0.5 metres from the mirrors on the right that make up the right wall as it is a large built in wardrobe.

The speakers are 1.3 metres apart, I form an equilateral triangle at the listening position. I angle the speakers to my listening position and center all tone controls.

I am pissed off Music Alchemist. I bought the cheapest smallest studio type monitor thinking I will use it on the bedside for 'drift away to sleep listening.'

I ended up with KRK Rokit 4. I am mad as hell, because this tiny f...er has a more complete midrange to me than either my way more expensive monitors. It disproves my assumption that only bigger woofers can resolve lower midrange information.

So the only compromise compared to the expensive ones I can hear is slight loss in bass extension and upper treble not as resolved and airy.

But they outresolve the A7Xs in the uppermids and out resolve the KH120 in the lowermid. It basically has the most integrated and complete midrange for nearfield listening... And it is by far the cheapest.

I can't make any sense of the economics at all.

 

[Music Alchemist]

[snip]

Hmm. Interesting. All I can say is that the stands made a crucial improvement for me to the point that I feel they shouldn't be evaluated until you at least put them on stands.

It's possible that you may change your mind after putting your speakers on stands. (If you don't change your mind, that means those more affordable speakers are a great value!)

Do you have a photo of your listening room so I can have a better idea of its limitations? I'm not using much space at all in mine. Here's a recent photo.

Spoiler

 

[gregorio]

You have got to be kidding me right? So you were offended by this:

'No...Just us audiophiles are a little neurotic. Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.'

No. While this is a lie: " Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it. ... Me? No... I have to be an audiophile...." and is somewhat offensive, I also took offence at: "The point of my anecdote is simple. Are engineers recording for themselves and each other, so they can run back to their sound treated ego...I mean studio, and enjoy their perfect sound?" along with you repeatedly talking about the physics/science while actually ignoring the physics/science, making utterly ridiculous claims about your monitors' performance and still trying to attribute what you're hearing to completely the wrong things. There are others but these are the main ones!

G

 

[SP Wild]

Hmm. Interesting. All I can say is that the stands made a crucial improvement for me to the point that I feel they shouldn't be evaluated until you at least put them on stands.

It's possible that you may change your mind after putting your speakers on stands. (If you don't change your mind, that means those more affordable speakers are a great value!)

Do you have a photo of your listening room so I can have a better idea of its limitations? I'm not using much space at all in mine. Here's a recent photo.

Spoiler

The layout in my room is a little more ideal than yours. You would of course benefit from stands as one if your speakers is in a corner quarter space and the other in half space.

My speakers are closer to free space and being positioned at the front edge of the desk eliminates more desk bounce than with isoacoustics stands on the desk, which actually gives a more reflective surfaces to bounce off!

Adding stands to my setup would brighten the sound more, which I could counter by moving back closer to the wall. There are many ways to approach the desired speaker tuning. There are yet again, tone controls also.

My neutrality estimation is an average of all recordings at my disposal and the availability of information in each section of frequency response in. This arrives at the conclusion that what I hear in the HD650 and SE215 as close with my preference for a shade warmer tilt, which is no less coloured than a shade leaner tilt

These studio monitors tell me I came very close. All these studio monitors are non peaky. Smooth responses. Some like the A7Xs are great at 'not disturbing others' volume. The KH120 better at moderate volumes and the crazy value little wonders, the Rokit 4 splitting the difference. These monitors tell me I was right that the HD800S has a slight recessed uppermidrange followed by a slighty peaky treble. The LCD2s have a slightly subdued upper midrange.

The HD650s almost exactly like my KH120 in overall tonality.

Neutrality comes in slightly different tilts with the common denominator being a smooth, non peaky frequency response.

Going nearfields minimise room interaction. The next stage for me is high quality microphone and measurement software.

No. While this is a lie: " Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it. ... Me? No... I have to be an audiophile...." and is somewhat offensive, I also took offence at: "The point of my anecdote is simple. Are engineers recording for themselves and each other, so they can run back to their sound treated ego...I mean studio, and enjoy their perfect sound?" along with you repeatedly talking about the physics/science while actually ignoring the physics/science, making utterly ridiculous claims about your monitors' performance and still trying to attribute what you're hearing to completely the wrong things. There are others but these are the main ones!

G

I may not have worded my sentence very well, and I'm about as perfect as holes in an umbrella on the best of days.

Your insistence that my speakers are not in a sound treated room invalidate what I hear coming from my speakers nearfield was becoming tiresome, hence the question of who exactly are professionals recording for?

I found this video from Floyd Toole very educational:

 

[gregorio]

[1] I may not have worded my sentence very well, and I'm about as perfect as holes in an umbrella on the best of days.

[2] Your insistence that my speakers are not in a sound treated room invalidate what I hear coming from my speakers nearfield was becoming tiresome, hence the question of who exactly are professionals recording for?

1. I'll take that as a veiled apology.

2. Forgive my bluntness but that's a stupid question! It's stupid for 3 reasons: Firstly, you know full well who professionals are recording for! Secondly, it's an insulting question and Thirdly, it's the wrong question, it does not get you any closer to the answers you're looking for.

Unfortunately, there are some fundamental holes in your knowledge and therefore your reasoning is flawed, your conclusions are incorrect, you're wasting money and looks like you're just about to waste some more! If you're willing to admit there are some holes in your knowledge and that your reasoning and conclusion could be flawed/incorrect, then maybe I can provide some useful info/help but not if you continue with the snarky questions!

Since you do all that pro audio stuff ("Music Producer, Composer, Audio Engineer, Audio Post Production" as listed on your profile), do you have a list anywhere of albums you've contributed to? It would be interesting if I've heard some of them. (If you want to keep this info private, I understand.)
I'm also curious which speakers you use professionally.

Sorry, two of the mods on head-fi, who I've communicated with for years, know who I am some of the details of my work history but I highly value my anonymity, as I wouldn't be able to answer anywhere near as honestly/freely without it. No disrespect to you, I'm sure you would keep anything I told you confidential but I'd rather not take the risk of me misjudging you. I can answer part of your questions but I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it or settle for no more than a vague confirmation from one of the two mods (castleofargh and brooko).

It's possible you've heard some of my work, you certainly would know some of those with whom I've worked. I am credited on a number of albums but many of the most famous I've worked with was in the context live performances. Both classical and various popular music genres. The majority of my work these days (80% or so) is in audio post production mainly for film and some TV.

In my main mix room I use Genelec monitors: 3 x 1037C for fronts, 2x 8050B for rears and 2 x 7070A subs. My edit suite has a smaller Genelec system. However, I spend a fair amount of time at other studios and dub stages, so I'm used to a range of studio monitors.

G

 

[Music Alchemist]

The majority of my work these days (80% or so) is in audio post production mainly for film and some TV.

In my main mix room I use Genelec monitors: 3 x 1037C for fronts, 2x 8050B for rears and 2 x 7070A subs. My edit suite has a smaller Genelec system. However, I spend a fair amount of time at other studios and dub stages, so I'm used to a range of studio monitors.

Interesting. I know someone on here who does visual effects for television series and movies, and he is also protective of his identity. I guess I can understand why. I'd rather be unknown than famous.

Very nice. Do you have any thoughts on what would be best for an active nearfield system? Do you think any Genelec models in the same price range as the ADAM S2V and Sub12 (so basically under $6,000) would be better? If so, which ones, and why?

I know room treatments and EQ are important as well, but since I'm very new to speakers, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Getting the equipment side of things taken care of first is easier for me than learning and implementing the technical side. I do want to tend to every aspect, so any info you can provide (even if it's just links to tutorials) relating to nearfield room treatments is appreciated. As of now, I am in a humble bedroom. Eventually I would like to have a dedicated treated listening room, but may end up moving to another house and staying in a bedroom for awhile. I'd imagine that makes things more challenging since you can only do so much in a bedroom.

 

[gregorio]

Do you have any thoughts on what would be best for an active nearfield system? Do you think any Genelec models in the same price range as the ADAM S2V and Sub12 (so basically under $6,000) would be better? If so, which ones, and why?
I know room treatments and EQ are important as well, but since I'm very new to speakers, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Getting the equipment side of things taken care of first is easier for me than learning and implementing the technical side.

To a large extent, you're approaching the issue backwards and falling into the same trap as @SP Wild. Understanding the history and intended purpose of nearfield studio monitors is essential: Unlike with cinema sound studios (mix/dubbing stages), there are not and never have been any specifications to which music studios have to adhere and therefore different music recording studios sound significantly different from each other. This became a serious problem by the late 1970's and '80s as technology allowed music engineers/producers to be far more creative participants, which caused a demand for the best ones, who became freelancers working in numerous different studios rather than effectively tied to one. Legend has it that Bob Clearmountain, one of the first of this new breed of celebrity engineers/producers, got a set of Japanese consumer hi-fi speakers which were small enough for him to easily carry around and plumb into whichever studio he happened to be working in that week. This gave him a relatively consistent sound between different studios because firstly, obviously he was the same speaker and secondly, being small speakers placed very near to the listening position in a fairly large room meant that the different acoustic designs of each studio was also minimised. Thus the nearfield monitor was born and despite various manufacturers trying to jump on to the bandwagon, by the 1990's there was hardly a commercial music studio on the planet that didn't have a set of those same little Japanese Hi-Fi speakers (Yamaha NS10s) popularised by Bob Clearmountain, in addition to their main monitors of course.

There should be some crucial take-away's from the above: There's no magic here, nearfield monitors do not have magical drivers or magical design properties which reduce or minimise room interactions! They reduce room interactions simply because you sit very near them in a relatively large room and therefore you will hear a much higher level of direct sound compared to the sound reflected from the relatively distant reflective surfaces (walls). So, the effect/benefit of "nearfield" monitors is that you are far nearer to them than to your reflective surfaces (walls/ceiling) and obviously, if your reflective surfaces are relatively close (IE. You use nearfield monitors in a small room), there is no nearfield effect/benefit! Worse still, the smaller the room the more interactions there will be AND, obviously you've also got less space available for applying any acoustic treatment. The defining feature of any monitor in a small room is therefore the room! In other words, a significantly better/more expensive monitor will probably sound marginally better in a small room but it could sound worse, depending on the exact acoustic problems of the room. Effectively you cannot judge how good a monitor is in a small room, what you're really judging is the room's acoustic response and regardless of how good the monitor actually is, you're always going to get relatively poor sound. This is why commercial studios only use small rooms for toilets or storage, or at a push, for non-critical basic audio tasks (EG. Editing but not mixing/processing). The problems are so severe/insurmountable with very small rooms that you'd be better off with headphones, even though the positioning/imaging will be off/wrong.

Back to your questions then and hopefully now you can see you've got it backwards. First you have to think about the room, because there can be no sensible answer about "which monitors would be better" without knowing about the room. If it's a very small room, then the answer most likely is: "No monitors would be better", don't waste your money on good nearfields, stick with what you've got and get some decent cans. If it's a larger room and you can actually achieve some nearfield benefit/effect, then getting some mid priced monitors makes sense. If you've got a very decent sized room and/or can put in some acoustic treatment, then you'll actually get the benefit of good nearfields. Once you've worked out the fundamental basics, you know the room size and can therefore determine an appropriate area/price bracket of monitors for that room, only then does it make any sense thinking about the fine details, such as differences between makes and models of monitors. And BTW, if you've got (or will have) a moderately sized room, some basic acoustic treatment is not difficult or expensive. An amateur DIY'er with a couple of days and a few hundred bucks will likely give you more than a 10 fold bang for the buck improvement. IE. Spending $300 on some DIY acoustic treatment will almost certainly result in better/more accurate reproduction than spending $3,000 on new/better monitors!

G

 

[Music Alchemist]

[snip]

Those are good points. But as I mentioned, I happen to strongly prefer my nearfield studio monitors (which are just placed on stands in my bedroom, no fancy preparation yet) over any headphone—and I've owned/heard some of the best and/or most expensive ones.

I will most likely move into a different house sometime in the next few months, so this is an opportunity for me to seek out a good room to work with. What should I be looking for specifically? (Like the shape and size.) Should I take the possibility of larger speakers (midfields, farfields, whatever) into account? Or would the room need to be significantly larger for that?

What about how to do the room treatments and EQ? Do you have links to recommended guides? I've done a bit of research but it's overwhelming.

 

[BattleBrat]

1. I'll take that as a veiled apology.

2. Forgive my bluntness but that's a stupid question! It's stupid for 3 reasons: Firstly, you know full well who professionals are recording for! Secondly, it's an insulting question and Thirdly, it's the wrong question, it does not get you any closer to the answers you're looking for.

Unfortunately, there are some fundamental holes in your knowledge and therefore your reasoning is flawed, your conclusions are incorrect, you're wasting money and looks like you're just about to waste some more! If you're willing to admit there are some holes in your knowledge and that your reasoning and conclusion could be flawed/incorrect, then maybe I can provide some useful info/help but not if you continue with the snarky questions!



Sorry, two of the mods on head-fi, who I've communicated with for years, know who I am some of the details of my work history but I highly value my anonymity, as I wouldn't be able to answer anywhere near as honestly/freely without it. No disrespect to you, I'm sure you would keep anything I told you confidential but I'd rather not take the risk of me misjudging you. I can answer part of your questions but I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it or settle for no more than a vague confirmation from one of the two mods (castleofargh and brooko).

It's possible you've heard some of my work, you certainly would know some of those with whom I've worked. I am credited on a number of albums but many of the most famous I've worked with was in the context live performances. Both classical and various popular music genres. The majority of my work these days (80% or so) is in audio post production mainly for film and some TV.

In my main mix room I use Genelec monitors: 3 x 1037C for fronts, 2x 8050B for rears and 2 x 7070A subs. My edit suite has a smaller Genelec system. However, I spend a fair amount of time at other studios and dub stages, so I'm used to a range of studio monitors.

G

Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?


(To OP)
I have the Control ones and their matching SB-1 Sub, there is NO Veil! Neither is there with my Thiel MCS1's I would imagine you're not powering the speakers you're using properly.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I happen to strongly prefer my nearfield studio monitors (which are just placed on stands in my bedroom, no fancy preparation yet) over any headphone.
[2] I will most likely move into a different house sometime in the next few months, so this is an opportunity for me to seek out a good room to work with. What should I be looking for specifically? (Like the shape and size.)
[3] Should I take the possibility of larger speakers (midfields, farfields, whatever) into account? Or would the room need to be significantly larger for that?
[4] What about how to do the room treatments and EQ? Do you have links to recommended guides? I've done a bit of research but it's overwhelming.

1. If you're creating/mixing music just for yourself and only to be played back in your room, then you can go with whatever your prefer. If this is not the case, then the goal would be to get the most accuracy your circumstances will allow and if your circumstances are restricted to a very small room, that could mean headphones rather than monitors but ultimately of course it's your room and your choice.

2. Ideally, you'd want a room with no parallel surfaces, for example, a sloping ceiling (which therefore would not be parallel to the floor) and walls which are not parallel, as reflections between parallel surfaces interact and amplify the acoustic problems. All commercial studios are built this way (without parallel walls/ceilings) but unfortunately, you're extremely unlikely to find such a room in a typical house but it's worth baring this in mind. Odd shaped rooms, say "L" shaped, also cause significant issues which are worth avoiding, as are low ceilings, as you'll have parallel surfaces relatively close together. As far as size is concerned: Think of an equilateral triangle, the corners of which are your two monitors and your listening position and the sides of the triangle are going to be about 1m. The walls of your room should be about double the distance away from the triangle as the length of the sides of the triangle. So, with 1m between your monitors, the right wall should be at least 2m from your right monitor and the left wall should be at least 2m from your left monitor, resulting in a room of at least 5m width. Same with the front/back walls, although preferably more, as a perfectly square is particularly bad acoustically.

3. Generally, the maximum length of the sides of the triangle would be around 1.5m or so. Beyond that distance and you're looking at smaller midfields rather than nearfields and you're also looking at difference guidelines for positioning the triangle. Typically the speakers would be no more than 1-2m from the front wall (typically flush mounted in a commercial studio), with the listening position somewhere between the middle of the room and 2/3 of the way towards the back wall. Obviously this means that a relatively high level of reflections will arrive at the listening position from the back wall and therefore some acoustic treatment of at least the back wall is essential when using midfields. The distance between the speakers and listening position, along with the total volume of the room, will dictate the size and power requirements for the midfields. I think you can safely forget about farfield monitors, unless you're planning on a cinema sized room.

4. Yes, when you really get into it, there's a great deal to learn/understand. Acoustics is a complex, well evolved speciality and even pro audio engineers generally have relatively limited knowledge, which is why commercial studios employ specialist studio designers/acousticians. However, don't let this put you off! Even very simple/basic acoustic treatment has a dramatic affect and anyone with just a bit of acoustic knowledge and some basic carpentry/DIY skills can do it. There is a popular forum with a wealth of information on DIY acoustic treatment, from basic all the way up to quite advanced but I'm not sure if head-fi's TOS allows me to link to it here. If you don't know which forum I'm refering to, let me know and I'll send you a PM. ... BTW, EQ is a blunt tool for dealing with acoustic issues, it certainly can improve some acoustic problems but for some typical issues it's completely ineffective and unless used wisely/judiciously it's easy to inadvertently make matters worse. The general rule of thumb is to rely on physical room treatments and only use corrective EQ for the last 10% or so. In your case, some of the more modern monitors with built-in room analysis/correction would certainly be worth looking at, but this approach should be considered as an addition to basic room treatment and not as a replacement!

G

 

[gregorio]

Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?

I've never heard them so I can't say specifically. Nevertheless, the answer to your question would depend on context. Compared to the average external computer speakers for example, I'm sure that in most listening environments they would be a significant improvement. We're talking about the extreme end of low budget for speakers claiming to be "pro" though, so while they might be great for their size/budget, they won't be great in a wider context.

G

 

[Music Alchemist]

[snip]

Yes, although ultimately I want as much accuracy as possible, I don't actually need it. For the time being I only listen to music for pleasure and don't mind the acoustic issues I have in my bedroom. Someday I may build a music studio and record my own music, but not anytime soon. So I'm taking it step by step.

The thing is, I don't plan on owning a home anytime soon either; I would merely be renting. It doesn't seem likely that I would find an ideal room in the next house I move to. And although I'm willing to do it sooner or later, learning and implementing room treatments would probably require a considerable deal of my time, energy, and money. And some of that may only come after I find (or even build) a good room. That's why I have no problem upgrading equipment first even if it is backwards, especially if the other aspects couldn't come until much later anyway. But since there are all sorts of room treatments, I would still take care of some of them earlier on.

What type of room in a typical house do you think would be best for nearfield listening?

Are most room treatments easily reversible? Which types aren't?

If I hire an expert to take care of room treatments for me, what do you think would be the minimum outlay? I've heard about people spending five to six figures on room treatments, and I'd like to keep it at four. I know I can approach it little by little anyway.

For main monitors such as this one, would the room really need to be as large as a movie theater? I looked up images of farfield main monitors in studios on Google Images, and the rooms aren't so huge. In fact, many of them aren't much bigger than my bedroom.

https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/s5h/

Some feel that the best nearfields are more accurate than the best farfields, but this seems like just another conflicting opinion. I'm trying to figure out what I should plan for. Maybe I should just go out and seek auditions.

If you can elaborate on the benefits and downsides of the different sizes of monitors (nearfield, midfield, farfield), it would also be helpful. For example, which things would farfield give me that nearfield can't?