In case the listening environment isn’t ideal, getting other speakers is not something I’d do. So the answer would be, yes your speakers in this case would be fine. Just need to reference on other systems (headphones that you know inside out, car system, other rooms etc.) and that way learn your speakers and their environment inside out. You can get far that way. Used to work this way for many years with good results.
Then if you want to get a more accurate listening experience first spend money to acoustically treat the room. That way you will get more out of your current speakers.
Then at a later stage you could always go for dedicated studio monitors that are a step up in quality. Or to be more in line with above discussion: then you could go for speakers that are a step up in quality and suited for analytical listening.
Absolutely it is. Which makes you wonder why there are soooo many near-field monitors on the market in an age when more people than ever have access to reasonably priced acoustic treatment, the knowledge to diy your own treatment, treated listening rooms and studios (whether they’re treated well / effectively is another matter of course).
So can we assume that there’s a lot of folks out there using near field monitors in acoustic environments which really don’t demand them?
In hi end studios where treatment is incredibly good, they are able to use mid fields (if there’s enough room of course). One of the reasons being that mid fields most often are able to go into the lower frequency range more accurately. Still, those studios will also have near fields present most of the time. Simply because the experience is different and lessens the influence of the room even if that room is well treated. It is a different reference. Plus, it’s very hard to fit two pair of mid fields (often refered to as ‘mains’) into one studio space in the perfect measured way they are intended to. proper studio acoustics are often even build around the main speakers. So extra reference monitors will be near fields. And in a lot of mixing studios they will have multiple near fields even.
So that assumption doesn’t hold much truth I’m afraid.
For home studios it will always be useful to use near fields. You point out why in your own post. Because even with proper treatment the room won’t be perfect. Near fields don’t negate the use of proper treatment either, because room modes and reflections will have a great affect on the listening experience. Near fields merely lessen the influence of the room.
A huge market for speaker manufacturers is the home studio market, which may even be larger than the home Hi-Fi market these days (many people seem happy listening to music via their phone and ear-buds).
To meet this market the manufacturers make speakers convenient to home studio use. In this scenario active speakers are more convenient than passive ones because they negate the need for desk space to hold amplifiers and reduce the cabling requirements.
The typical home studio setup is generally going to locate the speakers in the near field due to there being a central desk, monitor, keyboard etc.
The main criteria for a near field monitor is size (what audiophiles would call a bookshelf speaker)so it is no surprise that manufacturers make small, relatively cheap active speakers and label them “near field monitors”.
Always makes me laugh when I see some $100,000 audiophile setup in an an untreated room with concrete walls. Audiophiles do have different expectations from studio users, for sure.
Here an high end example. The sound quality is in complete distinction compared with other studios. To bad my music taste is not the music they mix and master there. https://www.northstarconsult.nl/recording/studio
Audiophile and HiFi are a bit distinct, I think. The HiFi era exentuated loudness settings and simple EQs. Audiophile stuff like Genelec and Focal is great for the studio imo.
