PreSonus Eris E3.5 Powered Monitor Review ($100/pair)

[hardisj]

Full review at my site:
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/presonus_eris_e3_5/


PreSonus Eris E3.5 Powered Monitor Review

• Friday, May 14, 2021

Foreword / YouTube Video Review
The review on this website is a brief overview and summary of the objective performance of this speaker. It is not intended to be a deep dive. Moreso, this is information for those who prefer “just the facts” and prefer to have the data without the filler.
However, for those who want more - a detailed explanation of the objective performance, and my subjective evaluation (what I heard, what I liked, etc.) - please watch the below video where I go more in-depth.
<< coming soon >>


Information and Photos

PreSonus’s Eris E3.5 is a compact powered 2-way speaker featuring a 3-inch mid/woofer and 1-inch dome tweeter. At only $100/pair, they are one of the best-selling “budget” monitor speakers. They feature a stereo 1/8-inch input, Balanced TRS and Unbalanced RCA inputs. The Eris also features both a low-frequency and high-frequency trim to allow you to tailor the sound as needed. The below is from the manufacturer’s website:

PreSonus® Eris-series studio monitors are used worldwide by audio engineers who need to hear every detail of their recordings. Ideal for gaming and home video production, the Eris E3.5 employs the same technology as the larger Eris models to deliver studio-quality sound, with a smooth and accurate frequency response. Yet they’re compact enough to fit almost anywhere.​

MSRP is about $100 USD for a pair.

CTA-2034 (SPINORAMA) and Accompanying Data
All data collected using Klippel’s Near-Field Scanner. The Near-Field-Scanner 3D (NFS) offers a fully automated acoustic measurement of direct sound radiated from the source under test. The radiated sound is determined in any desired distance and angle in the 3D space outside the scanning surface. Directivity, sound power, SPL response and many more key figures are obtained for any kind of loudspeaker and audio system in near field applications (e.g. studio monitors, mobile devices) as well as far field applications (e.g. professional audio systems). Utilizing a minimum of measurement points, a comprehensive data set is generated containing the loudspeaker’s high resolution, free field sound radiation in the near and far field. For a detailed explanation of how the NFS works and the science behind it, please watch the below discussion with designer Christian Bellmann:

The reference plane in this test is the tweeter. A single RCA input was used and the volume was set to about 3/4 max. The port was open (not stuffed). All settings were at default (0; no HF or LF adjustments were made).

Measurements are provided in a format in accordance with the Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers (ANSI/CTA-2034-A R-2020). For more information, please see this link.

CTA-2034 / SPINORAMA:

Early Reflections Breakout:

Estimated In-Room Response:

Horizontal Frequency Response (0° to ±90°):

Vertical Frequency Response (0° to ±40°):

Horizontal Contour Plot (not normalized):

Horizontal Contour Plot (normalized):

Vertical Contour Plot (not normalized):

Vertical Contour Plot (normalized):

Additional Measurements

On-Axis Response Linearity

“Globe” Plots
These plots are generated from exporting the Klippel data to text files. I then process that data with my own MATLAB script to provide what you see. These are not part of any software packages and are unique to my tests.
Horizontal Polar (Globe) Plot:
This represents the sound field at 2 meters - above 200Hz - per the legend in the upper left.

Vertical Polar (Globe) Plot:
This represents the sound field at 2 meters - above 200Hz - per the legend in the upper left.

Harmonic Distortion
Harmonic Distortion at 86dB @ 1m:

Harmonic Distortion at 96dB @ 1m:

Near-Field Response
Nearfield response of individual drive units:

Dynamic Range (Instantaneous Compression Test)
The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.
The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously.

Based on my results above, it is obvious the output is strictly limited. These are not designed to play with a lot of output and instead are best used as computer speakers at moderate volume levels.


Long Term Compression Tests
The below graphics indicate how much SPL is lost or gained in the long-term as a speaker plays at the same output level for 2 minutes, in intervals. Each graphic represents a different SPL: 86dB and 96dB both at 1 meter.
The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components).
The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. “Cold” logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand)
2. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
3. Interim logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Red in graphic)
4. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
5. Final logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Blue in graphic)

The red and blue lines represent changes in the output compared to the initial “cold” test.

Parting / Random Thoughts
If you want to see the music I use for evaluating speakers subjectively, see my Spotify playlist.

• Subjective listening varied between 0.50 to 2 meters. Subjective listening was conducted at 80-95dB at these distances. Higher volumes were done simply to test the output capability in case one wants to try to sit further away.

As is, with no tonal adjustments made via the knobs on the back of the speaker, you have an extreme “smiley face” or “v-curve” response with a peaky midbass around 100Hz and a very bright sounding treble. The midrange is very recessed and the enclosure is the source of strong resonances. Certainly not something I would consider useful in mixing or monitoring as the ideal response for those situations should obviously be an uncolored, neutral (flat) speaker response on-axis.
After fiddling with the settings, listening and running the NFS tests a few more times, I ultimately found this setup offers the best compromise:

1. Stuff the ports. Yes, I know you want the speakers to get lower but the ports only serve to mess up the response. You can use a shirt, small dish towel… whatever plugs up the port.
2. Set the HF to “-6dB”.
3. Set the LF to “+3dB”.

While still not ideal, this gives a more linear response without significant peaking in the midbass and overaccentuated highs. Doing so yields the following SPIN results:

You may be trying to choose between these speakers and the Mackie CRX-3 I have also reviewed. They each have their own issues. My suggestion as to which to buy boils down to this:

• No matter what speaker you buy STUFF THE PORT. It doesn’t help you get any lower. In fact, it only serves to provide a resonant bump ~ 100Hz and results in a steeper roll off.
• If you don’t plan to adjust tonal balance knobs on the PreSonus then get the Mackie. Easy choice.
• I think it is a coin toss between the Mackie CR3-X and the adjusted PreSonus E3.5. Though, I’d probably leave toward the Mackie as it still has a more neutral response (especially with the port stuffed).
• If you are placing these near a wall the PreSonus’ tonal controls may prove useful enough (by lowering the boosted bass as you put the speaker near a wall) and make the decision to go that route easier. Though, I would recommend turning the speakers off axis; otherwise the treble is too much. 30° to 40° looks to be the best compromise. Still, the Mackie’s HF balance appears better when the same positioning is used for that speaker.

You can view a comparison of the on-axis response between the two speakers below.

However, if you adjust the Eris E3.5’s tonal balance controls and port stuffing as I had recommended then this is the comparison:

As with anything else, I suggest purchasing these from a retailer who offers a return policy so you can try these out in-home. If you’re in search of such a retailer, please consider using my B&H affiliate link below.
As stated in the Foreword, this written review is purposely a cliff’s notes version. For more details about the performance (objectively and subjectively) please watch the YouTube video.

DSP Suggestions
If you have the means, I recommend using EQ to help flatten out the response and achieve a more neutral response, as a set of monitor speakers should provide. Doing so will help immensely and is necessary in my humble opinion. I have provided two examples created via REW software’s auto-EQ program based on a standard miniDSP. They are provided in a screenshot below. If you need help understanding how to use these, I encourage you to check out NoAudiophile’s page here which also has other DSP suggestions for various speakers. It is a great resource for this type of thing.

1. DSP Suggestion for the “out of the box” response:
   
   
2. DSP Suggestion using my recommended settings (port stuffed, HF/LF trim enabled for -6dB/+3dB, respectively):
   
   

You’ll probably have to increase the photo size to see the individual settings.


Support / Contribute
If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating via PayPal here. Donations help me pay for new items to test, hardware, miscellaneous items and costs of the site’s server space and bandwidth. All of which I otherwise pay out of pocket. So, if you can help chip in a few bucks, know that it is very much appreciated. Alternatively, if you are interested in purchasing these speakers, please consider using my B&H affiliate link found on my site. It yields me a small commission at no additional cost to you and allows me to keep doing what I am doing.

You can also join my Facebook and YouTube pages if you would like to follow along with updates.

 

[hardisj]

Data:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulijzwsygfstt4t/PreSonus Eris E3.5.7z?dl=0

 

[daftcombo]

Terrible spin.
Thanks.

 

[daftcombo]

You may be trying to choose between these speakers and the PreSonus Eris E3.5 I have also reviewed.

Did you mean Mackie CR3-X?

 

[sweetchaos]

Thanks Erin.
Outstanding work as always.
@MZKM @pierre @Maiky76

 

[napilopez]

Wow this is big yikes. Disappointing to see two studio monitors with so little attention to neutrality. I've often thought studio monitors are safer bet than hifi for neutrality but clearly, not always. Not sure how anyone is supposed to produce a competent mix like this, although of course people have mixed on terrible monitors before.

Appreciate @hardisj providing an optimal configuration but if a speaker needs that much tweaking to sound neutral...

 

[MarsianC#]

Uhhh, thats really awful.

No matter what speaker you buy STUFF THE PORT.

Do you own this pair? Maybe a longer port with a decent bass boost could help. SPL is limited as it already is, but at least some bass is better than none.
PS: I will use this measurment as an example for one-note bass in the future. Horrible!

 

[MZKM]

Note: Rating is for far-field listening.


Preference Rating
SCORE: 1.5
SCORE w/sub: 4.3

Frequency response: +/-6dB 80Hz-20kHz

 

[daftcombo]

Be careful, there are a lot of short-term reliability issues reported in online customer reviews.

Sound quality-wise, there are reviews like "really punchy and flat response when they work".
Some people actually seem to use them for mixing!

 

[napilopez]

I still can't believe how bad that on-axis is

 

[Steve Dallas]

Batman has developed severe back problems and started leaning to the left. No reason for this product to exist. Dang.

 

[Kachda]

Batman has developed severe back problems and started leaning to the left. No reason for this product to exist. Dang.

This is Batman post bane encounter

 

[dfuller]

I'm not sure what I expected but this is honestly somehow worse.

 

[pierre]

Here is another EQ optimised over 300hz.

Scores goes from 1.5 to 5.1. From the EQ below, I would keep the first 10 PEQ:

EQ for Presonus Eris E3.5 computed from ErinsAudioCorner data
Preference Score 1.5 with EQ 5.1
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-05-15-09:25:40

Preamp: -0.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  7372 Hz Gain -10.22 dB Q 0.13
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  1642 Hz Gain -4.47 dB Q 9.32
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  2314 Hz Gain +2.42 dB Q 3.94
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  8400 Hz Gain -0.95 dB Q 2.41
Filter  5: ON PK Fc 13904 Hz Gain +2.97 dB Q 7.99
Filter  6: ON PK Fc  6541 Hz Gain -1.03 dB Q 11.23
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  1097 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 4.75
Filter  8: ON PK Fc   605 Hz Gain +1.97 dB Q 5.06
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  4623 Hz Gain +0.60 dB Q 3.02
Filter 10: ON PK Fc   373 Hz Gain +0.68 dB Q 2.29
Filter 11: ON PK Fc  1759 Hz Gain -1.15 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  1492 Hz Gain -0.68 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc  3180 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 7.17
Filter 14: ON PK Fc   792 Hz Gain -0.58 dB Q 4.40
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  2001 Hz Gain +0.80 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  1830 Hz Gain -0.25 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc  1830 Hz Gain -0.22 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc  8126 Hz Gain +0.53 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc  1369 Hz Gain +0.95 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  1454 Hz Gain -0.46 dB Q 12.00

 

[richard12511]

Here is another EQ optimised over 300hz.

Scores goes from 1.5 to 5.1. From the EQ below, I would keep the first 10 PEQ:

EQ for Presonus Eris E3.5 computed from ErinsAudioCorner data
Preference Score 1.5 with EQ 5.1
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-05-15-09:25:40

Preamp: -0.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  7372 Hz Gain -10.22 dB Q 0.13
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  1642 Hz Gain -4.47 dB Q 9.32
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  2314 Hz Gain +2.42 dB Q 3.94
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  8400 Hz Gain -0.95 dB Q 2.41
Filter  5: ON PK Fc 13904 Hz Gain +2.97 dB Q 7.99
Filter  6: ON PK Fc  6541 Hz Gain -1.03 dB Q 11.23
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  1097 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 4.75
Filter  8: ON PK Fc   605 Hz Gain +1.97 dB Q 5.06
Filter  9: ON PK Fc  4623 Hz Gain +0.60 dB Q 3.02
Filter 10: ON PK Fc   373 Hz Gain +0.68 dB Q 2.29
Filter 11: ON PK Fc  1759 Hz Gain -1.15 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  1492 Hz Gain -0.68 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc  3180 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 7.17
Filter 14: ON PK Fc   792 Hz Gain -0.58 dB Q 4.40
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  2001 Hz Gain +0.80 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  1830 Hz Gain -0.25 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc  1830 Hz Gain -0.22 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc  8126 Hz Gain +0.53 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc  1369 Hz Gain +0.95 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  1454 Hz Gain -0.46 dB Q 12.00

View attachment 129835
View attachment 129836View attachment 129837

Haha the EQed response still looks super goofy with that exaggerated bass. I'm sure it sounds much better, though.

 

[hardisj]

YouTube review

 

[MarsianC#]

Wow, that hair
Thanks!

 

[Soniclife]

Great to see the adjusted version remeasured, shame it needs such work, and how yikes it is out of the box.

 

[McFly]

Hahaha the wig comes back from the dead

 

[Maiky76]

Full review at my site:
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/presonus_eris_e3_5/


PreSonus Eris E3.5 Powered Monitor Review

• Friday, May 14, 2021

Foreword / YouTube Video Review
The review on this website is a brief overview and summary of the objective performance of this speaker. It is not intended to be a deep dive. Moreso, this is information for those who prefer “just the facts” and prefer to have the data without the filler.
However, for those who want more - a detailed explanation of the objective performance, and my subjective evaluation (what I heard, what I liked, etc.) - please watch the below video where I go more in-depth.
<< coming soon >>


Information and Photos

PreSonus’s Eris E3.5 is a compact powered 2-way speaker featuring a 3-inch mid/woofer and 1-inch dome tweeter. At only $100/pair, they are one of the best-selling “budget” monitor speakers. They feature a stereo 1/8-inch input, Balanced TRS and Unbalanced RCA inputs. The Eris also features both a low-frequency and high-frequency trim to allow you to tailor the sound as needed. The below is from the manufacturer’s website:

PreSonus® Eris-series studio monitors are used worldwide by audio engineers who need to hear every detail of their recordings. Ideal for gaming and home video production, the Eris E3.5 employs the same technology as the larger Eris models to deliver studio-quality sound, with a smooth and accurate frequency response. Yet they’re compact enough to fit almost anywhere.​

MSRP is about $100 USD for a pair.

CTA-2034 (SPINORAMA) and Accompanying Data
All data collected using Klippel’s Near-Field Scanner. The Near-Field-Scanner 3D (NFS) offers a fully automated acoustic measurement of direct sound radiated from the source under test. The radiated sound is determined in any desired distance and angle in the 3D space outside the scanning surface. Directivity, sound power, SPL response and many more key figures are obtained for any kind of loudspeaker and audio system in near field applications (e.g. studio monitors, mobile devices) as well as far field applications (e.g. professional audio systems). Utilizing a minimum of measurement points, a comprehensive data set is generated containing the loudspeaker’s high resolution, free field sound radiation in the near and far field. For a detailed explanation of how the NFS works and the science behind it, please watch the below discussion with designer Christian Bellmann:

The reference plane in this test is the tweeter. A single RCA input was used and the volume was set to about 3/4 max. The port was open (not stuffed). All settings were at default (0; no HF or LF adjustments were made).

Measurements are provided in a format in accordance with the Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers (ANSI/CTA-2034-A R-2020). For more information, please see this link.

CTA-2034 / SPINORAMA:

Early Reflections Breakout:

Estimated In-Room Response:

Horizontal Frequency Response (0° to ±90°):

Vertical Frequency Response (0° to ±40°):

Horizontal Contour Plot (not normalized):

Horizontal Contour Plot (normalized):

Vertical Contour Plot (not normalized):

Vertical Contour Plot (normalized):

Additional Measurements

On-Axis Response Linearity

“Globe” Plots
These plots are generated from exporting the Klippel data to text files. I then process that data with my own MATLAB script to provide what you see. These are not part of any software packages and are unique to my tests.
Horizontal Polar (Globe) Plot:
This represents the sound field at 2 meters - above 200Hz - per the legend in the upper left.

Vertical Polar (Globe) Plot:
This represents the sound field at 2 meters - above 200Hz - per the legend in the upper left.

Harmonic Distortion
Harmonic Distortion at 86dB @ 1m:

Harmonic Distortion at 96dB @ 1m:

Near-Field Response
Nearfield response of individual drive units:

Dynamic Range (Instantaneous Compression Test)
The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.
The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
2. 86dB at 1 meter (red)
3. 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
4. 102dB at 1 meter (purple)

The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously.

Based on my results above, it is obvious the output is strictly limited. These are not designed to play with a lot of output and instead are best used as computer speakers at moderate volume levels.


Long Term Compression Tests
The below graphics indicate how much SPL is lost or gained in the long-term as a speaker plays at the same output level for 2 minutes, in intervals. Each graphic represents a different SPL: 86dB and 96dB both at 1 meter.
The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components).
The tests are conducted in this fashion:

1. “Cold” logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand)
2. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
3. Interim logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Red in graphic)
4. Multitone stimulus played at desired SPL/distance for 2 minutes; intended to represent music signal
5. Final logarithmic sine sweep (no stimulus applied beforehand) (Blue in graphic)

The red and blue lines represent changes in the output compared to the initial “cold” test.

Parting / Random Thoughts
If you want to see the music I use for evaluating speakers subjectively, see my Spotify playlist.

• Subjective listening varied between 0.50 to 2 meters. Subjective listening was conducted at 80-95dB at these distances. Higher volumes were done simply to test the output capability in case one wants to try to sit further away.

As is, with no tonal adjustments made via the knobs on the back of the speaker, you have an extreme “smiley face” or “v-curve” response with a peaky midbass around 100Hz and a very bright sounding treble. The midrange is very recessed and the enclosure is the source of strong resonances. Certainly not something I would consider useful in mixing or monitoring as the ideal response for those situations should obviously be an uncolored, neutral (flat) speaker response on-axis.
After fiddling with the settings, listening and running the NFS tests a few more times, I ultimately found this setup offers the best compromise:

1. Stuff the ports. Yes, I know you want the speakers to get lower but the ports only serve to mess up the response. You can use a shirt, small dish towel… whatever plugs up the port.
2. Set the HF to “-6dB”.
3. Set the LF to “+3dB”.

While still not ideal, this gives a more linear response without significant peaking in the midbass and overaccentuated highs. Doing so yields the following SPIN results:

You may be trying to choose between these speakers and the Mackie CRX-3 I have also reviewed. They each have their own issues. My suggestion as to which to buy boils down to this:

• No matter what speaker you buy STUFF THE PORT. It doesn’t help you get any lower. In fact, it only serves to provide a resonant bump ~ 100Hz and results in a steeper roll off.
• If you don’t plan to adjust tonal balance knobs on the PreSonus then get the Mackie. Easy choice.
• I think it is a coin toss between the Mackie CR3-X and the adjusted PreSonus E3.5. Though, I’d probably leave toward the Mackie as it still has a more neutral response (especially with the port stuffed).
• If you are placing these near a wall the PreSonus’ tonal controls may prove useful enough (by lowering the boosted bass as you put the speaker near a wall) and make the decision to go that route easier. Though, I would recommend turning the speakers off axis; otherwise the treble is too much. 30° to 40° looks to be the best compromise. Still, the Mackie’s HF balance appears better when the same positioning is used for that speaker.

You can view a comparison of the on-axis response between the two speakers below.

However, if you adjust the Eris E3.5’s tonal balance controls and port stuffing as I had recommended then this is the comparison:

As with anything else, I suggest purchasing these from a retailer who offers a return policy so you can try these out in-home. If you’re in search of such a retailer, please consider using my B&H affiliate link below.
As stated in the Foreword, this written review is purposely a cliff’s notes version. For more details about the performance (objectively and subjectively) please watch the YouTube video.

DSP Suggestions
If you have the means, I recommend using EQ to help flatten out the response and achieve a more neutral response, as a set of monitor speakers should provide. Doing so will help immensely and is necessary in my humble opinion. I have provided two examples created via REW software’s auto-EQ program based on a standard miniDSP. They are provided in a screenshot below. If you need help understanding how to use these, I encourage you to check out NoAudiophile’s page here which also has other DSP suggestions for various speakers. It is a great resource for this type of thing.

1. DSP Suggestion for the “out of the box” response:
   
   
2. DSP Suggestion using my recommended settings (port stuffed, HF/LF trim enabled for -6dB/+3dB, respectively):
   
   

You’ll probably have to increase the photo size to see the individual settings.


Support / Contribute
If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating via PayPal here. Donations help me pay for new items to test, hardware, miscellaneous items and costs of the site’s server space and bandwidth. All of which I otherwise pay out of pocket. So, if you can help chip in a few bucks, know that it is very much appreciated. Alternatively, if you are interested in purchasing these speakers, please consider using my B&H affiliate link found on my site. It yields me a small commission at no additional cost to you and allows me to keep doing what I am doing.

You can also join my Facebook and YouTube pages if you would like to follow along with updates.

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: -1.3
With Sub: 4.3

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Not as Flat as i would expect, maybe because the multimedia usage?
• Pretty bad
• Ok Horizontal Directivity

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Erin is his EQ with the default settings i.e. no tweaks.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose, probably in the near field so no Score EQ this time (I checked it would be very close to the LW anyways)

Score EQ LW: 5.8
with sub: 8.3

Score EQ Erin: 4.9
with sub: 7.4

Presonus Eris E3.5 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May162021-123909

Preamp: -0.1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 54.6 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.24
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 107.9 Hz Gain -9.95 dB Q 1.5
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1037 Hz Gain -4.3 dB Q 1.51
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1654 Hz Gain -7.05 dB Q 4.13
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3382 Hz Gain -5.5 dB Q 1
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 6494 Hz Gain -1.77 dB Q 2.42
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 9160 Hz Gain -8 dB Q 0.73
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 17116 Hz Gain -5.56 dB Q 4

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Erin

Zoom PIR-LW-ON