• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Presonus Eris E5 BT Review

Nuyes

Active Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
280
Likes
5,442
Location
South Korea
00.jpeg

This is a 5-inch class studio monitor from Presonus.
It’s an active–passive design and also supports Bluetooth mode.


Let’s dive straight into the data.




Frequency Response
01.png


Right from the start, things don’t look promising.
The -6 dB low-end extension comes in at a reasonable 51.8 Hz with a 22 dB/octave slope.
Leaving aside the overall tonal balance, the high frequencies are a complete mess.


As with most things in audio, the cause of a phenomenon often matters more than the phenomenon itself.
If we think purely in terms of the loudspeaker’s transfer function, a narrow high-Q dip in the extreme treble might not be a fatal issue by itself.
So, let’s look deeper below.




Nearfield Measurements
02.png

Indeed, the real issues lie elsewhere.


First, look at the sharp spike near 5 kHz in the woofer’s response — a strong breakup mode peak.
This resonance likely wreaks havoc on the summed on-axis response.


Second, this could have been minimized if a proper crossover filter had been implemented, but for reasons other than cost-cutting, it’s hard to see the design logic.


Third,
02_2.png

A naturally measured tweeter response rarely shows such a broad rise in a specific band — yet here it does.
Coincidentally, the woofer response shows the same rise over the same band.


This leads me to cautiously speculate that the manufacturer boosted that band during voicing to achieve a target tonal balance, inadvertently emphasizing the woofer diaphragm’s breakup mode frequency at the same time.
(This is just my subjective guess.)




CEA-2034
03.png

No clear design intent is apparent.
From the on-axis curve to the DI, there’s nothing smooth here.




Directivity
04.png

05.png

Without a crossover and without even a waveguide, the mismatch between the drivers’ directivity is obvious — resulting in bizarre, uneven horizontal dispersion.
To be blunt… “It’s not easy to make something this bad.”





06.png

07.png

No comment.




Beamwidth
08.png

09.png

Again, there’s no sign of controlled design here.
Worse, the 2 kHz–5 kHz range — more than a full octave — is riddled with large directivity errors.





Polar Plot
10.png

11.png

Good grief…




THD
12.png

Around 350 Hz, 2nd-, 3rd-, and higher-order harmonics all spike together — a typical sign of strong resonance.




13.png
14.png
15.png





16.png


Increasing the output only made the problem more apparent.




17.png

18.png

However, non-linear distortion from the woofer’s motor and suspension is even greater, partially masking the resonance in the THD plots.




Multitone Test
19.png

20.png

It’s unrealistic to expect much from a speaker without even a crossover filter.
Even for a 5-inch unit, expectations should be tempered.





80Hz~
21.png





22.png

23.png

Distortion was already high to begin with, and it climbed further with increased output.
At 96 dB SPL, the level of multitone distortion actually exceeded that of the 76 dB test signal.




Compression Test
24.png

No comment.




Final Thoughts
I’m sorry this review contains so much criticism — and even a few “no comment” sections.
However, this product is marketed and sold as a studio monitor offering studio-quality sound.
Presonus is a long-established brand in the music production industry, and for such products I inevitably apply stricter standards than I would for casual home or desktop speakers.

While the far-field on-axis response has been tuned reasonably close to a flat target, the abundance of high distortion and uncontrolled resonances leaves me skeptical.
Perhaps its colorful tonal character might be enjoyable to some listeners — but as a tool for accurate studio monitoring, I cannot agree that it meets the necessary quality standard.

That’s all.
 
Pffft. Why, oh why.
 
Unless you can turn off the adjacent driver, I don't see much point in doing the nearfield measurement. (One driver contaminates the other.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac
Is it just me, or do so many of these 'woven cone' style bass-mid drivers have major issues further up. Nice looking boxes too, that may even pass muster in a domestic rig.

Mind you, what do you expect for £219 or so the pair in the UK? I bet they land at substantially less than that, so an inductor plus cap or something, to take the upper range off the bass driver over 3kHz or so wouldn't add many cents to the cost, surely?
 
I don't believe it's legal to sell a product like this.
 
Is it just me, or do so many of these 'woven cone' style bass-mid drivers have major issues further up.
They have breakup modes just like metal cones, which pretty much definitionally needs steep filtering.
 
One positive (just kidding) - the horizontal directivity's psychedelic sheep head :D


1754768755762.png
 
Ah, my acoustic engineering consultancy experience is telling me this is a result of a classic way of cost-saving on entry-level products the moment I look at the result.

I guess the DSP amp chipset inside this speaker only has 2 channels, and then you only put a small series capacitor on the tweeter as a protection/high pass, no low-pass filter on the woofer at all, you wired the woofer and tweeter+cap in parallal and then you just EQ the response of the whole system until it becomes sort of OK-ish. Yes, the woofer cone-breakup remains as an issue, and the directivity is completely screwed up - But Hey! There are only very limited ways of making an active product at this price point without actually losing money, so...
 
Ah, my acoustic engineering consultancy experience is telling me this is a result of a classic way of cost-saving on entry-level products the moment I look at the result.

I guess the DSP amp chipset inside this speaker only has 2 channels, and then you only put a small series capacitor on the tweeter as a protection/high pass, no low-pass filter on the woofer at all, you wired the woofer and tweeter+cap in parallal and then you just EQ the response of the whole system until it becomes sort of OK-ish. Yes, the woofer cone-breakup remains as an issue, and the directivity is completely screwed up - But Hey! There are only very limited ways of making an active product at this price point without actually losing money, so...
Very true. £205 or $275.

But this does beg the question, why not save up a little bit more and get the Adam Audio? Especially if one is buying this as a studio monitor as the performance of this product would not be sufficient for the work cut out.
 
Ah, my acoustic engineering consultancy experience is telling me this is a result of a classic way of cost-saving on entry-level products the moment I look at the result.
It is, and yet: JBL is able to sell the 305p for nearly the same price.
 
But Hey! There are only very limited ways of making an active product at this price point without actually losing money, so...
It seems like a weak justification to me, there are active products that cost half as much and have significantly superior performance, almost all Edifier mini monitors for example.
 
It seems like a weak justification to me, there are active products that cost half as much and have significantly superior performance, almost all Edifier mini monitors for example.
Edifier monitors (not all of their budget offerings) have passive crossovers, at least for the MR4. Simple with very few parts, but they do exist.
PreSonus skipping crossovers entirely and a "wing it" attitude, even at this price point, is bafflingly stupid :facepalm:
 
Thanks for the review.

Every Presonus product I’ve seen tested was a mess. You’d think that sometimes just by chance they’d design a competent speaker, but apparently not.
 
Back
Top Bottom