Is Near-field Listening Understated?

[MrBoat]

MrBoat:
That's me in a nutshell. When I decided to take over a dedicated space for music I knew right out of the gate it was going to be 2 channel listening. This is a personal decision for me based completely on my own desires. I have tried and enjoyed many musical setups from simple 2 channel to having a room full of speakers all around. For my money, the best and purist musical sound is a well executed stereo.

You mention nostalgia for the day when we got together and listened to music as an actual activity. Certainly nostalgia plays a role because if I was just starting the journey today, I would probably have implemented a much more complex system. Why did I choose simplicity? There is a straightforward answer, but not a simple one.

I've talked to you a bit. I sense we come from the same places in a lot of ways. I think you are on the right track. Either way, I think you will somehow include this in your setup no matter what type of system you choose. Besides, when we're done, we can just put the speakers back until next time.

Weird how just my recent little, haphazard foray into audio has re-awoken another beast in my buddy up the road, who had no idea that he actually used to like this. I told him maybe he should come in the back door so his snooty friends don't catch him audio slumming.

 

[ski2xblack]

Bucknekked, your rig may benefit from even more of a near-field arrangement of the speakers. Those are small enough to get away with it, and I suspect it would do good things. I'm thinking of the rather formulaic but effective Cardas method, for example, which can allow your speakers to disappear into a broad soundscape. Linky

Since your tweets are horn loaded and highly directional, you also may benefit from trying MrBoat's tempest trick of fairly heavy toe-in, such that the axis cross well in front of the listening position. That would eliminate early hard reflections of high frequencies from the adjacent walls, yet preserve the later reflections. It may help ameliorate that relative high frequency hotness I saw in your room measurements (everything above that 1.4khz notch seems a bit hot, particularly if the goal is the often preferred, slightly down-sloping "house curve"), and allow for that time/intensity trading trickery giving a widened sweet spot. Maybe some diffusing artwork on the side walls, too. A cluttered room often sounds pretty decent.

 

[MrBoat]

A cluttered room often sounds pretty decent.

LOL! You have revealed my secret. Clutter!

Actually, that's more true than not, in my case. I have a suede (I hate micro-suede), overstuffed, sofa or a loveseat next to each speaker. with the sound traveling across their length for the most part. When I took them out of the way to paint, and took the blinds down, there was actually an echo of sorts in here. There's also a hall closet that butts into the room, and I swear that is acting like a diffuser that breaks up the tunnel. I am perhaps one throw rug away from absolute perfection. Isn't that ridiculous?

My buddy is telling me not to "f**k with it." That and he's saying it's total BS that my "crappy homemade PA speakers" sound better than his $$$$ setup.

I'm trying to get him to join this forum so y'all can hear him bitch too.

 

[Bucknekked]

Weird how just my recent little, haphazard foray into audio has re-awoken another beast in my buddy up the road, who had no idea that he actually used to like this. I told him maybe he should come in the back door so his snooty friends don't catch him audio slumming.

If you didn't live on one coast and me on the other, I'd bring over some CD's and we give them woofers something to talk about. You can't see it in my room photo, but there are subs in the room. I do have some air movers as you called them. I moved so much air with one of them, its broke. For one of the subs, it no longer woofs, it just sort of wheezes a little.

There is a relatively new newb to the forum, I shall not mention his ID so I don't get banned, that told me in a recent post I didn't need any subs in my room. He doesn't know me from adam, or my room from the whitehouse, or apparently s-h-i-t-from-shinola. He doesn't know anything about my listening preferences or whether I like Coke or Pepsi. Yet, he presumed to just flat out tell me what I didn't need and what I needed to do.

Because I like posting here, I didn't respond at all. Discretion seemed the better part of valor

 

[Bucknekked]

Bucknekked, your rig may benefit from even more of a near-field arrangement of the speakers. Those are small enough to get away with it, and I suspect it would do good things. I'm thinking of the rather formulaic but effective Cardas method, for example, which can allow your speakers to disappear into a broad soundscape. Linky
A cluttered room often sounds pretty decent.

I may give that crossing a go. A little bit of toe in didn't do squat. Its easy enough to try.
And along with not knowing what mauve is, a little clutter is pretty much a requirement. As MrBoat says, if its too clean it becomes sterile.

 

[MrBoat]

If you didn't live on one coast and me on the other, I'd bring over some CD's and we give them woofers something to talk about. You can't see it in my room photo, but there are subs in the room. I do have some air movers as you called them. I moved so much air with one of them, its broke. For one of the subs, it no longer woofs, it just sort of wheezes a little.

There is a relatively new newb to the forum, I shall not mention his ID so I don't get banned, that told me in a recent post I didn't need any subs in my room. He doesn't know me from adam, or my room from the whitehouse, or apparently poop-from-shinola. He doesn't know anything about my listening preferences or whether I like Coke or Pepsi. Yet, he presumed to just flat out tell me what I didn't need and what I needed to do.

Because I like posting here, I didn't respond at all. Discretion seemed the better part of valor

Yours probably sounds fine. If I had to be honest, the Klipsch speakers he brought actually sounded good in here. It was that I had just come down off of the monster JBLs and we had those hooked up on 'A' channel, and his on 'B'. We didn't play them simultaneously, but we did switch back and forth. Plus he's a hemorrhoid so I can't possibly let him win, because I would never hear the end of it.

Subs and bookshelf style has worked in here before. As it stands, I have one cabinet for a sub all cut and ready to go together. My buddy (the hemi) is due here in about an hr to listen to music. How he managed to get a pass from SWMBO, is telling enough that he is serious about this audio stuff again.

 

[sterling shoote]

Remember the 70's. The JBL L100, a consumer version of a near-field monitor called the 4410, I think, became the largest selling speaker of all time. Thing is, no one then referred to it as a near-field speaker. It was called a book shelf speaker. I have a later floor standing version of the L 100 called the L100t3. I'm still very happy with these speakers which serve as the mains in my home theatre. The only area where they do not satisfy is when I am playing at an insane SPL. At high SPL the sound is, it seems, a little forced. The solution is a pair of JBL L300's, if I could find a pair. The new JBL 4367's would also get the job done; but, they're about $15,000. That would take me about a year to save for and wipe out my checking account. At any rate, there is a new near-field from JBL Professional 3 Series called the LSR 305. This is an active monitor which sells for about $150. These have had rave reviews. I think they might be ideal for folks wanting the most for the least. Maybe they would match up well to the OPPO Sonica DAC?

 

[lovinthehd]

Remember the 70's. The JBL L100, a consumer version of a near-field monitor called the 4410, I think, became the largest selling speaker of all time. Thing is, no one then referred to it as a near-field speaker. It was called a book shelf speaker. I have a later floor standing version of the L 100 called the L100t3. I'm still very happy with these speakers which serve as the mains in my home theatre. The only area where they do not satisfy is when I am playing at an insane SPL. At high SPL the sound is, it seems, a little forced. The solution is a pair of JBL L300's, if I could find a pair. The new JBL 4367's would also get the job done; but, they're about $15,000. That would take me about a year to save for and wipe out my checking account. At any rate, there is a new near-field from JBL Professional 3 Series called the LSR 305. This is an active monitor which sells for about $150. These have had rave reviews. I think they might be ideal for folks wanting the most for the least.

Lol loved visiting a few friends' houses with L100s, at the time I had picked Advent Originals. Thought I shoulda saved up a bit more for the L100s but I was still happy with the Advents and had gotten a car where my money outside of records was going. Good ol' days. Believe it was based on the 4311.

 

[sterling shoote]

Lol loved visiting a few friends' houses with L100s, at the time I had picked Advent Originals. Thought I shoulda saved up a bit more for the L100s but I was still happy with the Advents and had gotten a car where my money outside of records was going. Good ol' days. Believe it was based on the 4311.

Yes, you're right, 4310/4311. WOW! Those were rockin days back then.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yes, you're right, 4310/4311. WOW! Those were rockin days back then.

LOL see you're still using some stuff from the way back (PS4750) like me (Technics SL1200mk2 but with the Shure V97xE). It was a special time for audio gear as well as rock/folk/r&b/jazz sorts of music....

 

[MrBoat]

Back then our rooms were better designed for acoustics. 8 ft ceilings with "acoustical" (popcorn) texture, heavy drapes and heavy shag carpet.

 

[djreef]

With music, at least? Just curious, with noticing all the topics seemingly revolving around room correction in some form or another. I don't know about other people, but I don't know very many people that care about hi-fi quality, at least in the circles I frequent. It's half of why I have to come to the internet to discuss these things. With that said, isn't it feasible for most people that don't entertain regularly, to instead start out in the near field sense, perfecting that, and then working outward from there if they need to? I bet a LOT of people would discover they did not need to go any further, and save a lot of headaches and money too.

A few observations as of late. My home is small by today's standards, built of a time when the average American home was around 1500 sq. ft. My listening area is my living area as well, meaning, I am always right here. This computer is in it as well. In other words, it is pretty much pointless for me to care what the rest of this area sounds like. What I do have is, undistorted music quality to pretty loud levels. More than I care to know because I will not push it to anywhere near distortion levels, neither with the speakers or the power source itself. So, no matter where I am in any of the connected parts of the house, it may not be audiophile quality, but it's pretty darn nice. Just louder, or quieter.

Now the near field (not so much the pinpointed near field) sweet spot, encompasses an area of about 100 sq ft. I could comfortably cram 6 people in that space if they felt social, or, I liked them enough in the first place to be that close to them anyway. But, that's how we used to do it. Back when music was a thing. For those younger folks, it's true. We used to make it a point to go jam out at someone's home. When a person managed to get a new vinyl release before anyone else, these listening marathons could last days. Everything else, beverages or otherwise, were in easy reach, separated at most by a coffee table. I used to have to keep my eye on my Bic lighter.

At any rate, the important thing, being it's mostly just me that cares here, I have that place I can go for my hi-fi fix. With everything I care about roughly at arms length. I can turn 90 degrees away from the direction of the speakers and still be immersed in great sound.

The only reason I post this is because it seems at times that the basis of these discussions assumes most people have a theater layout, or that it revolves around that possibility or roughly the same end goals. That perhaps near field quality is a last resort more than it is an option. Perhaps I am not understanding what near field actually represents. Is it just a byproduct more than an end goal? This is greatly what is separating the old audio school from the new, at least with the style of audiophilia that I followed back in the day. This is why I don't recall it being so difficult to Wi-Fi back then. Often times now, being misunderstood instead, for being subjected to substandard equipment back then. I'm like, no! We used to hear some great things!

I think there is room in this quest for a more renegade approach to hi fidelity experience that revolves around the near field experience. Something along the lines of, turning your high-backed computer chair around, digging your heels onto the coffee table, and dragging yourself into the sweet spot to just get sacked by great audio, if you can't have it any other way. With more emphasis on that perfect spot, regardless of it being as selfish as it may seem.

Having a dedicated music room essentially designed for one person, I feel I may be at the apex of what you have described. I am an imaging junky, so nearfield suits me more than farfield given the size constraints of my space. One of the direct benefits of nearfiled listening is the minimization of interaural crosstalk that has a tendency to smear the center fill and mess with instrument localization. Spacial cues become more apparent and localization of vocals and instruments takes much less effort the closer you are to the source. Plus, as stated earlier nearfield allows you to maximize power to sound output and take advantage of increased dynamics/tactile impact generated by being closer to the speakers.

DJ

 

[Bucknekked]

• Back then our rooms were better designed for acoustics. 8 ft ceilings with "acoustical" (popcorn) texture, heavy drapes and heavy shag carpet.

  MrBoat

You would actually claim a usefull purpose for popcorn ceilings and shag? That is hilarious. I suppose the olive colored refrigerators kept the beverages colder because of their color as well.

I remember all of those things. Had them all. Something helped the music sound good in those days. This is as good a reason as I can think of.

 

[Bucknekked]

Having a dedicated music room essentially designed for one person, I feel I may be at the apex of what you have described. I am an imaging junky, so nearfield suits me more than farfield given the size constraints of my space. One of the direct benefits of nearfiled listening is the minimization of interaural crosstalk that has a tendency to smear the center fill and mess with instrument localization. Spacial cues become more apparent and localization of vocals and instruments takes much less effort the closer you are to the source. Plus, as stated earlier nearfield allows you to maximize power to sound output and take advantage of increased dynamics/tactile impact generated by being closer to the speakers.

DJ

DJ
I am a newbie to the forum and I have not mastered the purdy talk of so many veterans. If you don't mind I will save your response on near field listening in small spaces. It's purdy talk.

Then when some moron comes in and tells me my space is jacked or my equipment choices show poor parentage, I can whip out this beautifully put together description. It will disguise my newbness until I can master the lingo enough to survive on my own in the wild.

 

[Bucknekked]

Back then our rooms were better designed for acoustics. 8 ft ceilings with "acoustical" (popcorn) texture, heavy drapes and heavy shag carpet.

MrBoat

I have discovered an entirely new aspect of what makes a room sound good. A previous post on this forum discovered audio gold. I kid you not, they may have discovered the secret to a sweet room. It's "even temperature and barometric pressure".

Here is the quote. I ain't making this up. I don't have the vocabulary.

"The speed of sound is directly related to the density of the material is travels through, except an ideal gas, where temperature is the driving factor. Since we are not listening while we have our head under water (well most people on this site anyway) , we should pay attention to acoustic impedance. Since no household room has perfect isothermal conditions, there are going to be boundries (temperature variations). Uniform isothermal conditions have uniform acoustic impedances. Variations in temperature (it takes less than 1 degree C) creat different impedance zones where reflections occur. (We use acoustic impedance all the time when performing ultrasonic testing. When testing, we want these reflections, and use them to find or not find imperfections.) When these reflections occur in air, the original sound wave is attenuated and what you hear can sound muddy (at the extremes). It took a long time to say that the actual base temperature of your listening environment is not as important as temperature uniformity."

There you have it. Temperature uniformity. Popcorn ceilings and shag gave us temperature uniformity.

 

[Swerd]

Here is the quote. I ain't making this up. I don't have the vocabulary.

"The speed of sound is directly related to the density of the material is travels through, except an ideal gas, where temperature is the driving factor. Since we are not listening while we have our head under water (well most people on this site anyway) , we should pay attention to acoustic impedance. Since no household room has perfect isothermal conditions, there are going to be boundries (temperature variations). Uniform isothermal conditions have uniform acoustic impedances. Variations in temperature (it takes less than 1 degree C) creat different impedance zones where reflections occur. (We use acoustic impedance all the time when performing ultrasonic testing. When testing, we want these reflections, and use them to find or not find imperfections.) When these reflections occur in air, the original sound wave is attenuated and what you hear can sound muddy (at the extremes). It took a long time to say that the actual base temperature of your listening environment is not as important as temperature uniformity."

There you have it. Temperature uniformity. Popcorn ceilings and shag gave us temperature uniformity.

LOL . Talk about taking a tiny fact and blowing it way out of proportion. If BS was music, this guy would be an entire brass band.

 

[MrBoat]

MrBoat

I have discovered an entirely new aspect of what makes a room sound good. A previous post on this forum discovered audio gold. I kid you not, they may have discovered the secret to a sweet room. It's "even temperature and barometric pressure".

Here is the quote. I ain't making this up. I don't have the vocabulary.

"The speed of sound is directly related to the density of the material is travels through, except an ideal gas, where temperature is the driving factor. Since we are not listening while we have our head under water (well most people on this site anyway) , we should pay attention to acoustic impedance. Since no household room has perfect isothermal conditions, there are going to be boundries (temperature variations). Uniform isothermal conditions have uniform acoustic impedances. Variations in temperature (it takes less than 1 degree C) creat different impedance zones where reflections occur. (We use acoustic impedance all the time when performing ultrasonic testing. When testing, we want these reflections, and use them to find or not find imperfections.) When these reflections occur in air, the original sound wave is attenuated and what you hear can sound muddy (at the extremes). It took a long time to say that the actual base temperature of your listening environment is not as important as temperature uniformity."

There you have it. Temperature uniformity. Popcorn ceilings and shag gave us temperature uniformity.

I gather by your responses you got the 'tongue-in cheek' intent of my post.

Here's a better one. Back when we were starting out in audio, most of our homes were 'ported.' We spent as much, or more time with our windows/doors open than shut. Now most people's homes are 'sealed' and with redundancy to that effect. Any air that gets in and out is going to be thru a HEPA filter.

Or, how about. . . ."Global Warming." lol. . . .our air molecules aren't the same size as they used to be.

I'm half kidding, mostly because how old school audiophilia is often scoffed at as being unevolved and cheap, to the point of being completely disqualified in most cases. Yet with all of this new data on the subject, people with budget in hand and all of this knowledge, their self-built home, wired to the hilt for every imaginable power, or network possibility, yet they build their rooms and layout for the worst possible audio scenario, because now, the 'open' floor plan is all the rage. I have a suggestion to that end. If they want open, go the hell outside! Build your rooms and ceilings instead for energy efficiency and pleasant acoustics. Both of which probably live in the same realm somehow by default! Why are families spending so much money and using so much space to get so far away from each other?

I still believe the audio engineers of the time knew what they were doing and, other than surround/3d effects? I am not hearing $20-50k worth of difference with audio quality, regardless of the data inflicted upon it.

 

[MrBoat]

Having a dedicated music room essentially designed for one person, I feel I may be at the apex of what you have described. I am an imaging junky, so nearfield suits me more than farfield given the size constraints of my space. One of the direct benefits of nearfiled listening is the minimization of interaural crosstalk that has a tendency to smear the center fill and mess with instrument localization. Spacial cues become more apparent and localization of vocals and instruments takes much less effort the closer you are to the source. Plus, as stated earlier nearfield allows you to maximize power to sound output and take advantage of increased dynamics/tactile impact generated by being closer to the speakers.

DJ

I agree with this. Way back when, this is also how we got to know every distinct quality with our main speakers. Anyone who remembers being serious with audio back then will remember having analyzed them to every minute detail over time. If there was something they thought they could do better with, they could audition a new pair without being so effected by showroom trickery if the salesman was accommodating enough. Most were.

 

[Bucknekked]

I gather by your responses you got the 'tongue-in cheek' intent of my post.

I still believe the audio engineers of the time knew what they were doing and, other than surround/3d effects? I am not hearing $20-50k worth of difference with audio quality, regardless of the data inflicted upon it.

We are on the same page. However, not all of our audioholic brethren are even in the same library, let alone the same page. Here is a sampling from a thread I stopped watching because it just got plain weird.

Again, its a quote, I can't make this stuff up. For this, I don't even have the imagination.
Its only one paragraph out of 6 paragraphs this length in the response. At least he uses paragraphs.

"Even if you stick with 7.1, 5.1, or 3.1, Atmos is superior, because instead of mixing audio into discrete channels, producers can place them in space, and the decoder can figure out how to best represent that space on the available sound channels. Without Atmos or dts x, a producer would be required to mix a ridiculous amount of audio channels. Atmos theaters are either going or already using much more than a 7.1.4 configuration. Just from photos I've seen one theater with 16 different speakers, all discrete. Try fitting a 22+ channel soundtrack onto a Blu ray"

The poster goes on to recommend that "40 channels" is the appropriate number of channels for HT.

Obviously we are not qualified to consume the same thermally unstable and inconsistent air as folk who are able to conceive and implement 40 channel sound systems.

How did the listening go last evening? I assume your visitor brought CD's to consume. Any good selections? I have some more recommendations if you're ready

 

[djreef]

We are on the same page. However, not all of our audioholic brethren are even in the same library, let alone the same page. Here is a sampling from a thread I stopped watching because it just got plain weird.

Again, its a quote, I can't make this stuff up. For this, I don't even have the imagination.
Its only one paragraph out of 6 paragraphs this length in the response. At least he uses paragraphs.

"Even if you stick with 7.1, 5.1, or 3.1, Atmos is superior, because instead of mixing audio into discrete channels, producers can place them in space, and the decoder can figure out how to best represent that space on the available sound channels. Without Atmos or dts x, a producer would be required to mix a ridiculous amount of audio channels. Atmos theaters are either going or already using much more than a 7.1.4 configuration. Just from photos I've seen one theater with 16 different speakers, all discrete. Try fitting a 22+ channel soundtrack onto a Blu ray"

The poster goes on to recommend that "40 channels" is the appropriate number of channels for HT.

Obviously we are not qualified to consume the same thermally unstable and inconsistent air as folk who are able to conceive and implement 40 channel sound systems.

Good Gawd. Really?

Some folks should just stick their head between 2 speakers and jam out.

DJ