Is Near-field Listening Understated?

[MrBoat]

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.

 

[lovinthehd]

Don't think about it much. When I was listening to records with friends in our bedrooms back in the day it was I suppose nearfield listening but never thought of it that way, we just had small rooms and most parents didn't usually want to listen to what we did. When I worked at a desk prior to retirement I had nearfield speaker setups but didn't do a lot of critical listening as much of the day that was simply not possible nor did I really want to hang out at the office any more than necessary, but glad to work with music as much as I could.

I have usually had my music setup in my various living rooms as an adult and wouldn't call any of those setups nearfield particularly. I suppose my current bedroom setup is fairly nearfield as its relatively small but that's mostly used from the comfort of my bed and been a while since I've entertained in there (partly choice, partly slim pickins) LOL. I don't use a computer chair, I use a laptop on a tv tray in my lap on my couch in my living room and change from music to HT with the remote . I did combine video and multich audio in all my setups over the years (living room, bedroom, workshop) and use each setup for music/tv/movies as I want.

FWIW you are posting in the home theater hardware hangout subforum in a subject labeled general AV discussion

 

[shadyJ]

Near-field mostly means desktop systems or mixing console systems. Typically about an arms-length away. One characteristic it has is more direct sound over reflected sound hitting the listener. The advantages are that since you aren't likely to be pushing the speakers very hard in that proximity, you can use smaller speakers and still have a good dynamic range. Smaller speakers have an easier time projecting a wide dispersion, and smaller enclosures mean easier to reduce cabinet resonance. Something neat to do near-field is place the subwoofer right behind your listening position. Since it is equidistant to your ears, you don't get localization, but you do get a lot of punch without even having to drive the subwoofer really hard.

 

[MrBoat]

Hmmm. . .there has to be some variability with regard to size/power of speakers and how they are aimed or that it must scale up to a certain point. At the moment, I have mine set where they cross at about 8 ft. It makes for a pretty huge and tunable listening area. You just can't have rows of seats, but it sure makes for a pretty high performance personal area, where you can still stretch your legs out. Like screw it. I just want to hear the speakers.

 

[lovinthehd]

LOL I wouldn't call your Tempests near field monitors in any case

 

[ski2xblack]

Near-field listening, as shady pointed out, is all about managing the direct to reflected sound. Because the influence of local acoustics is minimized, it offers an unparalleled glimpse into the mix and is capable of holographic trickery. Unfortunately, this is available only in that one, highly localized and super tiny sweet spot.

Larger speakers like your JBLs and Tempests don't lend themselves to genuine near-field listening distances, but they do represent two distinctly different design philosophies with regard to the speaker/room interaction, allowing you to play with the direct to reflected sound.

Your Tempests, due to the whole controlled directivity aspect of their design, can and do push things toward the "more source, less room" side of things when implemented properly. (If you haven't read THIS yet, check it out, it's the proper method to employ your Tempests.)

Your JBLs have quite different optimal placement requirements. They will involve local acoustics to a higher degree, particularly in the upper registers. Fortunately, we tend to like the sense of envelopment that the reflected sound provides, so long as the speakers' off-axis response is smooth.

 

[MrBoat]

LOL I wouldn't call your Tempests near field monitors in any case

LOL. . .could happen!

 

[MrBoat]

Near-field listening, as shady pointed out, is all about managing the direct to reflected sound. Because the influence of local acoustics is minimized, it offers an unparalleled glimpse into the mix and is capable of holographic trickery. Unfortunately, this is available only in that one, highly localized and super tiny sweet spot.

Larger speakers like your JBLs and Tempests don't lend themselves to genuine near-field listening distances, but they do represent two distinctly different design philosophies with regard to the speaker/room interaction, allowing you to play with the direct to reflected sound.

Your Tempests, due to the whole controlled directivity aspect of their design, can and do push things toward the "more source, less room" side of things when implemented properly. (If you haven't read THIS yet, check it out, it's the proper method to employ your Tempests.)

Your JBLs have quite different optimal placement requirements. They will involve local acoustics to a higher degree, particularly in the upper registers. Fortunately, we tend to like the sense of envelopment that the reflected sound provides, so long as the speakers' off-axis response is smooth.

What I read on that link is almost exactly what I have discovered as I have been experimenting with these Tempests. The effect is immersive listening and it is indeed quite pleasant, and addicting. I do have them toed in a good amount.

With the JBL's I could often hear a difference just turning in my seat. Now I am still getting great sound, even if I have one ear pointed directly at a speaker, and the other away, even. What a neat trick.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[herbu]

Perhaps I am not understanding what near field actually represents.

In my understanding, there is a difference between "near field" and "sweet spot". As shadyJ said, near field is when your speakers are about arm's length away. This is generally at a desk, not the case for home theaters.

The purpose of all the measuring and compensating is to make the sweet spot correspond with your normal listening/watching seat(s). You many live alone and only care about one chair in front of your TV. Maybe you're married and have 2 chairs. Maybe you have a theater with 8 chairs. Maybe you're married but your spouse couldn't care less about the audio.

Whatever your situation and desire, many tools and discussions exist to help maximize the audio experience to YOUR needs.

 

[3db]

Near-field mostly means desktop systems or mixing console systems. Typically about an arms-length away. One characteristic it has is more direct sound over reflected sound hitting the listener. The advantages are that since you aren't likely to be pushing the speakers very hard in that proximity, you can use smaller speakers and still have a good dynamic range. Smaller speakers have an easier time projecting a wide dispersion, and smaller enclosures mean easier to reduce cabinet resonance. Something neat to do near-field is place the subwoofer right behind your listening position. Since it is equidistant to your ears, you don't get localization, but you do get a lot of punch without even having to drive the subwoofer really hard.

The correct definition for near field listening is that the listener is in a position with respect to the speakers where all sound is radiated directly from the drivers and that no reflected sound is heard.

 

[yepimonfire]

The correct definition for near field listening is that the listener is in a position with respect to the speakers where all sound is radiated directly from the drivers and that no reflected sound is heard.

Yup, so listening in bed in a bedroom probably doesn't count. If the tv is directly in front of the end of the bed, you're likely far past the critical distance. http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/04_acoustics_2.html

You can figure out roughly where the nearfield point begins by playing a bass heavy track. Start at the back of the room and keep walking towards the sound source. You'll eventually reach a point, usually around the middle of the room, where bass becomes non-existent. This is the point in the room where the energy of reflected sound is equal to the energy of the direct sound, causing a cancellation. The near complete cancellation happens at low frequencies due to the size and omni directional dispersion of low frequencies vs high frequencies. Right in front of this distance where the bass returns, known as the critical distance, is the near field. Of course, you're still going to hear some reflected sound, but it will be low enough energy compared to the direct sound that it will be masked out.

In a large living room with the sofa closer to the tv than the back wall, it's possible you're already in the near field of the front speakers. For low frequencies, it's highly unlikely you're going to hear only direct sound uncolored by room modes unless you're sitting right in front of a subwoofer in the middle of a large (and I mean mega church size large) room.

Room correction is still a good tool, even if you're seated in an anechoic chamber, solutions like audyssey can flatten out a less than neutral speaker.

 

[Swerd]

I agree with both shadyj and herbu.

Near-field mostly means desktop systems or mixing console systems. Typically about an arms-length away.

In my understanding, there is a difference between "near field" and "sweet spot".

I"ll take it a step further. "Sweet spot" involves the stereo image we hear when two different speakers are used. It can vary as the positions of the speakers and the listener change.

"Near field" listening (vs. Far field listening) is about a single speaker. It's all about distance between the listener and the speaker. It's more understandable if you think of the distance in wavelengths instead of feet. Of course with sound, those wavelengths vary widely from 56 feet at 20 Hz, to 5.6 feet at 200 Hz, to 0.56 feet at 2000 Hz, to 0.056 feet at 20,000 Hz. (Divide the speed of sound, 1126 feet/second, by the frequency in Hz = cycles/second, to get wavelength in feet.)

If the single speaker has one driver, or two drivers co-axially mounted, then near field vs. far field listening distance should make little difference to the listener. But if there are two or more drivers, with some mounting distance between them, then listening distance in wavelengths can matter. Imagine a 2-way speaker with the crossover between the woofer and tweeter set at 2000 Hz, where sound has a wavelength of about 0.6 feet. If the listener sits close enough (near field) he can hear additive or subtractive interference between the two drivers when the sound allows both drivers to operate, roughly the crossover frequency ± one octave. That's sound from 1000 to 4000 Hz. If he moves further away (far field) those differences tend to fade, and the 2-way loud speakers acts more like a speaker with a single driver.

A good crossover designer takes this listening distance into account as the crossover gets developed. Should the waves coming from the woofer & tweeter work well together at arm's length distance, or further, such as 10-12 feet away?

The diagram I borrowed from Wikipedia, shows an antenna radiating electromagnetic waves. If you imagine the antenna is a 2-way speaker with a separate woofer & tweeter, you can see what I'm trying to describe.

For those inclined to read a much longer and better explanation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

 

[ski2xblack]

With the JBL's I could often hear a difference just turning in my seat. Now I am still getting great sound, even if I have one ear pointed directly at a speaker, and the other away, even. What a neat trick.

Yeah, the image stability "trick" is one of the more compelling strengths of your Tempests. A sonic image that doesn't change when you fidget around means one less distraction, one less "tell" that you're listening to a flawed reproduction rather than music.

 

[MrBoat]

The correct definition for near field listening is that the listener is in a position with respect to the speakers where all sound is radiated directly from the drivers and that no reflected sound is heard.

This was my understanding when I searched the term "near field," and there was a variable there. This also more coincides with the ways a lot of us used to listen to 2 channel audio. 2 speakers, toed in, and the further away we needed to fit, generally the more powerful and larger equipment we used. This symmetrical, linear arrangement that I see now? would have been an oddity. Almost always, speakers were toed inward.

Here is a random photo I found just now searching near field. It was concentrating more on the sweet spot than the actual distance. The distance was adjustable to a certain degree.

 

[MrBoat]

I agree with both shadyj and herbu.

I"ll take it a step further. "Sweet spot" involves the stereo image we hear when two different speakers are used. It can vary as the positions of the speakers and the listener change.

"Near field" listening (vs. Far field listening) is about a single speaker. It's all about distance between the listener and the speaker. It's more understandable if you think of the distance in wavelengths instead of feet. Of course with sound, those wavelengths vary widely from 56 feet at 20 Hz, to 5.6 feet at 200 Hz, to 0.56 feet at 2000 Hz, to 0.056 feet at 20,000 Hz. (Divide the speed of sound, 1126 feet/second, by the frequency in Hz = cycles/second, to get wavelength in feet.)

If the single speaker has one driver, or two drivers co-axially mounted, then near field vs. far field listening distance should make little difference to the listener. But if there are two or more drivers, with some mounting distance between them, then listening distance in wavelengths can matter. Imagine a 2-way speaker with the crossover between the woofer and tweeter set at 2000 Hz, where sound has a wavelength of about 0.6 feet. If the listener sits close enough (near field) he can hear additive or subtractive interference between the two drivers when the sound allows both drivers to operate, roughly the crossover frequency ± one octave. That's sound from 1000 to 4000 Hz. If he moves further away (far field) those differences tend to fade, and the 2-way loud speakers acts more like a speaker with a single driver.

A good crossover designer takes this listening distance into account as the crossover gets developed. Should the waves coming from the woofer & tweeter work well together at arm's length distance, or further, such as 10-12 feet away?

The diagram I borrowed from Wikipedia, shows an antenna radiating electromagnetic waves. If you imagine the antenna is a 2-way speaker with a separate woofer & tweeter, you can see what I'm trying to describe.

For those inclined to read a much longer and better explanation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

I read a lot to this effect too. I think that the prescriptions for different room sizes often misses some other, simpler possibilities. That instead of near field or far field, that it is often restricted more to, near field, and 'all' field instead. The latter of which, is what seems to propose the most problems. I was just wondering that other possibilities may exist. Or, that the sweet spot needn't always be so universally accessible.

For example; when someone asks what speakers they need for a small room. This question is asked a lot. It seems as if instead of trying to arrive at an overall, best average, or, lesser of evils in many cases, that the possibility of a point of near perfect audio exists, just for the fact that many speakers these days exist that have very little to no distortion at anywhere near practical, or even the practical extremes of use.

Also, when someone says they are only interested in 2 channel listening for music. More often than not, they seem very cemented in that requirement. I think there's a reason for that. And I think a lot of it has to do with it being more easily obtainable in many cases without much technical sorcery and that perhaps resides somewhere between say, headphones, and surround sound.

 

[MrBoat]

Yup, so listening in bed in a bedroom probably doesn't count. If the tv is directly in front of the end of the bed, you're likely far past the critical distance. http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/04_acoustics_2.html

You can figure out roughly where the nearfield point begins by playing a bass heavy track. Start at the back of the room and keep walking towards the sound source. You'll eventually reach a point, usually around the middle of the room, where bass becomes non-existent. This is the point in the room where the energy of reflected sound is equal to the energy of the direct sound, causing a cancellation. The near complete cancellation happens at low frequencies due to the size and omni directional dispersion of low frequencies vs high frequencies. Right in front of this distance where the bass returns, known as the critical distance, is the near field. Of course, you're still going to hear some reflected sound, but it will be low enough energy compared to the direct sound that it will be masked out.

In a large living room with the sofa closer to the tv than the back wall, it's possible you're already in the near field of the front speakers. For low frequencies, it's highly unlikely you're going to hear only direct sound uncolored by room modes unless you're sitting right in front of a subwoofer in the middle of a large (and I mean mega church size large) room.

Room correction is still a good tool, even if you're seated in an anechoic chamber, solutions like audyssey can flatten out a less than neutral speaker.

I agree with a lot of this. Now I agree with this having little knowledge of modern audio layout. But I remember experiencing this before home theater was even really a thing. Often times, or actually more often than not, we overcame these dead zones with 3 way speakers of 100w or more, with 15" woofers. That common seating arrangements of the time of say, two sofas, or a sofa and two arm chairs perhaps, separated at most by a coffee table, would be in enough of a sweet spot. Often times it involved moving a chair, which was no more inconvenience really, than pulling a dining chair out to eat and then putting it back.

 

[MrBoat]

Yeah, the image stability "trick" is one of the more compelling strengths of your Tempests. A sonic image that doesn't change when you fidget around means one less distraction, one less "tell" that you're listening to a flawed reproduction rather than music.

Yesterday when I was trying this, I had to walk away and come back several times to see if I was imagining things. I ended up turning the volume up and up and the more I did so, the more satisfying it became. I finally backed off when it was obvious I was not going to find a threshold of limitation with regard to the quality of sound that would not be physically damaging. All it really did was expand the sweet spot from roughly the eyeballed crossing center of the toe in path, further back beyond anywhere I would be hanging out for any length of time.

 

[Bucknekked]

This was my understanding when I searched the term "near field," and there was a variable there. This also more coincides with the ways a lot of us used to listen to 2 channel audio. 2 speakers, toed in, and the further away we needed to fit, generally the more powerful and larger equipment we used. This symmetrical, linear arrangement that I see now? would have been an oddity. Almost always, speakers were toed inward.

Here is a random photo I found just now searching near field. It was concentrating more on the sweet spot than the actual distance. The distance was adjustable to a certain degree.

Mr Boat:
I will attach my picture of my listening space because I think it qualifies as a near field listening space.
My media chair, when fully extended and I have assumed the position, places my size 11's between the speakers. That to me, is near field listening. You could do it with your Tempests because you built them and you love them. But, if you were going to choose something new for a near field set up, you might choose something more timid.

What you have is awesome. How you enjoy it is also commendable and worth emulating. You also have some great music pumping out those Tempests. Mr Boat, you have a great setup and are wise enough to enjoy it amidst the chaos of life. It may or may not be near field listening as a technical definition. We are a dying breed.

 

[Bucknekked]

Also, when someone says they are only interested in 2 channel listening for music. More often than not, they seem very cemented in that requirement. I think there's a reason for that. And I think a lot of it has to do with it being more easily obtainable in many cases without much technical sorcery and that perhaps resides somewhere between say, headphones, and surround sound.

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.

 

[MrBoat]

Mr Boat:
I will attach my picture of my listening space because I think it qualifies as a near field listening space.
My media chair, when fully extended and I have assumed the position, places my size 11's between the speakers. That to me, is near field listening. You could do it with your Tempests because you built them and you love them. But, if you were going to choose something new for a near field set up, you might choose something more timid.

What you have is awesome. How you enjoy it is also commendable and worth emulating. You also have some great music pumping out those Tempests. Mr Boat, you have a great setup and are wise enough to enjoy it amidst the chaos of life. It may or may not be near field listening as a technical definition. We are a dying breed.

I have great sounding audio throughout the bulk of the main part of my house by default of the Tempests design, even though that was not my top priority. What I was after was, a totally immersive sweet spot. This function has never inconvenienced me in the past.

It was the more timid/efficient speaker trend over the last couple decades or so, that sent me revisiting larger woofers again. When I planted those giant JBL towers in place of the bookshelfs, I knew I had found audio mecca once again. I've since listened to other bookshelf speakers, including a pair that look exactly like those you post (nice space, btw) in the photo. Also tried a matching pair of tower speakers in the same spot with multiple 6" woofers. They sounded clear enough, but was missing was this 'presence', a 'breath' of immersive, audio presence, that is not dependent on reflection, room gains, or lack thereof.

Nowadays, this 'presence' I speak of, comes by way of comparatively large subwoofers that typically have to be ideally placed. Either way, there is still a large air pump in the mix. I wanted the large air pump on the mids higher off of the floor for the bass guitars, the kick drums and even the lower frequencies of rythm guitar, which often times, ends up being the magically immersive presence with a lot of music that I like.

Is this setup technically correct? Likely not. I have just conveniently categorized it as a different type of personal audiophilia. I get this incredible listening experience without having to fuss with anything or without having to employ an electronic based automatic EQ that doesn't know me from the man in the moon.

The guy who gave me the Denon AVR, and let me audition his speakers here, when I go to his house, his listening room is double the size of mine. Nice furniture, giant movie screen, surround sound, and yet there is something sterile about it that I cannot quite put my finger on and it is not very personal, almost to the point of being uncomfortable, musically. He's also being subdued by the WAF. His speakers are arranged symmetrically perfect, and the first thing I am prompted to do is just go over and mess them up a little. If I did, I am sure it would give he and his wife an OCD based, anxiety attack. He doesn't listen to music much anymore, and he was a big player when we all used to get together to do this back in the day. I suspect his setup is why. I wouldn't want to either in that hospital of a room.

Now when he comes over here, he's right in the middle of my audio mess. He's telling me to play this song or that one and to turn it up. Pausing between tracks to discuss what he just heard. When he goes to leave and it's quiet again, he tells me he felt like he smoked something good and is now coming down from it just by walking outside. He's coming over again tonight and bringing some beers and some cd's. Now he's talking about borrowing my JBLs since I am not using them, so he can set up a room just for this type of listening. The only problem with them being, they weigh about 75lbs each, and if he's thinking of stowing them out of his wife's view until then, it's going to involve a workout each time. I'd do it, but I'm more stubborn than he is and a lot less "whipped."

In spite of the data, I still believe this style of listening solves a lot of issues for actual, ear-based, audiophiles. That instead of being dependent on trends and speakers that may not end up being ideal for each space, the inclusive room corrections and auto EQ'ng, that this option exists. . . .provided the speakers are clear and powerful enough. That one can unseat their mains from their visually acceptable perches, twist them however one can, and get their audio fix, point blank like, room, furniture, WAF be damned.

I'm glad I went bigger on the woofers and was talked into this speaker type. That somebody here could read between my poor explanations. On the same token, I would likely not prescribe this for anyone else.

I'd put a recliner in here but I know me. I would end up falling asleep there with the stereo on 24/7. As it is, I have to pry myself away from it and 'make' myself go to my real bed.