Near Field Rules

[MrBoat]

It just does. For 2 channel music, at least.

 

[ichigo]

Well you have less reflections, and you can more closely approximate the clarity you get from headphones, so sure. What's even better is running near field with good room correction software like DiracLive.

 

[MrBoat]

Near field can often place you in the recording engineer's and the speaker designer's chair. The designer of the speakers I have hooked up now must have been pretty stoked hearing this initially.

Headphones without the hole in the middle, or the ear cramps.

I've listened this way for most of my life. It was not until I stumbled back into the hobby and found that HT had taken over and just figured that more modern speaks must be different for relying so much on the room. But then I got to thinking, I do not have an audience to entertain, or a large screen to focus on. I also had to remember that near field listening in the past, kept me from upgrading for decades. Lower SPL requirement not only kept distortion levels low, but with the larger speakers I typically prefer, gave me an extra healthy dose of headroom, resulting an easy life for my speakers and amps.

Near field, is where I learned the most about my speakers capabilities and my way around EQ. It's how we got the truth out of speakers when auditioning them in the showroom.

I have a pretty large sweet spot in room, but I still dig getting right up in there and really hearing everything. It's a marvelous thing.

 

[slipperybidness]

Near field can often place you in the recording engineer's and the speaker designer's chair. The designer of the speakers I have hooked up now must have been pretty stoked hearing this initially.

Headphones without the hole in the middle, or the ear cramps.

I've listened this way for most of my life. It was not until I stumbled back into the hobby and found that HT had taken over and just figured that more modern speaks must be different for relying so much on the room. But then I got to thinking, I do not have an audience to entertain, or a large screen to focus on. I also had to remember that near field listening in the past, kept me from upgrading for decades. Lower SPL requirement not only kept distortion levels low, but with the larger speakers I typically prefer, gave me an extra healthy dose of headroom, resulting an easy life for my speakers and amps.

Near field, is where I learned the most about my speakers capabilities and my way around EQ. It's how we got the truth out of speakers when auditioning them in the showroom.

I have a pretty large sweet spot in room, but I still dig getting right up in there and really hearing everything. It's a marvelous thing.

I'm also a big fan of headphones! I think that is even "next level" nearfield in a way.

Years ago, I didn't really "get' headphones.

But, now that I have more experience with them, I realize 2 huge advantages.
1) Room interactions are completely eliminated
2) You get a taste of true high-end for a fraction of the cost of high end loudspeakers!

 

[Good4it]

Headphones are good but the bass is just not there for me.

 

[Irvrobinson]

It just does. For 2 channel music, at least.

It depends on the room. For small rooms it works better. If you're forced to have speakers close to walls near field also has advantages. For some speakers, like the recent KEF LS50 discussion, they're designed for near-field listening, and they work better that way. But if you have big speakers in a large volume room, and you can position the speakers where they sound best, even four feet or more away from boundaries, I like far-field listening a lot better. Near-field never produces a life-like soundstage. Far-field listening can. Big bass may surprise people in the near field, like it does with my apartment system, but it never sounds natural. Just surprising.

 

[slipperybidness]

Headphones are good but the bass is just not there for me.

Headphones can have good bass response, but it is different than a big sub-woofer that you can feel.

And, I absolutely hate bass bloat on headphones!

 

[lovinthehd]

Where I like to listen to music during the day, in larger rooms, nearfield isn't the way I go. It can be nice if stuck at a desk or in a small room, though; my bedroom is fairly small and my setup there does sound quite good, but I'm usually not listening long before I fall asleep

 

[ichigo]

Headphones are good but the bass is just not there for me.

You won't get the bass kick in your guts but a lot of headphones, particularly planar ones, will actually go deeper than most speakers without the aid of a sub.

 

[shadyJ]

You won't get the bass kick in your guts but a lot of headphones, particularly planar ones, will actually go deeper than most speakers without the aid of a sub.

One thing that is critical for getting a good bass response in headphones is the seal they create around your ears. Make sure there is no air leak when wearing closed headphones if you want deep bass.

 

[slipperybidness]

Headphones are good but the bass is just not there for me.

Don't forget about the Basslet

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/basslet/the-basslet-a-wearable-subwoofer-for-your-body

 

[speakerman39]

Headphones are good but the bass is just not there for me.

Roger, my JBL Everest 700 headphones have plenty of bass w/o any bloat whatsoever. They are the best that I have heard/owned. I do like the Bose QC25/35 as they are a bit more clear. But, the JBL's have better low end. However, I am very new to the headphone thing. Even my JBL S500's are no slouches. Might want to check the JBL headphones out sometime.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[ski2xblack]

Near-field never produces a life-like soundstage. Far-field listening can.

I can't quite go along with this part.

Good recordings, specifically those with the appropriate/realistic amount of wetness (either captured or added in production) can produce a superb and life-like soundstage in near-field listening, at least IME. I personally find the feeling of envelopment is far better, akin to cans but more realistic since it's "out there" rather than inside your cranium. Those good recordings can put you right on the conductor's stand, or at the console in the production studio, or in the front row at the show, and the sense of the size of the acoustic space is dictated by the recording, not the influence of your listening room. I love that "walls fall away" effect, it's one of the most compelling aspects of stereo when a good recording goes holographic. I find that far field (specifically two channel) listening has a much harder time pulling off that sort of trickery. With near-field, it's practically inevitable.

I tend to view any means one can take to help their rig "get out of the way" of the music as a good thing. Whether it's mitigating-or even effectively eliminating-the influence of local acoustics, or the dramatic reduction in distortion gained from using speakers low in their safe operating range, or the resulting relatively copious, clean headroom available from both speakers and amps, all of that helps your gear get out of the way, and gets you closer to the music. And that's what it's all about, right?

 

[Irvrobinson]

I can't quite go along with this part.

Ok, I'll modify my statement. Near-field listening has never produced a life-like sound stage for me.

 

[MrBoat]

Headphones can have good bass response, but it is different than a big sub-woofer that you can feel.

And, I absolutely hate bass bloat on headphones!

I hate bass bloat on headphones and car audio.

 

[MrBoat]

Where I like to listen to music during the day, in larger rooms, nearfield isn't the way I go. It can be nice if stuck at a desk or in a small room, though; my bedroom is fairly small and my setup there does sound quite good, but I'm usually not listening long before I fall asleep

I agree and a lot relies on what we are doing and other things either task, or comfort related. I like my in room performance fine. But when I really want to get into it, I go near field. I admit, it can be somewhat inconvenient and time consuming. I usually only do it late at night. The other reason being, I can keep more reasonable SPL with regard to consideration to my neighbors.

 

[MrBoat]

I can't quite go along with this part.

Good recordings, specifically those with the appropriate/realistic amount of wetness (either captured or added in production) can produce a superb and life-like soundstage in near-field listening, at least IME. I personally find the feeling of envelopment is far better, akin to cans but more realistic since it's "out there" rather than inside your cranium. Those good recordings can put you right on the conductor's stand, or at the console in the production studio, or in the front row at the show, and the sense of the size of the acoustic space is dictated by the recording, not the influence of your listening room. I love that "walls fall away" effect, it's one of the most compelling aspects of stereo when a good recording goes holographic. I find that far field (specifically two channel) listening has a much harder time pulling off that sort of trickery. With near-field, it's practically inevitable.

I tend to view any means one can take to help their rig "get out of the way" of the music as a good thing. Whether it's mitigating-or even effectively eliminating-the influence of local acoustics, or the dramatic reduction in distortion gained from using speakers low in their safe operating range, or the resulting relatively copious, clean headroom available from both speakers and amps, all of that helps your gear get out of the way, and gets you closer to the music. And that's what it's all about, right?

That's it in a nutshell. I posted this topic due to the large amount of what ends up obviously as room related issues and a huge amount of troubleshooting and correction to that end. Then people having perhaps, less than stellar, performance related opinions, on brands of speakers we know are good. In room is just one way to judge. I can understand the importance of that in a theater based build.

But, 99% of upgrades and tweaks are for people looking (listening?) for that something extra. The noticeable (albeit subtle) difference they hope to find between say, domes and ribbons, or some other sort of barely audible, euphonic improvement. Some people will work hard at it only to end up with mediocre results. Near field tells you what your speakers should be capable of at their performance core. Then at least one can try to 'grow' that further out into the room, where it ends and why.

I mention this so that some people who have never tried it beyond perhaps a desk top setup will try it with their main speakers (and subs), if for nothing else, to scratch that critical itch, that is mostly the fault of the rooms we live in.

 

[MrBoat]

It depends on the room. For small rooms it works better. If you're forced to have speakers close to walls near field also has advantages. For some speakers, like the recent KEF LS50 discussion, they're designed for near-field listening, and they work better that way. But if you have big speakers in a large volume room, and you can position the speakers where they sound best, even four feet or more away from boundaries, I like far-field listening a lot better. Near-field never produces a life-like soundstage. Far-field listening can. Big bass may surprise people in the near field, like it does with my apartment system, but it never sounds natural. Just surprising.

I manage to get it to work no matter the size of the room. The living room my friends Klipsch are in is huge. I think it's even better. At least for speakers that are not relying on early reflections. But still he has two sofas near that position too, and that helps shrink the room a bit.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I manage to get it to work no matter the size of the room. The living room my friends Klipsch are in is huge. I think it's even better. At least for speakers that are not relying on early reflections. But still he has two sofas near that position too, and that helps shrink the room a bit.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I do both, and my near field system is in no way comparable to my primary system. Two different universes.

 

[MrBoat]

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I do both, and my near field system is in no way comparable to my primary system. Two different universes.

I have near field systems too, but I am not talking about a "near field system." I am talking about a main system with, or without subs, near field style, and not necessarily an equilateral triangle. Also, not placed on a desktop, or other traditional, near field arrangements. I'm talking about speakers placed at an optimal listening height (even if it takes stools or stands) more like stereo at around 6-8ft apart, toed in, with the listener 6ft or less (or whatever happens to be audibly optimal) from a straight line that connects the fronts of the two speakers. Quite a difference.

In spite of current trends, most rooms suck unless it's an acoustically designed space or we get a little lucky. It takes a relatively large amount of fill and clutter to get an echo out of an average room. Take notice how much things change when you paint your rooms and move things out (or even away from the walls) and back in or when home shopping. Most listeners these days are lucky if hunny bunny lets them put speakers in "her" house at all, never mind $5-20k worth of acoustic treatments on top of them.

The amount of EQ it takes to correct a room is not exactly 'natural' sound, either, nor is a comparatively forced, flat response, after the fact.