Near field listening target curve?

[outlookrt]

Hello all,

I understand that in-room speaker frequency response should have a downward slope.
But I think I have also read that if listening nearer field a slightly less sloped/flatter response may be more desirable (compared to listening mid/far field).

So my question is, if I'm listening <6ft should I still be aiming for a downward slope of 1db per octave or so, or would something flatter likely be a more preferable target?
What if I'm even closer, let's say listening 3ft/1m for arguments sake?

I realise there's an element of subjectivity as far as preference and things like room furnishings playing a role.
Just looking for some clarity on where I should be aiming as a starting point.

 

[andreasmaaan]

So my question is, if I'm listening <6ft should I still be aiming for a downward slope of 1db per octave or so, or would something flatter likely be a more preferable target?

In most rooms, 6ft will still effectively be in the far-field, i.e. the majority of the sound is likely to be coming from reflections rather than direct sound.

In any case, as to whether you should aim for a particular slope in the in-room response, my answer would be no. You should aim for a direct sound (from the midrange up) that is flat. If your speakers have been independently measured this will be easy to check/correct, or you could take gated measurements yourself to determine this.

If doing the latter, I would recommend taking a number of measurements in 5° or 10° increments centred around the central axis, and EQing so that the average of these measurements (the "listening window") is flat.

A flat direct sound is likely to result in the steady-state in-room response having something of a downward slope, of course. But that is not what you should be aiming for per se, IMHO.

 

[Hipper]

The idea of nearfield listening is to reduce the impact of the room, both in bass and the higher frequencies that reflect, so the listener hears more of the direct sound as opposed to reflections, as andreasmaaan suggests.

In my highly treated room - copious amounts of bass traps plus attempts to reduce reflections - I like a flat frequency response as a starting point. I then adjust to my tastes and as I'm over sixty I suffer from loss of hearing above 10kHz and reduced hearing around 6kHz upwards. It's the percussion that I struggle with and so I've given a boost of 6dB at 8kHz over a wide range, like a tone control might do.

However, whatever you do with slopes what you hear will depend considerably on the quality of the recordings and they are so variable that there is really no one slope that fits all. You can therefore have two or three slopes that suit your favourite recordings, or just have the one slope that does well overall, which is what I've done.

I've often wondered why a downward slope is preferred by most and why it should be so. Is it because of the impact of a typical listening room, some fault in the recordings generally (because of studio design), or the limitations of the recording media (vinyl for example).

 

[digitalfrost]

I listen in the near field and I can influence my target curve titlt in 0.1dB steps if I want. My DRC doesn't do a lot of correction in the higher frequencies, so don't go thinking -11dB@20khz is a huge change to -12dB@20khz. Also, nobody can hear that high and the influence of the 20khz point on lower frequencies is smaller.
See my post in this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...surements-community-project.14929/post-545682

above 1khz, DRC doesn't need to do much if the speakers are good. I think you're asking for a scientific explanation as to how listening distance should influence target curve, and I can't provide any.

If anything I think, listening in the nearfield will provide more relative tweeter level than say somebody sitting 3m away, so I think even more downward tilt than usual could be right. However, that kinda contradicts my previous statement about not much happening above 1khz.

With frequency dependend windowing also influencing the 'strength' of the correction comparing target curves between different DRC solutions only tells half the story, if that. I think the best thing to do is do dial a target curve in that you like and then experiment tilting that more up or down.

 

[Hipper]

It's definitely the case in my treated room that the closer I get to the speakers, or the louder I play the music, I hear more high frequencies.

I'm assuming that is because they lose energy more easily then the lower frequencies.

That's what I find frustrating with the higher frequencies - percussion particularly. The information is often on the recording but it doesn't get to (or through!) my ears. Only by altering the frequency response using EQ/DSP (being careful not to do more harm then good), or by dipping my head down, or cupping or bending my ears, can I hear what's missing.

 

[ilss]

我房间的曲线
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ui4y1L778/

 

[localhost128]

In most rooms, 6ft will still effectively be in the far-field, i.e. the majority of the sound is likely to be coming from reflections rather than direct sound.

could you clarify what you mean when you state the majority of sound is coming from the indirect sound field vs direct? are you inferring of a critical-distance at 6ft in a typical home-residential room?