Why doesn't nearfield listening get more love?

[Joaquinín]

What do you think of this?:
https://audioxpress.com/article/non-linear-amplitude-modulation-of-loudspeakers
"Consequences for Listening
The significant relationship by a factor of approximately 10000 of the membrane travel amplitudes between recording and play back leads to a non-linearity, generating inter alia harmonic and intermodulation distortions. At deep notes and high SPL these distortions can easily dominate the distortions generated by a good loudspeaker chassis at relatively small listening distances. This may, for example, be the case for monitor rooms. Consequently, one must not go below a minimum listening distance (e.g., 3m) to achieve a fairly undistorted sound experience."
I have a very good setup at workplace (nearfield Neumann Kh-80 + Arendal 1723 1S sub; Dirac Live Bass Control; the room is very spacious and also very well damped acoustically). My home speakers are certainly not as neutral (BC Acoustique Gange + BK XLS300 sub below 50hz), but they sound subjectively "cleaner/purer" at 3.5 meters distance (without any digital room correction!). The workplace sound is certainly more neutral, but at home everything is more relaxed and less grainy...

 

[respice finem]

In my room 0.5 meters/1.64 ft listening distance to my speakers, then I might as well use headphones.

I may have missed this in the thread, but has it addressed or emphasized the advantages of point source speakers for near field listening?
Intuitively, if I were to have speakers placed at 1-0.5 meters/3.3-1.64 ft, I would want some good point source speakers.

It may be subjective, but at least with my 1,3 m desktop setup, I hear "normally". Maybe it would be different at half the distance.

 

[Flaesh]

example.

Vifa TC\TG9, Joachim Gerhard hat-phones

I don't use headphones for music at all. But just in case (for example, listen to matt test for comparation)), I have these:

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, I use headphones at the desk for music—no loudspeakers there currently. Which has the side effect of delineating relaxed listening in a bigger space from work-adjacent stuff.

Interesting, that makes sense.

For my work, I’m listening in nearfield all day long. And I may be working for a very long stretches (anywhere between 10 to 14 hours… sometimes 24 or almost 48 hours in a row)… and yet somehow I’m still able to separate that work from listening to my two channel system, and I still feel compelled to fire up the audio system to relax after work.

 

[Axo1989]

Interesting, that makes sense.

For my work, I’m listening in nearfield all day long. And I may be working for a very long stretches (anywhere between 10 to 14 hours… sometimes 24 or almost 48 hours in a row)… and yet somehow I’m still able to separate that work from listening to my two channel system, and I still feel compelled to fire up the audio system to relax after work.

Such dedication! But it's interesting, when working at home and getting into an area of eg programming or UI intransigence, it's often effective/rewarding to head over to the listening room (currently at the other end of the house) and unwind to some music. Even if I've been listening to music at the desk. The latter was often essential when I worked in other people's offices, but not required so much at may own.

 

[Mort]

Some reasons for near field setup not being more popular:
- Proper near field listening is more or less a solo experience. Many people prefer to have something better suited to group listening experience.
- Some people want to have big tower speakers, which are not suitable for near field listening.
- HiFi equipment manufacturers and sellers typically preach the minimum of 2 m (6.5 ft) triangle sermon, and many customers tend to believe them.
- While the importance of room acoustics has gained wider recognition lately, there are still lots of customers who are more or less oblivious of it.
- A near field setup in a living room is often frowned upon by the family members that are more aesthetically sensitive.
- Some people seem to prefer more reverberant sound.

That's a good list. I would add that many systems are based around a screen, which is usually midfield.

 

[Raiju]

25 year old Creative desktop speakers (single driver) plugged into a 20 year old passive pc. It is my reference system

But seriously, there is no bass but it so immersive. I mostly listen to new music first on them to see if I like it. Never been able to replicate that to a room setup.

 

[pablolie]

25 year old Creative desktop speakers (single driver) plugged into a 20 year old passive pc. It is my reference system

But seriously, there is no bass but it so immersive. I mostly listen to new music first on them to see if I like it. Never been able to replicate that to a room setup.

I used to have Monsoon MM-700 planar desktop speakers, and at the time (early 2000s) they sounded awesome... wonder if I'd still think so. Many others came and went, and I settled on Audioengine A2s long time ago, and near field they still sound very convincing - and their small size makes them perfect for me. I don't even need a sub to enjoy the music that comes out of them. That said, I use them mostly as background music while I work - however the way I have them set up I truly enjoy the clear, yet small stage and overall sound they produce. If I want more, I can always switch to headphones at the click of a button.

 

[JohnnyNG]

My coax speakers are great for nearfield but it makes the image tiny, like tilt-shifted audio.

 

[Soundmixer]

I personally find nearfield listening much less enjoyable since there's almost no envelopment, and less width and depth to the stereo images.

You are correct unless you have a multichannel setup. I have a 7.1.2 immersive system in a small room (with small minimonitors and a single 15" sub) with all of the speakers (including overheads) 5.5 feet from the MLP. You get envelopment, precise object localization, and excellent soundstage width and depth.

 

[Mort]

My coax speakers are great for nearfield but it makes the image tiny, like tilt-shifted audio.

Desktop nearfield? Yeah.

 

[Arindal]

My coax speakers are great for nearfield but it makes the image tiny, like tilt-shifted audio.

Which models? There are some coaxial studio monitors which are infamous for overly proximate projection plane and lack of ambience.

Did you try expanding the speaker base, so the distance between speakers is bigger than the listening distance?

 

[JohnnyNG]

Which models? There are some coaxial studio monitors which are infamous for overly proximate projection plane and lack of ambience.

Did you try expanding the speaker base, so the distance between speakers is bigger than the listening distance?

I use the Sica 5.5C1.5CP-8 in a DIY. I don't do desktop audio any more but I recall the same thing with my Equator D5 which were pretty far apart.

 

[Mort]

I think nearfield partly gets a bad rap because there are so many suboptimal desk setups.

I listen to my 8361a's at 1.5m and it's got a substantial soundstage width. It's not as big as a wide directivity system but it's not tiny like my desk monitors provide.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Respectfully, I don't participate in threads from OPs who feature AI slop, which I consider pernicious. Forums for me are for the voices of human beings, not evil robots that scrape and plagiarize the words of human beings.

The topic appeals to me, but I'm out.

I have no problem with people using and quoting AI provided the the particular AI engine is identified and fully credited.

In fact I'd rather have that than someone presenting AI results as their own, original content when it is not.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I think the OP's AI got it about right. Additionally for me the is a the practical issue of setting up a near-field listening station. Sitting in front of a computer is easy enough, but that's not my idea of comfort for a one hour or longer listening session.

 

[Arindal]

I use the Sica 5.5C1.5CP-8 in a DIY.

I am not familiar with this driver, but its geometry might be hinting to a rather narrow dispersion of the tweeter´s upper bands (due to the midrange cone acting like a waveguide), which is a typical explanation for what you were describing.

Maybe it is a good idea to try a coaxial which is truly near field-optimized.

 

[JohnnyNG]

I am not familiar with this driver, but its geometry might be hinting to a rather narrow dispersion of the tweeter´s upper bands (due to the midrange cone acting like a waveguide), which is a typical explanation for what you were describing.

Maybe it is a good idea to try a coaxial which is truly near field-optimized.

Not interested in nearfield for my mains (I do use a NF sub) but good info.

 

[Bugal1998]

Not sure the premise is true, but prior comments about comfort and relaxation ring true for me. There's also less to talk about and optimize with near-field which may be why there are fewer topics.

I prefer the near-field setup more then the living room system... but the near-field isn't playing in the same league as the system in a dedicted and optimized room. The sense of scale, envelopment, spaciousness, and dynamics are on a level a near-field system can't begin to approach. Near-field is easy to get good results. Far-field is far more challenging but also far more rewarding (at least to this listener).

 

[xrqp]

I love nearfield. My couch is on sliders so I can move it near or far. I got Perlisten R7T speakers because they are one of the few large speakers that are good for nearfield (per James Larson review at Audioholics, and I think he is correct). IEM's are the nearest fields and a lot of people like those for the reasons you listed.
But alas the bell curve puts medium field as the most popular, so maybe that is why you feel it is underappreciated. People like space, and it is more like a live performance if you have some distance. Sometimes the wall reflections are good, which is another strength of the R7T's.