Why doesn't nearfield listening get more love?

[thcdru2k]

I find it more of a challenge to integrate a subwoofer into a smaller room for nearfield. Not impossible just more time consuming.

 

[Soundmixer]

I find it more of a challenge to integrate a subwoofer into a smaller room for nearfield. Not impossible just more time consuming.

I didn't find that to be the case for me.

 

[thcdru2k]

I didn't find that to be the case for me.

You are more skilled than I am. I notice smaller rooms tend to have stronger, more isolated modes.

 

[MrBlueSky4470]

I find it more of a challenge to integrate a subwoofer into a smaller room for nearfield. Not impossible just more time consuming.

I don't get the connection between "smaller rooms" and nearfield listening. Nearfield listening is not a "small room" thing. It's btw also not about listening at a desk. My living room with my nearfield setup is about 350 square feet. My listening distance is about 2 to 3 feet and no, I'm not sitting at a desk with a computer. I don't understand where that common misunderstanding comes from.

 

[thcdru2k]

I get nearfield is just distance, I guess my mind sees a large room and doesn’t want to waste it when you can sit farther back and get more scale out of it.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I get nearfield is just distance, I guess my mind sees a large room and doesn’t want to waste it when you can sit farther back and get more scale out of it.

You could be surprised if you try (for free) nearfield in a big room seating near the centre of the room, the sound will fill the room and give you a spectacular sound field both in depth and width up to the limits of the room, the bigger the better.
Most people associate near field and sitting close to the front wall, because they try it in a small room, rookie mistake.

 

[xrqp]

I asked AI "is there a widely accepted definition for "nearfield listening"? AI replied:

Yes, a widely accepted definition exists based on the ratio of direct to reflected sound: nearfield listening occurs when the listener is positioned close enough that the direct sound from the speakers dominates over sound reflected by room boundaries like walls, floors, and ceilings.

This technique was developed by audio consultant Ed Long and is characterized by placing speakers very close to the listener (typically 4 to 5 feet away) to minimize room acoustics interference. The primary goal is to hear mostly what is coming from the speakers rather than the surrounding environment, effectively creating a listening experience similar to headphones but with a physical soundstage.

Wikipedia said:

"Nearfield" loudspeakers are those which are intended to be three times closer to the listener than the nearest hard surface. Nearfield listening reduces echo, and reduces the impact which poor room acoustics may have on sound.

So the smaller the room, the more reflections, and more difficult to overcome the reflections. So the closer you need to be, and multiple drivers need to integrate very quickly, which fewer can do. I think coaxial would do it best.

I find it more of a challenge to integrate a subwoofer into a smaller room for nearfield. Not impossible just more time consuming.

The lower the frequency also makes it more difficult since the room dimensions are shorter, making the bass standing waves a higher bass frequency that appear more in the music (compared to lower bass) and seem louder.
* If wall to wall is 8 ft (small room) equals the half-wavelength of 70 Hz.
* If wall to wall is 12 ft it equals the half-wavelength 47 Hz.
The 70 Hz will sound louder because ears are more sensitive to it, and louder because it appears more often in music.

The high frequencies are more absorbed by surfaces than the bass, regardless of room size, making bass reflections harder to separate out of the nearfield. In small rooms it is even worse, because all the music, both low and high, does not absorb as much since there is less surface and mass in the walls etc.

These are generalities, and specific rooms may do better or worse and the exact location of ears and speakers has an effect, so some luck is involved. You may have an unlucky combination of factors.

 

[Multiway]

I've got a reasonable sized room.
I sit 4m away from the speakers.

However this could perhaps count as near or nesr'ish field as they are 2 x 70cm square, 7 driver loaded, 55kg Multi Entry Horns.
I also have 2 x 2.4m tall tapped horn subs.
These could easily fill say a large Church or large wedding marquee etc with sound.
These are integrated with the room using DSP with FIR.
REW and RePhase heavily relied on for measuring and setup.
They play nicely at 65 to around max 80dB for me.

 

[Keith_W]

So far nobody has pointed out that there are two meanings for "nearfield/farfield". See @NTK post here for a better explanation. Basically:

1st definition: "far field listening is where the listening position is greater than the critical distance", with the "critical distance" defined as direct sound SPL = reverberant field SPL. This varies by wavelength, speaker radiating pattern, and room treatment.

2nd definition: "far field listening is where the sound source appears compact, i.e. a point source".

 

[Flaesh]

nobody has pointed out that

On the one hand, it's obvious and a bit tiresome to keep mentioning it over and over again for decades. Thank you for taking the time! On the other hand, the confusion persists. And will continue to persist, despite your excellent post.
Incidentally, a friend recently independently invented ultra-near-field (UNF) listening for his gaming PC.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I always sit no more than about 2 meters from the front main speakers, and mine are very large DIY with full-range D'Appolito configuration. It's the best way I know to get the room out of the sound as much as practical.

I remember seeing photos of an accessory meant to block off excess listening room rear wall reflections from the main listening position. It was an easily movable semi-circular acoustically-treated low wall about 4 or so feet high that was placed around the back of the listening chair. It got good response at the trade show it was being demonstrated at, but I've never tried it myself. Seems like a good thing to experiment with to allow greater listening distances from the speakers. It would probably not be compatible with a surround system with back channel speakers though, unless they were placed high enough.

 

[xrqp]

So far nobody has pointed out that there are two meanings for "nearfield/farfield". See @NTK post here for a better explanation.

On the one hand, it's obvious and a bit tiresome to keep mentioning it over and over again for decades. Thank you for taking the time! On the other hand, the confusion persists. And will continue to persist, despite your excellent post.

I think you have shared info with better definitions, compared to the layman sources I used. But I would bet the definition of nearfield will change due to popular misuse, if it has not already.

A word with similar confusion is "literally". It is more often used as an intensifier of figurative expression, and less often used for its first meaning, the opposite of figurative. Sad.

 

[olds1959special]

I love my near field setup with speakers and subs about 3 feet away.

 

[DazST]

I've been really enjoying my new nearfield system in my office. I have the speakers wide enough that I still get a very satisfying soundstage. I've also set it up so I can listen from the couch a bit further away for more of a 'midfield' vibe.

 

[Fongus]

I'm using studio monitors as computer speakers for music and PC gaming so near field is the way to go in my case. My smallish square-shaped, untreated room makes my speakers sound terrible in mid and far field. With near field, the direct sound coming from the speakers is all I hear.

I also don't need powerful amplification because I can already get higher SPL in the near field by virtue of being closer to the speakers.

All that said, I've learned that speaker selection and positioning becomes incredibly important for nearfield to get the most out of it. Things like having the speakers equidistant to each other and with the listening position. Having proper toe-in and speaker height based on the guidelines provided by the manufacturer. All in order to achieve a good stereo image/phantom center and the summing of the speaker drivers as designed.

 

[Blake Klondike]

I use a pair of the old Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf speakers on my desktop. They sound great, matching Amir's review. I got them at Fry's on a $69 a pair closeout sale when there was a Fry's. In the living room or other parts of the house near field is impractical.

when my uncle bought me my first nice stereo system fifteen years ago, he chose the andrew jones speakers, as well. they sound great! people are snobbish about them because they are so inexpensive, but i like them a lot.

 

[Blake Klondike]

I'm using studio monitors as computer speakers for music and PC gaming so near field is the way to go in my case. My smallish square-shaped, untreated room makes my speakers sound terrible in mid and far field. With near field, the direct sound coming from the speakers is all I hear.

I also don't need powerful amplification because I can already get higher SPL in the near field by virtue of being closer to the speakers.

All that said, I've learned that speaker selection and positioning becomes incredibly important for nearfield to get the most out of it. Things like having the speakers equidistant to each other and with the listening position. Having proper toe-in and speaker height based on the guidelines provided by the manufacturer. All in order to achieve a good stereo image/phantom center and the summing of the speaker drivers as designed.

when you get it right, the phantom center image is very satisfying with a near-field setup. i have a pair of small genelecs on my desk and on the rare occasions when i get to listen to them, it's like going to the movies. i love it.