Wide dispersion near field speaker for hifi listening

[Svarog98]

Does a speaker like this exist? If not, is there a reason to not opt for something like that?

 

[dasdoing]

It will hardly exist, at least not if intended for near field.
but in reality, any speaker can be a near-field speaker IF the drivers are small/close enough.

 

[amadeuswus]

How about the Technics SB-C700, measured here? It's described in the ASR measurement thread as one of the few wide-dispersion coaxial speakers. Seems like it might fit your bill if you can find a pair used, especially if you can eq (or listen a bit off-axis) and do not overdrive them (which seems unlikely in the nearfield). I have a pair set up that way, quite close to the front wall, and they work really well. A clear window into the recording. (And welcome to ASR!)

Technics SB-C700 Review (Coaxial Bookshelf)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Technics SB-C700 coaxial 2-way bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,699. The enclosure is built quite solid and the paint job is first class. Not that it matters but I was surprised to see no marking on the back as...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Why would you have a wide dispersion speaker for near field? As it is the nature of near field you get mostly the direct sound anyhow, so why even bother what is dispersed to the room and limit your speaker options? Could you also quantify “wide” dispersion just to make sure everyone has the same understanding ?

 

[Svarog98]

Why would you have a wide dispersion speaker for near field? As it is the nature of near field you get mostly the direct sound anyhow, so why even bother what is dispersed to the room and limit your speaker options? Could you also quantify “wide” dispersion just to make sure everyone has the same understanding ?

I started this thread with following background:

My listening room is pretty small. To adress this I bought the Lyngdorf TDAI 1120 that has built in DSP which elevates the sound that is really unbelievable if someone didn’t hear it themselves ( I think it’s because the bass is much more linear). I had some speaker that I got used for 20 bucks (some no name 3 way speaker). I want to know how far I can improve the sound quality of my system so I got a pair of Gaithain ME 25 which should be narrow dispersion since it’s made for near field Studio mix.

I make it short: the sound and the imaging is super clear. But I really miss the spaciousness I had before and I’m guessing it’s because of the dispersion of the speakers that differ.
I bought an umik to back up my subjective listening impressions with measurements but I first have to figure out how stuff works.
A nearfield coax with a wider directivity would be an interesting try because it combines the 2 things I like and I want to know if it combines the 2 good or (hopefully not) the 2 bad things of both worlds but I didn’t know if such speaker even exists. And if it doesn’t exist why bother then?

To define wide dispersion for this thread: its more wide than a typical studio monitor. Since I lack knowledge I can’t describe it any better…

 

[amadeuswus]

Why would you have a wide dispersion speaker for near field? As it is the nature of near field you get mostly the direct sound anyhow, so why even bother what is dispersed to the room and limit your speaker options? Could you also quantify “wide” dispersion just to make sure everyone has the same understanding ?

That's a good question. Maybe @napilopez, who commented on his preference (to a point) for wide dispersion speakers in the Technics thread (see link to his post below), has thoughts about that? Maybe beyond some super-nearfield point, and depending on the nearby surfaces, beam width starts to matter even to a nearfield listener.

Technics SB-C700 Review (Coaxial Bookshelf)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Technics SB-C700 coaxial 2-way bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,699. The enclosure is built quite solid and the paint job is first class. Not that it matters but I was surprised to see no marking on the back as...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[napilopez]

Why would you have a wide dispersion speaker for near field? As it is the nature of near field you get mostly the direct sound anyhow, so why even bother what is dispersed to the room and limit your speaker options? Could you also quantify “wide” dispersion just to make sure everyone has the same understanding ?

That's a good question. Maybe @napilopez, who commented on his preference (to a point) for wide dispersion speakers in the Technics thread (see link to his post below), has thoughts about that? Maybe beyond some super-nearfield point, and depending on the nearby surfaces, beam width starts to matter even to a nearfield listener.

Technics SB-C700 Review (Coaxial Bookshelf)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Technics SB-C700 coaxial 2-way bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,699. The enclosure is built quite solid and the paint job is first class. Not that it matters but I was surprised to see no marking on the back as...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Imo it always matters in a typically-sized room. Sure, the impact of wide dispersion might be less when the early reflections are less prominent relative to the direct sound, but they do have a noticeable impact regardless. Otherwise, why even care about directivity in the nearfield at all? Certainly, the difference has been noticeable in my experience.

The point about defining what is "wide" and what is "narrow" is a good one, given that as far as I'm aware, there's no standard around this. I feel like traditionally it has referred to large horns or unique designs vs more traditional bookshelf speakers, but given today's typical speaker choices and the options frequently discussed on this forum, I tend to differentiate between speakers that have deep waveguides -- like neumanns, Genelecs, KEFs, and JBL horns, which all have quite similar horizontal directivity behavior -- vs those that have shallow, small, or no waveguides -- like Focal speakers, Revels or Philharmonic BMRs. This is assuming that horizontal directivity is decent in the first place, without large off-axis dips

I have my own way at looking at these things as I tend to prefer looking at off-axis frequency response graphs rather than polar maps or beamwidth diagrams; I find the latter a bit more intuitive but occasionally a little misleading. But looking through some of Amir's reviews, I think we generally agree on what we classify as wide or narrow. If we look at Amir's Beamwidth graphs, I'd classify 'narrow' speakers as generally having a beamwidth below 60 degrees from ~2khz to 8khz, which is the region that mostly defines our perception of soundstage width.

For example, KEF LS50 meta:

JBL 708i:

Neuman KH150:

Wider speakers are usually above 60 degrees:

Focal Alpha 65 evo:

Technics SB-C700:

Revel F3228Be:

More exotic designs like cardioid, dipole, or omnidirectional speakers need to be interpreted a bit differently, imo, but among the more traditional speakers, this definition works for me.

 

[Thomas_A]

Why would you have a wide dispersion speaker for near field? As it is the nature of near field you get mostly the direct sound anyhow, so why even bother what is dispersed to the room and limit your speaker options? Could you also quantify “wide” dispersion just to make sure everyone has the same understanding ?

You get more of side wall reflections if speaker has wide dispersion vs. narrow dispersion, even in near field.