Is THIS near field listening?

[himadri]

Hi
After replacing my Deftech BP7004 with Usher Mini Dancer1 in my stereo system (my other components are denon pma2000ivr integrated + denon dcd700ae+ qed cables/ interconnects), I have been playing around with various placements in my 12'x14' room.Primarily, because the earlier speaker placement (about 2' from back wall and 3 feet from side wall, 6' between speakers and listening position 7' away ) was not ideal for the ushers since the bass modes were an issue.
I observed that placing the speakers roughly around the center of the room (6.25' from back wall,3.5' from side wall, 5' between speakers and listening position 5' away) :
1)the bass was tight and tuneful ,
2)sidewall reflections were less hence better sound staging (though a bit congested).
3)holographic sound staging with depth of about 2' behind the speakers.
4)no major room treatment required.
5) at 9-9.5 o clock, the denon was just able to extract enough details to enjoy various kinds of music. Further increase smeared the soundstage.
This was a new experience and at present I am enjoying it.

Any other EXPERIENCES with NEAR FIELD LISTENING?
CHEERS
HIMADRI

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

... listening position 5' away

Not as I understand it, no.

"Nearfield" is reach out and touch your speakers. Nearfield is the closest speakers get to headphones. Nearfield is the studio-monitoring/PC-audio setup.

Maybe it's the wrong word, but what matters is that you seem to be doing interesting experiments with your speaker placement, and getting great results

 

[odyssey]

Nearfield is not about whether you can touch the speakers, its about forming an equilateral triangle (or the height of the triangle being a bit shorter) with the speakers and the listener.

Cardas Audio

cheers

 

[himadri]

Thanks Thad and Sridhar
Well, the Cardas document just explains what I was experiencing. I have also toed in the speakers somewhat for better focus.
Does the Mini Dancer1 being 2 way i.e with lesser drivers and simpler crossover, contribute in any way to this near field experience?
Actually, with the listening height being level with the tweeters, the source also tends to get gets localized as a point source at a level between the tweeter and the midrange/woofer.
The only major drawback is the sweet spot is extremely narrow and suitable for single person only.
Cheers
Himadri

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Nearfield is not about whether you can touch the speakers, its about forming an equilateral triangle (or the height of the triangle being a bit shorter) with the speakers and the listener.

"touch" was metaphorical. I can't touch my monitor speakers, but I can touch the centre of the monitor that is in the middle of them.

Maybe the hifi world has a different definition to the studio world, but I don't think that a ten-foot equilateral setup could be defined as nearfield. Near means near!

EDIT...

A very quick Google seems to suggest that three to five feet qualifies, so the five-foot triangle is in --- but distance is certainly in there, not just the shape of the triangle. All stereo sound perception is going to depend on that triangle of speakers and listener: the idea of a sweet spot depends upon it.


.

 

[rana_kirti]

so...

can a regular book shelf like a wharf 10.1 or b&w 685 or any other bookshelf with a stereo amplifier be used for near field listening ? Like say maybe at a desktop with a PC ?

or is that too close...? coz these speakers at mid volume levels upwards would anyways be too loud at that distance for comfortable listening....

What do you guys say ?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't think it is a problem with volume. The knob on my monitor speakers never gets far up the scale at all, even for day-time listening at the PC.

I'd have thought that the best is a speaker designed for the job, but I am sure that there are many that will be good in either role. The type of speaker that I think is usually described as "nearfield" is the studio-monitor segment. This kind of speaker is made and meant to be revealing and unforgiving. That is an attribute that you may or may not want. There are a number of threads about speakers suitable for use with a PC: I think any one of them will have answers to your question.

 

[rana_kirti]

keeping the studio-monitor segment aside....

my point being yes there are entry level options like logitech, altec and then slightly higher end like audio engine A5, epoz aktimates etc... which are good desktop speakers....

but if some one had to spend more and get a pair of speakers + stereo amp... would that be an overkill of desktop listening...?

 

[Kevin Mario DSouza]

Hi all,

I'm going to add a bit to this discussion.

Near-field monitoring was a concept born in the studio world, in the days when control rooms were huge, mixing desks were larger than queen size beds and you needed binoculors to see your main room monitors. In such a set-up, the Main monitors, (yep, far-fields) brought you their sound along with all the glorious reflections of the room, the console and the numerous racks in the room. Not a huge problem in itself, but when you worked across different studios for different parts of the project and each had a different sound, happiness was elusive.

Near-fields were then born to bring in monitoring to the "near-field", necessarily close to the engineer, so as to bring this engineer minimal influences from the room, console, racks, etc. This concept worked beautifully and has continued to date, to be standard practise.

Near-field therefore, no matter what the application, is the proper term, only if it has minimal coupling with the surfaces around and does imply being closeby.
So, a specifically bought near-field monitor kept quite away from you and close to a large number of surfaces is not being used as a near-field monitor.

I'm sorry I've just gone on, but I hope it helps someone.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I think that is spot on. A pair of desktop speakers, as you sit at your monitor, is, by definition, near-field. A pair of speakers in the corners of the room, as you lounge in your arm chair, is not.

They might be the same speakers. The next question is, which use were those speakers designed for. After that, if buying desktop speakers, the following question is whether one actually wants the sound of studio monitors, which are intended to to be accurate to the point of unforgiving, or whether something a little easier to listen to would be better.

 

[denom]

Great Discussion with respect to this thread,

Kevin, your background related to studio/sound engineer's point of view is very much appreciated, do keep your posts on them coming/start some too!

Regards

 

[Kevin Mario DSouza]

if buying desktop speakers, the following question is whether one actually wants the sound of studio monitors, which are intended to to be accurate to the point of unforgiving, or whether something a little easier to listen to would be better.

Right on.

I've come across quite a few people over the years who have enquired about studio monitors for use at home. The general assumption is that since they are pro, they should sound better. Far from it!

Pro monitors are meant for work. Stuff that's put through them is raw audio that's not yet mixed and mastered - read controlled. These monitors take a beating that home speakers are not put through. Their purpose is completely different. They are also so flat (or supposed to be), that material heard on them is quite uncomplementary.

Home speakers on the other hand are tweaked further to sound good. Since they are not punished like pro monitors, a lot more refinement can go into them. I'm anticipating an uproar from the pro community, especially designers who read this. But hey, this is true.

I've designed studios where professionals from the field seem impressed on listening, and other listeners leave with question marks on their faces (really? that's supposed to sound good?)

It's really like comparing a really good truck with a really good sedan.
Remarkable engineering gone into both. The truck may cost much more, is tougher, has more space, etc. But the ride is much better and luxurious in the sedan. At the end of the day, which is better? Simple. The truck for work, and the sedan for play. Diffrent vehicles, different purposes.

Cheers.

 

[Kevin Mario DSouza]

Great Discussion with respect to this thread,

Kevin, your background related to studio/sound engineer's point of view is very much appreciated, do keep your posts on them coming/start some too!

Regards

Thanks for making me feel welcome.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

My studio monitors are well at the consumer end of the market (M-Audio AV40)*. One area in which I find them unforgiving is highly-compressed broadcasting (eg BBC drama, documentaries, etc). It's not that you notice it when you sit down to listen, but, after a short time, you realise that the sound is fatiguing. I could listen for longer on my previous pure-consumer-and-cheaper 2.1 setup. On the other hand, with less compressed or CD sound, they gave me several wow-I-never-heard-that-before moments.

The more-professional KRKs that were playing in the shop where I bought my M-audios have left me wishing, ever after, that I could have a) afforded them and b) brought the weight back on the plane (from Singapore). I'm not very good at the "hifi language" but I'd say that the purity and clarity was amazing. Probably, they would have been even more unforgiving of a bad source.

One of the best sounds I have ever heard was in a TV studio (I was installing a computer in the accounts dept and they gave me a tour). It wasn't even stereo: The guys setting up just had background music on one speaker. I guess this had as much to do with the acoustic properties of the room as the playing equipment.



*they are also in a ridiculous listening position, as my desk is in a room-end alcove, and I sit facing one wall with another just behind me. More than like being inside a speaker than listening to one!

 

[Kevin Mario DSouza]

My studio monitors are well at the consumer end of the market (M-Audio AV40)*. One area in which I find them unforgiving is highly-compressed broadcasting (eg BBC drama, documentaries, etc). It's not that you notice it when you sit down to listen, but, after a short time, you realise that the sound is fatiguing.

My favourite near-field monitors are the Dynaudio BM6A. I trust these completely for my mixes. In a home setup though, most would complain of their lack of power and low end. I find M-Audio too exagerated and KRKs harsh. The M-Audios work well for pop kind of material, the KRKs for rock. The BM6As are versatile. Not heard any material that sounds out of place on them. Again, in the studio sense.