Near-Field Listening: What Speaker Characteristics Make For the Best Experience?

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
967
375
1,625
71
Chicagoland
I've done a lot of near-field listening, as you can tell from my posts. The primary criteria I've found to be important for a speaker with a woofer, midrange, and tweeter arranged vertically to work well in this context is how much or little you can hear out individual drivers. You don't want to hear each driver as a separate sound source at different positions in space. If you can hear the drivers as separate sound sources, this interferes with imaging and staging coherence. If the woofers are far away from the midrange, and the crossover to the mids is not down around 100 Hz, you will likely be able to hear out the woofer/mid transition if you listen to such a system from the near field. The Harbeth M40.1s have their drivers closely spaced and are truly superb at this, sounding like one big driver from as close as two feet away from the front baffles.

If you do not want to apply high-frequency equalization, you also want speakers which sound naturally balanced in the highs from close up when they are toed in directly toward your ears. Near-field listening works better with the speakers toed in like that. Many if not most speakers will sound a bit or more brighter in this sort of toed-in, near-field set up than they do from further away. Again, the Harbeth Monitor 40.1s are extremely well balanced in the highs even toed in and from very close up--the tweeters don't stick out.

Other speaker types which work well for near-field listening include those with coaxial mounting of the midrange and tweeter. My Gradient Revolution Active speakers are superb from close up and toed in. Since the midrange and tweeter driver centers are at the same point in space, there are no different driver positions which could be detected. And since the crossover to the bass drivers is down around 200 Hz and is a relatively steep 4th order (24 dB/octave), the woofers really don't localize as a sound source in space too easily. I've tried and I just don't detect the woofer positions below the coaxial mid/tweet head unit, even though I also have a column of six additional Gradient woofers (the SW-T, "T" for "Tom" or "Triple" since I'm the only one I know of with such a stack) right behind the Revolutions.

The old Spendor SP1/2 is also excellent in the near field. Even better is the modern BBC derivative, the Stirling LS3/6. With both of these speakers, most of the sound comes from the 8" driver, which crosses over only above 3 kHz to the tweeters. Most fundamental tones thus come from that driver and the high frequencies are spread among two tweeters which are mounted close to the woofer and close to each other. The most natural sounding listening height for near-field listening with these is even with with the lower tweeter.

Another type of driver array that can work reasonably well in my opinion in the near field is any array which is symmetrical around a single point, such as a D'Appolito M-T-M or W-M-T-M-W arrangement. Even a speaker as large and with as many drivers as the Legacy Audio Whisper sounds quite coherent in the near field. In that speaker, the driver layout is symmetrical both vertically and horizontally. The manufacturer used to talk about that array producing a coherent "oval shaped" apparent sound source and I would agree.

But once the drivers are spread fairly far apart on the baffle, absent some sort of symmetrical array, you can pretty much assume that such a speaker is best listened to from at least a few more feet away--say eight feet or more.

The same goes for speakers with horizontally arrayed drivers like many Magnepans.

Large panel speakers generally will suffer some image height stretch when listened to from close up. All images will seem tall. Images may also be horizontally stretched or fuzzy. While some folks may like this "big" effect, since it is constant across source material, it is an effect rather than a revelation of the source material. Thus, even when the whole diaphragm is putting out all frequencies, it is best to listen to such speakers (e.g., the Soundlabs) from a "reasonable distance" rather than close up.

Finally, many "time-aligned" speakers (e.g., most Thiels) really should be listened to from eight feet or more back since the manufacturers and independent testing both indicate that the maximum time coherence between/among the drivers does not occur from closer up where the vertical angle subtended by the drivers is greater.


 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
I had a friend over the other day who listened to near-field setup Wilson XLF's...he said it was amazing. I made the comment...is that like sitting In a surround sound phone booth ? he said...good analogy.
 

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
967
375
1,625
71
Chicagoland
A feeling of greater immersion in the sound field is one of the advantages of near-field listening, especially if the subtended angle between the speakers is quite large, like 90 degrees.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
You have more experience than I do in this area, Tom, but what I have tells me small 2-ways work really well in the near field, and by small I mean mid-bass drivers in the 5 to 7 inch range. They will require a sub, or a Compromise of deep bass, but will make up for it with amazing imaging and immersion in the sound.

Tim
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
Small monitors seem to rule, though I have used Maggies near-field off and on for ages. Talk about enveloping!

While near-field can provide incredible imaging, it will also exacerbate the problems of speakers that do not image well, and any imbalance between the pair. I once had a highly-regarded small monitor pair that had a problem in the crossover. It was rather vexing to have a solo instrument's position wander as it played a two-octave scale...

One issue I have always had is the transition to the sub. Most small speakers that are great for near-field do not really play well below a relatively high point, like 100 - 120 Hz, and I don't care what the -3 dB spec says. That is what originally drove me to a stereo pair of subs, something I still do today though perhaps more from habit. I can say a decent set of Mirage small OMD's and surrounds did not sound good to me with a single sub. That was just a few years ago. I went back to bigger speakers, much to my wife's dismay.
 

tmallin

WBF Technical Expert
May 19, 2010
967
375
1,625
71
Chicagoland
You have more experience than I do in this area, Tom, but what I have tells me small 2-ways work really well in the near field, and by small I mean mid-bass drivers in the 5 to 7 inch range. They will require a sub, or a Compromise of deep bass, but will make up for it with amazing imaging and immersion in the sound.

Tim

Well, sure, small two-ways can be fine, but that's almost cheating. :)

You still have to watch out for models which have proper balance when aimed toward you, there is the lack of full-range bass, and the problem of subwoofer integration. Also, many small two-ways, sub-augmented or not, tend to sound "small" in terms of image size. A three-way gets around this problem by creating more of a height illusion if the drivers are strung out W-M-T from bottom to top.

The Gradient Revolutions can sound vertically small, too, as can any coaxial speaker or quasi-point source speaker like the Quads. The Gradients, as I have them set up, though, seem to avoid this problem by careful positioning with respect to listening height and position and because the coaxial array is aimed a bit up and I don't damp the ceiling reflection. Tricks of the trade.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Well, sure, small two-ways can be fine, but that's almost cheating. :)

You still have to watch out for models which have proper balance when aimed toward you, there is the lack of full-range bass, and the problem of subwoofer integration. Also, many small two-ways, sub-augmented or not, tend to sound "small" in terms of image size. A three-way gets around this problem by creating more of a height illusion if the drivers are strung out W-M-T from bottom to top.

The Gradient Revolutions can sound vertically small, too, as can any coaxial speaker or quasi-point source speaker like the Quads. The Gradients, as I have them set up, though, seem to avoid this problem by careful positioning with respect to listening height and position and because the coaxial array is aimed a bit up and I don't damp the ceiling reflection. Tricks of the trade.

As far as I can tell, at least with good quality actives, as long as your mid-bass drivers disperse well, you're good if you have the tweeters at the right height. That's one of the reasons I like them small. Good 5 - 6 inchers seem to beam less (and handle high mids better) than most 8s.

Tim
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
I had a friend over the other day who listened to near-field setup Wilson XLF's...he said it was amazing. I made the comment...is that like sitting In a surround sound phone booth ? he said...good analogy.

Exactly. Nearfield sound can sound really good and get you involved, but it doesn't sound anything like the real thing.

Nearfield listening seems to be good for people who want to listen to their equipment. Sitting farther back is more like being in the concert hall listening to the music.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Exactly. Nearfield sound can sound really good and get you involved, but it doesn't sound anything like the real thing.

Nearfield listening seems to be good for people who want to listen to their equipment. Sitting farther back is more like being in the concert hall listening to the music.

You have distinct advantage there as well, Gary, I suspect. I have heard Genesis 1.2s which are a very close relative of your Infinity Vs...and the presentation brings (for me) an entirely added new dimension to 'realism'. And that is the effortless scale. I had never heard that before hearing the Genesis 1.2s. I also have since heard the Arrakis which seemed close enough that I would not wish to make the call without having them in a side by side. But I have never heard any other speaker do scale like those two before. I have heard a fair few speakers though not all (have not heard MBL Extremes, Kharma Exquisite Grands, Wamm, Goldmund Epilogue Ref system, etc)...none has matched this part which is just loads of fun and truly special to me.

In a word...enjoy!!! You have a concert at home every day.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Exactly. Nearfield sound can sound really good and get you involved, but it doesn't sound anything like the real thing.

Nearfield listening seems to be good for people who want to listen to their equipment. Sitting farther back is more like being in the concert hall listening to the music.

Ummm. I wouldn't go THAT far. I would say nearfield listening is for people that want to listen very closely to the recording and recording only. I mean listening with minimum contributions from the room by way of reflections and boundary support. While my own personal high comes from large scale reproduction, I resort to nearfield when doing things like editing or making mash ups. Nearfield listening is simply better for that particular application of playback technology. If I need to scrub very fine details I go to headphones. It goes without saying that anything to do with soundstaging flies out the window with the latter.
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
Ummm. I wouldn't go THAT far. I would say nearfield listening is for people that want to listen very closely to the recording and recording only. I mean listening with minimum contributions from the room by way of reflections and boundary support. While my own personal high comes from large scale reproduction, I resort to nearfield when doing things like editing or making mash ups. Nearfield listening is simply better for that particular application of playback technology. If I need to scrub very fine details I go to headphones. It goes without saying that anything to do with soundstaging flies out the window with the latter.

If you are doing mastering or other critical editing procedures, I agree you would want nearfield listening to hear exactly what it in the recording with minimal room interference.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
If you are doing mastering or other critical editing procedures, I agree you would want nearfield listening to hear exactly what it in the recording with minimal room interference.

I will have to disagree with that. Mastering can not be done in the near-field. If it is done in the near-field, it is because the people doing it, can not afford to put money into the correct room.
Mastering is the last step in production. We want to hear what the end user is going to hear. You will see near-field listening in recording/mixing rooms though.
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
+1. Initial recording, mixing, most editing, etc. may be near field but the final mastering is usually meant to emulate the listening conditions of the final product. Big recording companies will have rooms set up (or able to be modified) to mimic a listening room, theater, etc. Bruce is by far the expert on that, my experience is dated and a fraction what he's done.

Still, near field does not imply a loss of ambience, but you only get what's in the recording and not what your room and speakers' interaction with the room add. Some recordings I much prefer in a near-field environment and they have incredible "stage"; others sound like they were mixed to almost mono and sound "flat" without the room in play.

YMMV - Don
 

WLVCA

Member Sponsor
Nov 2, 2012
3,911
2,374
1,395
Tucson
I used to have a pair of Spendor S3/5R's along with a small 8" sub that I used in a near field set up in my home office. Enjoyed those little Spendor's quite a bit.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Exactly. Nearfield sound can sound really good and get you involved, but it doesn't sound anything like the real thing.

Nearfield listening seems to be good for people who want to listen to their equipment. Sitting farther back is more like being in the concert hall listening to the music.

If you listening room is "the concert hall" there is some questionable logic in this. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

Tim
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Yiu guys are giving near field far more credit than it deserves. It does not eliminate room ambiance or interaction. It helps, by upping the ratio of direct to reflected sound, but moving in close and toeing in does not an anechoic chamber make.

P
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Yiu guys are giving near field far more credit than it deserves. It does not eliminate room ambiance or interaction. It helps, by upping the ratio of direct to reflected sound, but moving in close and toeing in does not an anechoic chamber make.

P

Nobody said that.
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
If you listening room is "the concert hall" there is some questionable logic in this. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

Tim

What I was referring to was the distance from the performers one normally experiences in a hall or club when listening to live performers. You're never only six feet or so (nearfield distance) at a concert and it sounds weird to my ear to be that close to the source of the music. I prefer to sit back at least 20 feet from the speaker or be in the 20th row at a concert hall.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Nobody said that.

You're right, Jack. No one went quite that far, but I do think some folks were still giving near field more credit for eliminating room effects than it can accomplish on its own. There are still side wall, ceiling and back wall reflections to contend with or enjoy. Near field just makes them a smaller part of the equation.

Tim
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
What I was referring to was the distance from the performers one normally experiences in a hall or club when listening to live performers. You're never only six feet or so (nearfield distance) at a concert and it sounds weird to my ear to be that close to the source of the music. I prefer to sit back at least 20 feet from the speaker or be in the 20th row at a concert hall.

OK. I get it. I think your "distance" from the performers is defined by the recording far more than it is by the listening space or position, but I get it. And by the way, I wouldn't consider 6 feet near field. Less than four is more like it. My monitors sit a bit more than 3 ft from my ears. Toed in properly they image beautifully; close your eyes and they're gone. The distance I get from the performance varies broadly, depending on the recording. And 80dB @ 3ft is the same as 80dB @ 20 feet. It just takes moving a lot less air to get there. The difference is the amount of room interaction. I think you must have heard near field that was not set up properly, or speakers that would not cohere well in such a short distance.

P
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing