People use Near field not bcz they don't have space, rather to keep enjoying music while working on the PC for long hours, and which is why you also have a pair of near field speakers on your table.
I have been using the term Near Field listening in correctly according to your explanation and definition of how to set the speakers up. For me, Near Field listening means moving my listening chair forward about 2 feet without towing my speakers in until I just start to feel like I am starting to be enveloped by the music. Just leaning in about one foot from my normal listening position can do the trick. It is different sonic experience and it does sound very good but it is not my favorite listening position either.
I moved my chair and changed the toe-in last weekend. Wow, what an amazing improvement! By far more improvement/change than switching between my two DACs, not even close. DACs changes barely noticeable in sound stage, imaging etc.
High freq energy drops with distance and if you have some acoustic treatment treble may feel lacking a bit more at your listening position compared to listening near field. So one would feel the need to boost higher freq range. Either way while designing any speaker, target flat response measuring near field. Let EQ/acoustic treatment do the rest based on your tastes and room response
For near field speakers, the kef ls50 meta for me along with the original ls3/5a versions are probably the best in the business and in my opinion, endgame possibly, for nearfield though and small to mid sized rooms. If you want bigger sound to fill larger rooms without sacrifing anything, ive fpund the gr research xls-encore does that best, these ive mentioned are bookshelves, and my favorites to date, hope that helps some.
What an adorable tiny sprout on your desk Paul :) Never heard one of them, I'm not a class D fan, but I really like the idea behind it. Small, adorable and not expensive. There must be something affordable on the market for the new and young audio enthousiasts, to discover the next step of listening pleasure!
I really love the near field listening experience and I enjoy it. But as is mentioned in another comment, I understood the question in a different way, I think the question is related to the speakers itself, wich are the differences or special characteristics that becomes an speaker to nearfield, midfield or farfield one. It would be interesting to know it. I have test different kind of speakers in nearfield and all of them sound good. I have two desktop sytems, both are a 2.1 system with a passive bass unit with crossover that cut the right and left spekers low frequency. In one desktop I am using "home cinema satellites" speakers, Vieta Neo 10 that have 2 x 3,5" woofers and a 1/2" policarbonate tweeter with a Tannoy bass module CAP5SB and drived by a SMSL SA300 class D amplifier. The other desktop system has a pair of Tannoy Fusion F1 speakers (5" woofer and 1" soft dome tweeter) with a bass module Bose Acoustimass 5 Series 3 drived with a Denon UPA-F07 class AB amplifier. As mentioned, both systems sound great. I really wonder if it's neccesary some special characteristics for a nearfield speaked... I can understand that probably for farfield no everything could work.
It's really weird, because I watched your other video about actually not toeing in speakers and I found the soundstage to become much better. Having the speakers aimed at me made everything sound a bit more messy garbled for lack of better words. Having them pretty much straight (very slight toe-in) makes it feel wider and clearer. As if theres a speaker in the middle of the space. Maybe it's my room setup, because there's a window off to my right side and behind the right speaker, but I just can't help but find the the sound of not toeing in near field speakers better. It does take away a little bit of the harshness/detail of the treble, but not in a bad way imho.
my original understanding of a so called far field speakers actually refers to long throw speakers, like the fullrange and horn type speakers, in contrast to a near field set up even if they are huge tower speakers.
That's how my "office" is. My speakers are on a shelf above me instead of next to my computer monitor. I had no choice, but still the near field process works very well.
You should experiment with angling the speakers towards you (pointing down). Also the shelf is not ideal, especially if it is a part of your table. You'd get less problems if you use dedicated stands instead
I guess I use a kind of mid field setup. 7 foot equilateral triangle well back away from rear and front walls. Even though I'm in a big room, I am too close to a side wall with window. The close setup removes a lot of room issues but still gives a great sound stage. My room is just for me so the sweet spot is a one seater. I share the room with a 9' pool table. All part of the man cave.
He's gotta do this video again. He misunderstood the question. No one is confused about what NEAR and FAR means. We want to know what's different about the speakers themselves! What defines a mid field speaker, for example? Power? Size? Frequency range? What are the disadvantages and advantages of the listening ranges? How should you mix differently depending on those ranges. We all know what near and far means.
What are you so upset about? Paul’s always given answers like this. If the question is just “what’s the difference” and not asking for specific technical information, then he tends not to provide technical jargon that might confuse the person who asked the question int he first place. Maybe the answer he gave was exactly what the person asking needed.
in comparison to my near field speakers, when I stand really close to my far field speakers they sound really "shouty". When I sit on my sofa my far field speakers sound just fine.
They aren't physically different - it is a configuration of speakers (placement), not speaker construction. There are a handful of exceptions (ex. Sony makes a 'system' that is for near-field-only use, but that is the exception), but it is about config not design.
I use Magnepan Mini's for my nearfield experience. I compared them to Adam A7X and Kef LS50 Wireless in my other rooms - the Magnepans win hand-down. To fill out the bottom end of the nearfield environment in my office, I run a couple of stereo SVS woofers. Paul is right - a decent nearfield system is not like listening to headphones or a far-field system - it has its own characteristics.
Hi Paul: Funny, I was going to ask a related question. We have a small house in Sydney Australia (Shared wall with neighbor). I have always missed that immersive experience (Sound stage) I loved when listening to my dad’s Infinity Kappas (Back in South Africa in a dedicated hifi underground study he had) when growing up and sort of made piece that I will never again have to opportunity to recreate it myself (Because the optimal volume is too load for such a small house). Does that mean I am relegated to headphones (Or nearfield speakers) and can I even get close to the experience or those Kappas (And if so, what equipment would you recommend)? Love the videos!
Question: what is the "boundary" of near field versus mid-field vs far field? In my mind, near field means the speakers are closer to your ear than any point of first reflection other than the floor (generally ~3-4 feet). Would far field mean you are definitely hearing every reflection in the room (say, ~12+ feet depending on room size and ceiling height)? mid-field would then be in the middle - some reflections but close enough to miss others?
Talking about nearfield speakers, I know you seem to dislike studio monitors because someone told you they are too "analytical" but please listen by yourself to some Neumann in a nice sounding room then describe you impression, it would make a great video 😉
Sir, they are usually designed for acoustically treated studio production rooms - not like average living rooms. Very flat frequency response, focusing on 200-4000 Hz spectrum. For compatibility. That's why they often sound like boring, not exiting in a standard living room, with more or less reflections and bass humps. Which often compliments acoustic instruments and human voices. And recordings in spaces with natural reverb, like church or a concert hall. They are designed tools for capturing instruments, microphones and reveal, if there's something wrong, like phase issues or unwanted resonances, noises etc.
i have had Tannoy NFM 8 speakers since about release day, well over 30 years ago and I had no idea that they were meant for close proximity listening,I have never purposely used them as such. i knew the name "Near Field Monitor", but never gave it thought. Have I been using them wrong? They have always filled any room I put them in,with sound
OFF TOPIC: Do some PS Audio BHK Signature Preamp tops (the enameled wood) have an autograph in gold marker, from Bascom H. King, on their front-right? I had seen some for sale (2nd hand) and was wondering if these were legitimate PS Audio units with a real autograph, Chinese knock-offs of the preamp, or forged autographs.
Listening to this video on JBL LSR305's, which you will pry from my cold dead hands. However, in farfield they sound like portable Bluetooth speakers. Entirely different engineering for an entirely different use case.
I am intrigued by this "near-field" option. I have a pair of Elac Unifi UB5s that I have never used, and I think they would be excellent for a near-field setup on my desk, especially in light of their concentric tweeter/midrange configuration (as with some of the KEF models). I would need an integrated amp, and am considering a hi-fi amp such as the Sprout 100, the IOVATX SA3 and the less expensive SMSL DA9. My assumption is that these would provide a better sound stage, but I am wondering whether the 3-4 ft distance from my chair would mitigate any sound stage benefits. The Sprout and SA3 will also give me a quality DAC. The Elac speakers will be placed on my mahogany desk, only 12-18 inches from the wall. My sole source will be my PLEX Media Server PC (accessing all the uncompressed FLAC files I have posted on PLEX) which sits 3 feet away. Am I thinking clearly about this, or will I likely be disappointed?
Hmmmm, I own the Unifi 2.0 but never used them nearfild, I should try that. CUrrently use the Overnight sensations. I have the SMSL DA9 that I use at my cabin with no need for a DAC and needed more power, great amp for that application and would serve as a great desktop amp. For desktop went with the Topping MX3 and Overnight Sensations. Needed a DAC and not as much power and cheaper. For me in deck top use, I am not putting on my critical listening hat, more focused on the work that needs to be done. Just need something OK with a 8" sub for the bottom turned up as a loudness compensator.
The biggest problem with near field setups are base reflection from the desk and the back wall. I put them on a stack of books to elevate and a sock in the back port to control the base.
Foam speaker isolation bases are readily available and should always be used to prevent the speaker cabinet from transmitting vibrations to a surface on which it is sitting.
@Douglas Blake I don't doubt that with those low-end budget speakers you wouldn't be able to hear the difference even if you tried acoustic isolation. Acoustic coupling is most pronounced at low frequencies, which those speakers cannot reproduce.
@Douglas Blake I actually once owned a pair, maybe forty years ago. They were a good value for the money but hardly "audiophile" by any stretch of the imagination.
A lot of people, myself included, have Sprout 100's on our desktop. Would be nice to have a sub $1K desktop/nearfield speaker from PS Audio to match with it.
3-4 ft. More distance means more room reflections and less direct sound. Near field has less spatial experience but better resolution. -I get good sound even with 6,5" nearfield monitors at 8' distance and 3' from rear wall. I'd say it's rather mid field than far field. Avoid corners and windows, when possible.
@@pekkatervala8476 thanks. Yeah i think im more in the mid field. Would mini monitors work better for me or should i still have the stardard size bookshelves?
@@justanobody4983 Mini monitors might have too weak, 5,25" not much bass below 100 Hz. 6,5" can go to -3 dB@45 Hz, works in small/mid size rooms quite nicely. Not as open sound as hifi bookshelf speakers, it's more focused. Directivity helps, also wood frame apartment/house to avoid low frequency standing wave peaks. 5,25" needs to be near, though many are quite happy with, say, Kef LS50 in standard rooms. But they could use an active subwoofer for electronic instruments.
Probably the important aspect of the "mid field" listening experience is room treatment. My personal room set up is speakers 6 feet apart and my position is 6 feet back, an equilateral triangle, and 2 from the back wall. Managing the reflections and base standing wave is tricky but when you get right the resolution is amazing and the soundstage is discrete albeit small. A superb set up for listening the studio recorded music.
@@dennisw4654 I agree, I listen music mixed in studio, very little room sound there. My room doesn't spoil adding anything disturbing resonances. And volume is reasonable, not discotheque loud. Great for guitars, bass and drums, which are my main interests. Of course, vocalist matters, too.
Having a near field system and having taken measurements the one big difference is that you can arrange the speakers such that above about 1 kHz, the sound is principally the direct sound. Combined with proper seating position, this allows cross-talk to be eliminated, and true spatially correct imaging to be had like competent open-back planar headphones. However the acoustics are much different as the direct sound is much more prominent, and the tweeter needs to have good dispersion characteristics as you cant practically toe in a set of speakers 80 degrees towards the listening position. The off-axis sound has to be used and the speakers point straight ahead. Interestingly the timing of this video is right in the middle of me trying to characterize such a system with REW. Measurements so close to the speakers are challenging, to say the least. That said, its yielding some very useful data and insights.
There are also other effects such as the speakers have a quarter space and the sub an eight space loading. This dramatically boosts the bass output which has to be compensated for, but it greatly reduces the drive power needed from the amplifier. It is somewhat uncharted territory from an acoustics perspective. I know Sony has speakers actually for the near field (and cost something like $8k!), but Im not sure how well they would actually work since the desk and other things pose a major issue for the sound. I get around that by using large tower speakers that put the tweeter at the correct height but don't reflect off of or interact with my desk. Its a much different regime than the far field. The room obviously is also a part of it, but how the early reflections interact is quite a bit different since there is not enough distance for them to truly merge with the direct sound.
Ultimately the coup d'état of a near field system is you can have true binaural audio once its set up properly. The challenge is trying to characterize what properties allow that to be so. Edit: After fully watching the video, the sound is actually identical to headphones. So much so that I have to be careful not to forget Im wearing them and suddenly decide to walk to the kitchen or something. But this requires careful optimization to be so.
You're up late tonight 🙂 I gotta tell you how disappointed that I'm not going to see the speakers at rmaf that I am! The cancelation was a major let down for me, probably more so for the ps audio family.
