View Full Version : Near Field, Far Field or Somewhere In-Betwen?
How far away from the speakers do you listen?
Let's say for the sake of argument that 'near field' is within 6 feet, mid field 6 to 12 feet and far field anything further than that.
I'll try and make it a poll if I can work out how.
State your reasons for your preference and vote based on your main or 'best' rig if you have more than one.
Hey the poll worked - except for the spelling error.
I listen far field because it lets you crank the speakers up to 'full fat' levels where they can work optimally without the sound becoming overwhelming and 'too big'. If that makes sense. Also with multi-way speakers you get better driver integration at a distance.
Mid for me. Always has been and probably as most houses dictate that or near. One speaker is about 8ft and other maybe 10ft from my seat. Being offset the toe ins are different as are the attack angle. Far speaker is up a couple of mil.
kininigin
06-02-2016, 11:22
Near field for me as i have no other choice really! Have always listened near-field,so have no idea if i'd prefer anything else!
I listen near-field, simply because I have no other option, and also because it suits the presentation of my speakers (large Tannoy DCs), and how they interact with the room I use them in - and indeed most rooms, due to their inherent design.
Also, generally but not always, I prefer the sense of 'intimacy' and immediacy one gets with near-field listening, but conversely, I can enjoy the 'walk around sound' effect ones gets with far-field listening, in a large room, as long as the acoustics are good.
One also has to consider that the longer you allow bass waves to develop (by sitting further away from the speakers), the more bass you can hear, which can swamp the sound and make for a rather 'phat and plummy' sonic presentation, which I detest. In that respect, give me the faster and more immediate near-field listening experience, any day!
In terms of the 'big room vs. small room' thing, for me I'd rather have a GOOD room (acoustically), than big or small, so as usual it's QUALITY, not quantity, that counts!! :exactly:
Marco.
hifi_dave
06-02-2016, 11:44
Not many rooms in the UK can accommodate 'far field'.
Michael loves music
06-02-2016, 12:13
I'm 11 feet away sound lovely
Not many rooms in the UK can accommodate 'far field'.
12' or more from the speakers is do-able in a 16 x 12 lounge, easy in an 18x12 and they are not unusual room sizes for the UK, although I agree they are larger than average.
I listen near-field, simply because I have no other option, and also because it suits the presentation of my speakers (large Tannoy DCs), and how they interact with the room I use them in - and indeed most rooms, due to their inherent design.
Also, generally but not always, I prefer the sense of 'intimacy' and immediacy one gets with near-field listening, but conversely, I can enjoy the 'walk around sound' effect ones gets with far-field listening, in a large room, as long as the acoustics are good.
One also has to consider that the longer you allow bass waves to develop (by sitting further away from the speakers), the more bass you can hear, which can swamp the sound and make for a rather 'phat and plummy' sonic presentation, which I detest. In that respect, give me the faster and more immediate near-field listening experience, any day!
In terms of the 'big room vs. small room' thing, for me I'd rather have a GOOD room (acoustically), than big or small, so as usual it's QUALITY, not quantity, that counts!! :exactly:
Marco.
Same speakers, same reasons, same conclusions.
Spectral Morn
06-02-2016, 12:47
Midfield because the speakers work best in this position, within the room.
In the past I have done nearfield because of the room and the size of the speaker - mini monitors.
Same speakers, same reasons, same conclusions.
Indeed, Peter. It was rather interesting (and also quite funny) when I lugged the Lockwoods once down to Scalford, and demonstrated them in a room about four times larger than mine...
First of all, during the set up stage, where we were playing around with speaker positioning, it became blatantly clear, fairly early on, that the Lockies sounded best when placed up close to the back wall, and also slightly toed-into the central listening position (exactly the way I have them at home).
Consequently, that's where they were put, despite having umpteen other options, which would've utilised the much bigger area available. However, every time we tried to use them in free space, the bass boomed like a bastard, so that was a no-no - and also it became equally clear, that the best sound was obtained by sitting approximately the same distance away from the speakers, as I do at home...
Secondly, the punters attending the show, who came into our room, nine times out of ten, if they could get a space (and had a chance to compare the sound in different parts of the room), sat in the second or third row of seats, which were placed approximately the same distance from the speakers as I sit at home, as that was, quite clearly, where they sounded best! :doh: :eyebrows:
Conclusion: a complete waste of time using big Tannoy DCs in a large room, as you'll only end up listening near-field, because that's where they work/sound best, so having a big room completely defeats the purpose! :exactly:
Marco.
I remember a baronial hall when some huge pre-HPD Tannoys (Lancasters?) were set in the minstrel gallery and listening was strictly far field. Wonderful :) There's a pic on the web somewhere showing how EMI used their Lancasters (I think), set on tables with a tiny looking Quad 303 or 50E on the floor underneath each one. Not sure EMI used Lockwood/Tannoys (Decca did) as I believe JBL took over until 1980 or thereabouts if memory serves.
Linn Isobariks were so phase-flawed that you NEEDED to be three metres or more away for the drivers to integrate. I used mine as giant headphones and the sound could be rather rough I remember andnothing like as good as a friend's tri-amped active set.
Looking back, the best sound I had in my tiny youthful 'nearfield' listening room was with some Spendor BC1's set on 14" stands. Later bass drivers and foam port rings moderated the bass honk and the midrange to treble was amazing.
Look here -
http://www.audionostalgia.co.uk/review_tannoy_monitor_gold_15.php
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/tannoy_mg15_review_06_zpsojxnm3pz.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/tannoy_mg15_review_06_zpsojxnm3pz.jpg.html)
Upstairs: near-field because of room constraints.
Downstairs: far-field.
http://www.audionostalgia.co.uk/review_tannoy_monitor_gold_15.php
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/tannoy_mg15_review_06_zpsojxnm3pz.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/tannoy_mg15_review_06_zpsojxnm3pz.jpg.html)
Love that picture to bits! However, I bet you that the distance those (Lancasters?) are from the control desk, is not much (or even any) further than I sit at home from my Lockwoods! ;)
Marco.
jollyfix
06-02-2016, 13:52
Mid Field, but only just. Both systems just under 7' from speakers.
I listen near-field. I have the space elsewhere in the house to set the system up mid or far field but prefer near.
Marco, you can judge the distance far better than I as you're a long term big-Tannoy user. I don't think that room is huge either and it looks even smaller these days as it's been well tarted up I remember...
I *think* this is how the Studio 2 control room looks today, the monitors now at the opposite end I think... Quested in-wall monitors?
http://www.andregardner.com/abbeyroad/
I see they've now had to downgrade the monitors in Studio 2 (mind you, none of look gift horses in the mouth)
http://www.abbeyroad.com/tech-equip/monitoring-studio2
Which studio is it, do you know?
Marco.
Think I'm midfield. Around 7ft away from speakers which are approx 5.5ft apart.
tubehunter
06-02-2016, 14:51
Just had the tape measure out.
I'm a Alan Hansen @ 9ft 6in with the speakers 6ft 6ins apart.
Marco your listening position seemed about the same as mine when I was last there.
Ian's Canterbury 's work very well in his room @ far field.
Happy Days
Mid Field - 9' away, with speaker a little over 6' apart, the bet layout and orientation with regard to my room and speakers...
Marco your listening position seemed about the same as mine when I was last there.
Yup, Dunc, I'd agree, but I wouldn't say Ian's was far-field. The distance he listens at from his speakers I think is pretty similar to yours and mine :)
Next time we're round at his, we'll get a measuring tape out... Only thing is, he'll get all exshited, and want to play 'that game' again.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Just had the tape measure out.
I'm a Alan Hansen @ 9ft 6in with the speakers 6ft 6ins apart.
...err given that 9'6" puts you squarely into midfield, we're talking Graham Souness territory, as a center half Mr Hansen was most definitely in defense...;)
mr sneff
06-02-2016, 17:54
A somewhat eccentric 11' away from mini monitors more suited to near field and off axis to avoid hifi b*ll*cks like stereo imaging :lol:
Idlewithnodrive
06-02-2016, 18:07
Near field here and for much the same reasons as Marco et al; that is, intimacy, walk around sound stage and minimal room interactions.
jandl100
06-02-2016, 18:47
I am mid-field using Martin's definitions.
Speakers 8.5ft from lugholes and 10ft apart.
I hate far-field listening; stereo imaging hifi b*ll*x goes to pot, which is not to be tolerated, and detail/rez and small scale dynamic tracking get smoothed over due to room interaction. Yuk.
Near-field at 6 feet the drivers don't integrate properly - mine are 4-way, 6-driver speakers and need a bit of space.
Not sure I agree that stereo imaging gets worse with distance. I find it better, if anything, like watching a film from the balcony instead of the front of the stalls. But I suppose that will be room and furnishings and speaker dependant.
Midfield between 8-9 feet which is about perfect for my speakers.
However they could do with 3-6 feet more space behind them!
I have heard them in far larger rooms where they create a fantastic 3 dimensional soundstage with sharp imaging but the bass disappears into the ether.:rolleyes:
topoxforddoc
06-02-2016, 22:32
Far field for my main system with Avantgarde horns. Near/Mid field for my study system (Mordaunt Arundel or LS3/5a)
Far field: 16' from the speakers (Quad 57s). The speakers themselves are spaced 6' 6", centre to centre.
I listen at a distance of about 16ft or so due to room limitations. What model IMF's are you running? I'm using TLS 50 11.
Hi Bob,
How's it going? Hope you are well :)
Can't believe we still haven't met up yet and had a music sesh! :doh:
Can we alter that rather sad situation soon? :cool:
Marco.
Hi Marco. Time belts by doesn't it. I blew a tweeter in my IMF's recently so hope to fix it shortly. I trust you are OK. Bob.
Yep, I'm cool. Sorry to hear about your IMFs... I'm sure you'll get them sorted soon :)
So what days have you got free during this month? We should be able to sort something out :cool:
Marco.
I listen at a distance of about 16ft or so due to room limitations. What model IMF's are you running? I'm using TLS 50 11.
Hi Bob
I have TLS50 Mk 1 - awaiting a re-cap.
You should go and listen to Marco's system, it is very good.
Mid verging on far...and far. Guess I like about twelve feet, maybe a touch more with the Ureis - they were, after all designed as far field monitors (as were your Lockwoods, Marco!:)). Some of it is to do with how far apart you can get the speakers and maintain an optimal triangle within your room, some of it is the compression effect on the sound of distance. I think distance confers homogeneity, decreases dynamics, palpability and openness. But you might want to play these trade offs against each other, particularly if your speakers excel in D,P and O.
My large Vandies need to be well out into the room so that the rear firing active acoustic coupler can work properly, so about 1.5m in. Room constraints (cupboard doors etc.) also mean they need to be about 1m in from each side wall so about 2m or a little more apart. Ideal seating is at about 3m so very much midfield. I am lucky however in that the wall behind the seating position has a permanently open double doorway to a second sitting room so I can easily listen far field at up to 8m or so if I wish. It also means I don't get excess reflection off the rear wall from immediately behind my mid field seat. I don't mind the different far field presentation particularly if I need to move around or work in the other room but when sitting, midfield wins every time IMO.:eyebrows:
Oldpinkman
07-02-2016, 07:15
Mid field (currently, reluctantly near field)
Your definition of far field is a seriously long way away. I guess we were just about far field at the factory with the stacked 57's,but that was an unusually large room. I can only think of one house I have seen recently with a house that big - in laroque d'olmes, and that had marble floors.
With a good system you don't lose detail, and certainly not imaging and you gain depth. Maybe 10-15 ft is ideal, if you have the room. I have picked mid-field cos I am guessing that is how we will arrange it in France
Simon_LDT
07-02-2016, 08:09
Near-field for me, mainly due to room size. I've got the speakers approx 1m from the wall behind (rear-firing ports) and I'm sitting pretty much bang on 1.5m away. I do like the sound, it's very direct, dynamic and clear but I have noticed that if I position myself a further 1m away there is a touch more depth to the sound but I can't really move the sofa back more as then the rear speakers for surround duties will be too close. I'm happy for the time being though, until I can move to a room with a bigger listening space.
Mid field (currently, reluctantly near field)
Your definition of far field is a seriously long way away. I guess we were just about far field at the factory with the stacked 57's,but that was an unusually large room. I can only think of one house I have seen recently with a house that big - in laroque d'olmes, and that had marble floors.
With a good system you don't lose detail, and certainly not imaging and you gain depth. Maybe 10-15 ft is ideal, if you have the room. I have picked mid-field cos I am guessing that is how we will arrange it in France
I've defined far field as over 12' - I don't think that is a long distance away from the speakers but then I am more than 20' from mine so it is all relative.
As far a detail and imaging goes I agree you don't seem to lose it. I fondly recall a friend's system from many years ago that used Wharfedale Diamonds in a room 36 by 14 - listening about 15' from the speakers (that were about 4 inches from the rear wall). They had to work hard but what a great sound - although the copper who lived next door didn't think so.
Taken from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_monitors
“….by introducing the idea of close or "nearfield" monitoring. (The sound field very close to a sound source is called the "near-field." By "very close" is meant in the predominantly direct, rather than reflected, sound field. A near-field speaker is a compact studio monitor designed for listening at close distances (3 to 5 feet (0.9 to 1.5 m)), so, in theory, the effects of poor room acoustics are greatly reduced.)”
There doesn’t seem to be a definition of “mid field”, so the listening position can be divided simply into two regimes:
Near field - where direct sound predominates over reflected sound (< 3 – 5 feet);
Far field - where the received sound is a mixture of direct sound and reflected sound (> 5 feet).
I was probably getting mixed up with football ;)
Near field I was thinking of a studio and the bridge monitors. But with just two options and one at 5 feet or less almost everyone would select far-field and it wouldn't give much idea of the distances people listen at, hence the mid-field option.
Understood. In my case it is most definitely far field (around 16' from the speakers). The centre of the speakers are 6'6" apart, and they are 8' from the rear wall (horribly reflective patio windows).
In general, the speakers should be placed in an acoustically live environment and the listening position be acoustically dead.
Looks like us "far fielders" are in the minority!
In general, the speakers should be placed in an acoustically live environment and the listening position be acoustically dead.
Looks like us "far fielders" are in the minority!
Good tip. No surprise we are in the minority, you need a long and ideally dedicated room. I recall from pictures you have posted of your set up that your room is very similar size and shape to mine, perhaps a bit larger.
I was playing around with the Cardas calculator http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php and I seem to have their ideal suggested set up for the room (speakers 6' from back wall, they suggest about 5.5' )
I take it you don't have issues with getting enough volume at the listening position?
I wouldnt class 6 ft as far field.:D. Guiy small field
I've defined far field as over 12' - I don't think that is a long distance away from the speakers but then I am more than 20' from mine so it is all relative.
As far a detail and imaging goes I agree you don't seem to lose it. I fondly recall a friend's system from many years ago that used Wharfedale Diamonds in a room 36 by 14 - listening about 15' from the speakers (that were about 4 inches from the rear wall). They had to work hard but what a great sound - although the copper who lived next door didn't think so.
I answered mid-field, which is 9' from my speakers to the couch, however my listening room is my living room, which is knocked through to the old dining room, 12 * 27...so the dining table is another listening position, about 19' away...so a bit far-field too :eyebrows:
Since getting my new IPL's S5TLs in the correct position, I.E. directly firing down the length of the room, as opposed to having them toed in like their predecessors, the soundstage and detail extend through the length of the entire room...I also have them tilted back 5 degrees which may help ;)
I doubt they're working as hard as your mate's diamonds were... :)
Indeed, Peter. It was rather interesting (and also quite funny) when I lugged the Lockwoods once down to Scalford, and demonstrated them in a room about four times larger than mine...
First of all, during the set up stage, where we were playing around with speaker positioning, it became blatantly clear, fairly early on, that the Lockies sounded best when placed up close to the back wall, and also slightly toed-into the central listening position (exactly the way I have them at home).
Consequently, that's where they were put, despite having umpteen other options, which would've utilised the much bigger area available. However, every time we tried to use them in free space, the bass boomed like a bastard, so that was a no-no - and also it became equally clear, that the best sound was obtained by sitting approximately the same distance away from the speakers, as I do at home...
Secondly, the punters attending the show, who came into our room, nine times out of ten, if they could get a space (and had a chance to compare the sound in different parts of the room), sat in the second or third row of seats, which were placed approximately the same distance from the speakers as I sit at home, as that was, quite clearly, where they sounded best! :doh: :eyebrows:
Conclusion: a complete waste of time using big Tannoy DCs in a large room, as you'll only end up listening near-field, because that's where they work/sound best, so having a big room completely defeats the purpose! :exactly:
Marco.
Interesting, Marco. As said further down the thread, it seems your speakers were designed to be used in the studio, near-field ... so, no surprise they excel as you describe.
Of course, the top range Tannoy-made cabinets attempt to offer some adjustments in terms room-matching. As you know from Ian's Canterburys, they have adjustable port 'shutters' and a range of crossover 'treble boost' settings. Never used mine in any baronial halls, but would assume opening the ports and giving extra emphasis (plateaus) to the treble would get them projecting more in a big room? Also, I assume the horn-loaded cabinets (Westminsters) would be best far-field?
Actually, I've come to the conclusion I much prefer the 'sealed box' speakers I have owned. I now have the Canterburys ports closed, and also loving the little Harbeth P3ESRs. Never have liked the idea of a speaker that sits on a low frequency port resonance .... once decribed by a Quad ESL fan of my acquintence as 'fart boxes' :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.