Audiophiles and our prejudices

Speakers are designed for a target market segment. Then the marketing people concoct a way to characterize their product. Once a market gets structured with a set of categories like near-field and mid-field, it is advantageous to use those well understood terms to characterize any new product in that market.

Just because companies describe a monitor as a near-field monitor does not automatically mean that it has no value outside the segment the marketing people chose.
Bill, I own two sets of studio monitors, a Genelec and an NHT. So this is not meant to put down the category. I feel however that you are going too far with your argument here. The notion that marketing people portray a speaker other than what it is happens but in this scenario that is not what they are doing. They are showing them in their intended application -- near field.

You ask how a design can be near field yet not be good at mid to far field. Here is a bit from Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_monitors

"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, soundfield. A near-field speaker is a compact studio monitor designed for listening at close distances (3’-5’), so, in theory, the effects of poor room acoustics are greatly reduced."

What this means is that if I know my customer is going to sit close to the speaker and with side walls presumably far away relative to my listening distance, perhaps I don't care as much about off-axis sound and can choose to compromise there. I also know I am dealing with professionals and not random consumer which are more likely to listen to the speaker on axis.

The marketing requirement therefore can and does influence design of the product. Is there an automatic exclusion? No. But it does mean that in a generic discussion like this, one can make the argument that if you use the speaker outside of its intended market and application it might have issues. The responsibility then is on the shoulders of people advocating otherwise that despite them having no motivation to make the speaker general purpose, they indeed did. I think you are trying that with your mention of graphs and such but more explanation needs to go there to show that.

I can be convinced by arguments based on theory or arguments based on sound experiments. I am rarely convinced by reasoning not grounded on theory or experiment. And rhetoric like that in the last sentence is even less convincing.
I gave you some above :).

Your logic doesn't show that near-field monitors would not be acceptable for listening at mid-field distances. Comparing near and mid-field monitors in a manufacturer's product line shows obvious advantages for the larger, more expensive mid-field models: higher peak sound levels (at 1m and thus higher levels elsewhere in the room), better low frequency response and more power in the included amps. A mid-field monitor may have advantages over a near-field monitor for mid-field use but that doesn't mean that a near-field monitor is not suited to uses other than near-field listening.

Bill
I do find near-field monitors to be superior to hi-fi speakers in some categories. Bass response is definitely one relative to their price. Bi-amping also means they handle power and clipping in a very graceful manner. Being small and not trying to do everything means that they can have a much more optimized response since the room loading is not as high. In general, I find near-field monitors more accurate and not optimized to sell in a showroom as consumer speakers often are.
 
What would be the features/performance attributes of a speaker meant to work well at a four or five feet, but not at ten?

Tim

Just read Amir's post that follows yours in which he responding to Old Listener. He explains it quite well. This is not something new that I just made up Tim.
 
This notion of yours about driver coherence being a function of "sorted" electronics, regardless of listening distance or the physical spacing of the drivers is no threat to the truth; anyone with a fragment of logic should be able to sort this one out.

Tim
But you keep insisting that the workings of the ear/brain are subject to straightforward physics, and common sense logic. Anyone who is in the field of studying the human organism in depth knows that it is a dangerous assumption to make, that because something is "logically" reasonable that that is how the body and mind must work. I didn't decide for arbitrary, egotistical purposes that this coherence of sound should occur, it just happened one day. The fact that it is very difficult to achieve is the simple answer as to why the majority of the readers are not nodding their heads in agreement; I can very easily experience conventional hifi sound by undoing a couple of the crucial tweaks: there, now we have a system that people can relate to, the working of the drivers is blatantly obvious, and I have to stand in the right spot for it to sound OK.

Frank
 
Frank,

Please consider that lobing causes audible distortions independent of a very clean signal.

Jack
 
I might add the predujice of ears being superior to test equipment. I undrstand that we listen with our ears and they (or really we) are the final arbitrar of what we like in sound but consider this:

say you have two whistles blowing, one at 1Khz and the other at 1.3 Khz. If your ear were linear, you would hear just these two frequencies, but what you actually hear is that difference frequency of 300Hz too. That does not happen in a linear system or a 0% distortion system. Just saying.

Tom
Ears are not necessariiy superior to test equipment but they are the final arbiter.
 
Frank,

Please consider that lobing causes audible distortions independent of a very clean signal.

Jack
I agree that simple logic says that the speaker drivers should be identifiable as being specific sound sources, but logic is not what the ear/brain is responding to. The first time it happened to me, I thought, what the hell is going on, it didn't make sense to me either! But the "proof" was in front of me, that was the message my brain was getting at that moment. It was very ephemeral, the slightest problem with the reproduction and the "illusion" was lost. And I could make it happen if I made the effort to "clean up" the sound, back over 20 years ago. Which is where I still am today, working hard to achieve that same "effect".

And the reason I do so, is that this apparent driver coherence is the marker of SQ at a certain, highly developed level. Achieved with with a variety of speaker setups over the years, typically the classic 2 way, and at the moment technically a 3 way. The friend I've mentioned a number of times has got very close a number of times, he's remarked about it happening momentarily when he alone was listening. It's certainly not easy to do, but that doesn't mean the goal should not be pursued ...

Again, the reason I have emphasised this point, over and over again, is that when the reproduction reaches this level, that all the normal terminology used to describe the quality of sound from then on becomes quite irrelevant, the sense of the musical event happening becomes the overriding factor. And surely that is a state to be desired?

Frank
 
interpreting the Emotiva and Neumann graphs correctly

Here's pretty much the same measurements (on and off axis response 0, 15, 30 degrees) of a domestic loudspeaker from 2003 c/o our friends from Soundstage Network and Canada's NRC. I own and sold a bunch of this speaker and I chose the Adam over it for use at my cramp workstation.

frequency_on1530.gif


Here's the Emotiva's in the link you provided

motiv6_plot2.jpg

> I also said look at the bass response. Pay close attention to the frequency and dB scales.
> They are different. The Emotiva's drop off sharply at 300Hz (same as the Neumann.
> It is INTENTIONAL) compared to the gentler roll off of the other one beginning at around 100Hz
> (measurements more typical of a professional midfield, take a look at the Neumann O 410 midfield). This is a GOOD thing for near field monitors just as a bigger drop off in off axis response is.

You completely misunderstood the graphs. Your 300 Hz figure is nonsense. Do you have any idea how a speaker with no response below 300 Hz would sound? That should have caused you to check your interpretation.

There were three graphs for the Emotiva monitor on the web page I directed you to. The graph you included was cut off at at 300Hz. Another graph (the left one at http://emotivapro.com/products/powered_monitors/airmotiv6.php) showed full-range on-axis response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. That graph shows on-axis response to be down only 2 dB at 40 Hz. Not bad for a small 2-way with a 6.5" woofer.

The corresponding graph for the Neumann KH120 shows flat response down to 50 Hz. Not bad for a 2 way speaker with a 5" woofer.

The graph for the larger Neumann O 410 mid-field monitor shows flat response down to about 30 Hz. The difference is what you might expect going from a small 2-way to a much larger 3-way speaker.

The Neumann website also show frequency response for the KH 120 monitor with the KH 810 subwoofer. That combination gives flat response to below 30 Hz too.

I don't see anything specific to near-field versus mid-field monitors in these results. Both the Emotiva and the Neumann KH 120 deliver good bass for small 2-way speakers. If you want lower bass, you'll need a sub-woofer or larger monitors. The same wold be true for high-end audio speakers.

> Look at the variations from 85dB/2.83V input reference (allow some adjustments for this difference)
> between the two loudspeakers at 20 kHZ. In particular look at the variations at 30 degrees. That's a
> difference of about 15dB. One is more than twice as strong in perceived loudness than the other at
> the extremes.

So we have an example of a near-field monitor (Emotiva) with more off-axis rolloff in frequency response than usual for consumer hi-fi speakers. Not that some audiophiles don't swear by speakers with this much off-axis rolloff.

Now look at the Neuman horizontal directivity graph. Response at 20 KHz for 30 degrees off axis is down 3-6 dB. That would be a quite normal figure for a consumer Hi-Fi speaker. (See http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/psb_platinum_m2/ for measurements for a stand mounted 2 way Hi-Fi monitor.)

I also looked at the corresponding graph for the Neumann O 410 which is described as a mid-field monitor. The drop in 30 degree off-axis response at 20 KHz appears to be about the same as for the KH 120. If off-axis response is a reason for the KH 120 near-field monitor to be unsatisfactory for a greater listening distance (mid-field), then the O 410 mid-field monitor should also be unsatisfactory for mid-field listening.

> Am I making my point now?

I think you missed the point all around.

---
My conclusions:

Both monitors provide good bass response for small 2-way speakers - consumer Hi-Fi or Pro-audio.

I provided one example of a near field monitor (Emotiva) with substantial roll-off and one (Neumann KH 120) with no more roll-off than you might expect from a consumer Hi-Fi speaker with wide dispersion. I think that shows that near-field monitors need not have off-axis response that makes them less satisfactory for greater listening distances than consumer Hi-Fi speakers.

Now you or someone else may yet come up with other theoretical reasons or experimental results to show that near-field monitors are necessarily unfit for greater listening distances. You just need to come up with arguments that have a basis in fact.

Bill
 
YOU misunderstand it Bill. Ask WHY they only showed on axis response and cut off at 300Hz for the other angles. THERE is your answer. Now you find it for yourself. I'm done with you.
 
The emotiva graphs are fun to look at but should not be relied upon authoritatively. There is zero information on how they were measured. The full response for example, seems heavily smoothed or is due to very large dynamic range represented by the graph scale:

motiv6_plot3.jpg


We can see this side by side the off-axis measurements where there is less smoothing:

motiv6_plot2.jpg


So I would not quickly assume that these speakers have flat response. A finer measurement would have shown dips and resonances. Comparison is to other lab measurements are not merited either due to differing standards.

The cut-off at 300 Hz seems to indicate perhaps the measurements were not made in anechoic chamber as the soundstage/NRC are.

The speakers seemed to have been designed for them by Vance Dickason who ran the LMS measurements. I wonder if he has access or will spend the money to perform true anechoic measurements for such products.

Proper measurements of directivity would involve many measurements summed together to create the Power Response. Only then do we know the sum total of the frequency response of the reflected energy relative to direct sound. A couple of measurements done without full documentation is not all that useful.
 
300Hz' wavelength being 1m is no coincidence.

This is the frustrating part for me and the reason I'm bowing out after this. In my first post I said APPLES and ORANGES. Even the charts are apples and oranges as you point out Amir. Never mind the part about my saying OPTIMIZED being totally skirted and ACCEPTABLE being stuffed in my mouth.

Ah Fhuggedaboutit. Off to the Golf Course.

Happy New Year!
 
Bill, I own two sets of studio monitors, a Genelec and an NHT. So this is not meant to put down the category.

I've used speakers of various kinds in a near-field application for over two decades. I've also had a chance to hear how those speakers perform with a greater listening distance.

> The notion that marketing people portray a speaker other than what it is happens
> but in this scenario that is not what they are doing.

You continue to misinterpret what I write. I said that if a speaker is useful in both a near-field and a mid-field application, marketing people might label it as a near-field monitor to fit existing market segments and the mindset of consumers. That is very different from portraying a speaker as something other that what it is.

Here is my point: Suppose that you have active monitors that will sell for $ 1200 / pair. They can work well as either near-field or mid-field monitors in terms of their price. As a marketer, you could try to base your appeal on the monitor's utility for either use or you could accept that most consumers will be looking for either a near-field or a mid-field monitor. Most marketers want products that fit established categories. In many companies, product development is geared to designed products that match existing categories.


You ask how a design can be near field yet not be good at mid to far field.

I did not ask this question.

Here is a bit from Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_monitors

"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, soundfield. A near-field speaker is a compact studio monitor designed for listening at close distances (3’-5’), so, in theory, the effects of poor room acoustics are greatly reduced."

What this means is that if I know my customer is going to sit close to the speaker and with side walls presumably far away relative to my listening distance, perhaps I don't care as much about off-axis sound and can choose to compromise there. I also know I am dealing with professionals and not random consumer which are more likely to listen to the speaker on axis.

You either failed to read my posts with adequate attention or misinterpreted them. It is clear from my posts that I am aware of the possibility that a near field monitor might have more drop-off in off axis response than wide dispersion consumer HiFi speakers do. It should also be clear that I do not accept that such performance is inevitable.

The argument that you build from the quote does not show that every designer of near-field monitors does sacrifice off-axis response to a degree that makes the speaker unsatisfactory for listening at a greater distance.

> I think you are trying that with your mention of graphs and such but more explanation
> needs to go there to show that.

I asked Jack to comment on those graphs. I just arrived home after a day of shopping for light fixtures and physical therapy and have replied to Jack's post interpreting the graphs. I disagree with his conclusions.

I think that my reply to Jack shows with an example that a near-field monitor need not have off axis response that makes it unsatisfactory for listening at greater distances.

> Is there an automatic exclusion? No. But it does mean that in a generic discussion like this,
> one can make the argument that if you use the speaker outside of its intended market and
>application it might have issues.

mep and others claimed that near-field speakers are necessarily unfit for listening at a greater distance. This was a broad unqualified assertion. I questioned that claim. I did not make any assertion that a near-field monitor was necessarily satisfactory for listening at a greater distance.

There is a big difference between raising a question about issues in using a product outside the market the manufacturer designates and making a broad unqualified claim that all such products are unfit for another use. Such assertions should be backed up with theory, experimental results rather than just hot air.

Even for choosing a product for the manufacturer's described use, it is wise to verify its applicability with every available means including theory, experimental results, reviews and personal listening.

> The responsibility then is on the shoulders of people advocating otherwise that despite
> them having no motivation to make the speaker general purpose, they indeed did.

You are making a typical audiophile argument: if someone makes a broad assertion without proof, they have no burden of proof. The burden is upon anyone who disagrees with them to supply proof.

----
Unless someone comes along with other arguments that are more convincing that what I have heard so far, I'll consider this question settled:

Q: Is a speaker described by the manufacturer as a near-field monitor necessarily unfit for use for listening at a greater distance?

A: NO!


Bill
 
I’m glad to know that I’m not the only recipient of Old Listener’s testy responses. I was beginning to think I was *special* for awhile. I don’t know why the fangs come out instead of just debating the points without all of the withering sarcasm and straight-up condescension.
 
(...) Unless someone comes along with other arguments that are more convincing that what I have heard so far, I'll consider this question settled:

Q: Is a speaker described by the manufacturer as a near-field monitor necessarily unfit for use for listening at a greater distance?

A: NO!


Bill

Bill,

There is something I am missing. As far as I can understand near field listening is a way of listening, characterized by the ratios between direct and reflected sound. When a manufacturer refers to some speaker as a near field monitor he is obliged to fulfill any particular specification, or he just means that he developed it to sound good in near field conditions?
 
I apologize for faulty memory Tim.

I disagree on the quote above though. Look at pro near field specs. The great majority have their tweeters mounted on wave guides precisely because of the short distances between points of the equilateral triangle. Then look at the bass response figures.

All I'm saying is that it's a horses for courses thing. Form follows function. If I were mixing a track, particularly the individual panning, I'd definitely go with near fields. There's a funny story when I was a student at Full Sail U. On the first day, we were taken on a tour of Studio A's control room which is used both educationally and commercially. The guy at the massive SSL 9000j console was tweaking using the near fields, I believe they were Haflers. I asked why he wasn't using the big ol' soffit mounted monitors. Our teacher said, "Oh, those are for impressing the clients". LOL

We'll have to disagree then, Jack. A wave guide, not uncommon in consumer speakers also, can narrow the on axis response of a speaker from the listening position (they can also narrow it only for an extremely short distance, to avoid baffle reflections, depending on design) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's for near field listening. It means that it limits first reflections of trebles. Push back away from your "near field" monitors. Now go adjust the distance from each other, and the toe-in of the monitors accordingly. They should work just fine.

Really, when you think about it, if what they were trying to do was focus the sound into a very narrow field, they would necessarily have to mount the midrange (or mid/bass in 2-ways) drivers in waveguides as well (now were talking Geddes...also not near fields). What they're trying to do is eliminate reflections off the front of the speaker, not create a "near filed" image. That's created by the distance between the speakers and between the speakers and the listener.

In any case, back to my old argument with Mark. The ADM 9.1s don't use wave guides, so in that discussion, the point is moot.

Tim
 
In all of the recent discussion regarding speakers and their usage in near-field applications, including the discussion re on- and off- axis response, does one also need to consider vertical response if a speaker will be or is *designed* to be used on a desktop?
 
In any case, back to my old argument with Mark. The ADM 9.1s don't use wave guides, so in that discussion, the point is moot.Tim

OK Tim. You know the designer of the ADM 9.1s, you have talked with him, and he has told you the ADM 9.1s weren’t designed for near-field listening. I get it. I also get it that they are being marketed as computer desktop speakers as you acknowledge below:

There is no question at all that AVi is is targeting computer audiophiles with the 9.1s, but they were not designed for near field listening. I know this, and everyone who knows the company and the product knows this.

So since you are using the ADM 9.1s as desktop speakers, you are using them in a non-optimized manner which you sugarcoated a little bit when you said this:


No need to struggle for words then, Mark. No one said that. I said, in fact, that they image a bit more naturally from 8 - 10 feet away than they do up close.

Is the imaging truly just “a bit more” natural from 8’-10’ away than it is from 3’? If these speakers were designed to be heard from distances between 8’-10’, I would think they would sound a whole lot more natural at the correct distance vice the 3’ position. I would think they would sound like giant headphones in their non-optimized position that you employ them in and the manufacturer clearly targets with their marketing even though the designer told you he did not design the speakers for that application. I guess all’s fair in love and sales.

In any event, there is no argument here Tim. Your speakers were not designed for near-field listening. You know this, the designer knows this, and everybody who knows the products knows this. It just happens to be how you use them.
 
Good question Ron if you are talking about bounce off the surface of the desktop or shelf. Many true bookshelf speakes sit on the exact edge of the shelf. One would expect a desktop to sit furhter back on the plane. This might make the new Magnepan bookshelfs a better choice given theier vertical dispersion characteristics. I don't think the big Maggies are intended for nearfield listening. Time will reveal whether the bookshelf models are. Although it certainly makes sense that they would be..
 
Is the imaging truly just “a bit more” natural from 8’-10’ away than it is from 3’? If these speakers were designed to be heard from distances between 8’-10’, I would think they would sound a whole lot more natural at the correct distance vice the 3’ position. I would think they would sound like giant headphones in their non-optimized position that you employ them in and the manufacturer clearly targets with their marketing even though the designer told you he did not design the speakers for that application. I guess all’s fair in love and sales.

A few things here:

I don't think they were specifically designed to be heard from 8 to 10 feet, either, Mark. Did you Def Techs come with instructions telling you how far to sit from them? I think there is a point at which the sound of any given speaker's drivers will cohere, making them sound like a point source and not a stack of individual drivers. That point is very close with small two-way speakers, farther away with big 3 and 4-way floor-standers, can be farther still with some horns, but it's just common sense. I can't recall ever seing it published as a specification.

Do my speakers sound "a whole lot more natural" from across the room. I dunno, that's a pretty relative set of terms you have there. The are coherent from a meter or less. At near field proximity the pinpoint imaging is very precise. It's not "natural" because instruments and voices in normal performance venues don't image like that. Also - and I've discussed this before - when you're listening that close, the phantom center (if your speakers image well enough to create a really solid one) will literally move back and forth in the sound stage with the movements of your head. It's pretty weird at first, but you adjust, and if you really enjoy pinpoint imaging, as I do, it's worth putting up with for those times you're just listening and not moving around. But it's a pretty narrow sweet spot, to say the least. In that regard, the image "better" from greater distances. Pro monitors sold specifically as "near field" have the same weakness, or strength. It's the nature of listening that close and that toed-in.

Is near field listening like giant headphones? Yes and no. In a good room it will deliver most of the detail of a good headphone rig, but headphones image in and around your head. Near field listening images horizontally, vertically and dimensionally (depth), just like bigger speakers in bigger spaces. They just do it in a smaller space, and typically with a lot fewer room issues.

In any case, my listening experience isn't something you need to concern yourself with unless you're thinking of building a near field rig. Your Def Techs are bi-polar. Regardless of scale, they will never, under any circumstances, image the way near field listening does. Nothing wrong with omni-directional, mind you. If I were putting together a second rig, that's probably the way I'd go, but it is a completely different approach.

Tim
 
A few things here:

I don't think they were specifically designed to be heard from 8 to 10 feet, either, Mark. Did you Def Techs come with instructions telling you how far to sit from them? Tim

No, but they came with recommended minimum distances from the side walls, rear walls, and how far apart they should be from each other. Once you establish those points in your room, how far you sit from them isn't hard to figure out.
 

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