Near-Field Listening: Acquired Taste or Proper Paradigm?

[JonathanK]

Tmallin,

I've never read a better post anywhere on this subject (not even close). I discovered near-field listening only about one year ago. Although I've owned and loved the pair of Spendor BC-1 speakers that I purchased new in 1977, it wasn't until I installed a pair of Sonodyne self-powered pro-audio speakers in another system for a mixing project that I discovered the sound stage that the near-field configuration provides. How wonderful it is to experience the sound with such a precise sense of where on the sound stage it is positioned. It also allows one to appreciate the artistry of a great audio engineer. Well, I obviously don't need to convince you of the magic. The odd thing is that I never tire of the magic!

Soon I started experimenting with the Spendors in various near-field arrangements and discovered what I have apparently been missing for so many years. Oh well -- better-late-than-never. Your explanation of inter-driver coherence certainly gets right to what my BC-1s do so well. Your description of the aural experience is right on the money. I, too, love being inside the music without the hole-in-the-middle sensation (at one extreme) or without a homogenous sound (at the other).

As perfect as the Spendor BC-1s seem to me I have been seriously considering a pair of Harbeth speakers and will soon audition the Compact 7Es and SHL5. From your post it seems likely that you and I value similar loudspeaker characteristics so I have a question for you. Have you had the opportunity to evaluate either of these Harbeth speakers? If so, how do they compare to your Harbeth M40.1s? For that matter, have you heard the Spendor BC1s and, if so, how would you characterize their near-field performance relative to any of the Harbeths above?

If I purchase new speakers they are going to have to be better than what I have. That isn't going to be easy! If that means going all the way up to the 40.1s then I may consider doing that. One thing I should mention is that my room is only 11' wide, 14' long with a 99" high ceiling.

If anyone else is also a near-field listener and can provide feedback on my questions I will be most grateful.

BTW, this was my first post on this forum. Tmallin's great post inspired me to join!

 

[Old Listener]

Although I've owned and loved the pair of Spendor BC-1 speakers that I purchased new in 1977, it wasn't until I installed a pair of Sonodyne self-powered pro-audio speakers in another system for a mixing project that I discovered the sound stage that the near-field configuration provides.... The odd thing is that I never tire of the magic!
...
As perfect as the Spendor BC-1s seem to me I have been seriously considering a pair of Harbeth speakers and will soon audition the Compact 7Es and SHL5.
...
If anyone else is also a near-field listener and can provide feedback on my questions I will be most grateful.

Tmallin's great post inspired me to join!

It was a very useful post! Good thread all around.

I can't comment on Harbeth's but I'd suggest that you describe your intended listening situation so that others can comment. How far away from the speakers will you be? Will the speakers be on stands or on a desk or bookshelf? How much absorption, reflection and diffraction will surfaces in the room provide? Do you have the flexibility to change those qualities?

I have listened in the near field for at least 16 years and find it to be addictive. (I get a bit fuzzy about earlier listening situations.) As Amir said, quite inexpensive speakers can provide enjoyable results in a near-field application.

Bill

 

[tmallin]

First, thanks for the compliment, JonathanK!

Second, it's been about 2 1/2 years since I wrote the post which started this thread. At the time I wrote it, I had not heard Spendor speakers of any kind in decades. Due to a lot of discussion of Spendors and the new Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 on other forums, however, I recently acquired a used pair of Spendor SP1/2s, the same model REG of TAS reviewed years ago. I now have quite an appreciation for Spendors myself. The SP1/2s sound very fine indeed.

I would say that if you like your BC-1 (which are probably yet fuller and warmer in the midbass and lower mids than my SP1/2s), you may well find the Harbeth house sound a bit brash and bright. On the other hand, if you are thinking that your Spendors may be missing a bit in clarity and "aliveness," the Harbeths could be just the ticket. The Harbeths are quite civilized speakers, as modern designs go, but the Spendors you have are yet more "civilised" (British spelling intentional).

By all accounts, the SHL5 is the most subdued and warm sounding of the Harbeth line. It is the closest Harbeth model to the Spendor sound, I think. The 7ES3 is "leaner," but only by comparison. It is still very realistically balanced, as modern speakers go.

The 40.1 goes a bit deeper (in some rooms, not mine, more than a bit), sounds bigger, sounds yet cleaner than the other models, and has "authority" that the other models lack. Some people think it is among the very best speakers available, if not the very best. I keep coming back to it myself, after periodic flirtations with other fine speakers. It has only two problems: in some rooms, including my bass boom-box concrete basement bunker of a room, the midbass really needs electronic equalization to avoid truly excessive booming. The earlier Model 40 was yet worse in this respect. Second, it has strong lateral dispersion in the presence range and really needs a lot of foam padding on the side walls if those walls are within a few feet of the speakers to absorb that energy so as to get the very best imaging and staging of which this speaker is capable, and, believe me, it IS capable. With your 11-foot-wide room, this could prove problematic. Even in my 13-foot-wide room, the addition of 4" thick Sonex was a huge improvement over the 3" I had previously. You could try firing the speakers across the narrow dimension of the room; I did that for awhile and it freed the imaging and staging to a remarkable degree, but set up that way the bass dropped like a rock below 60 Hz.

So is the Model 40.1 worth $13K or more? Yes, for some. But today, I recommend that you try to audition a couple of other very fine speakers before making that decision. You should hear the Sterling Broadcast LS3/6 as well as the PSB T2. Either one is about $4,000 a pair. Remember, you could have a surround system (if that idea appeals to you) with six such speakers for about the same as a pair of M40.1s will cost. And for $10k the Gradient Revolution Active (what I'm in the process of setting up in my listening room now) is also very fine; you will need to bi-amp those, but Gradient makes a bi-amped package available with crossover and amps still for only $10k. All these speakers have the advantage over the M40.1 of greater "room reach" in the sense of not requiring such near-field listening in order to minimize the contribution/contamination of the second venue of your listening room.

 

[DaveyF]

Very interesting thread. I listen in fairly close proximity to my system based on the size of my room. It's not a true near-field set up, but is pretty close.
I think in the small listening rooms that a lot of us employ, this set-up is as good as it gets. I will say that room treatment in a small room, makes a BIG difference...my system benefitting greatly from Real Traps on the walls.
BTW, I recently heard the Harbeth 40.1's and have to agree with pretty much everything you say about them. The pair I heard were on sound anchor stands and were connected to a Lyngdorf room correction system.
In a BIG room, these speakers were pretty impressive, allowing the tilt of an orchestra to be well portrayed. If i was in the market for a larger speaker, they would be a contender at their price range. However, i do think a
large room is mandated for these speakers. ( larger than Jonathan's room described above).

 

[puroagave]

the 40.1 appears to be Harbeths answer to the Spendor Sp100. I first heard the S100 eons ago at Ying Tan's apartment (of classic records/ORG fame) and lusted for my own set. I owned SP1/2 before the Sp100 (successor to the s100) and the sp100 is better than sp1/2 in every respect and inspite of its size does the near field thing very well. is wish i'd never sold them.

 

[GaryProtein]

I read the entire initial post in this thread. I had no idea some people listened at such close range to their speakers.

I am a confirmed fan of FAR FIELD listening. I sit about 22 feet from my speakers.

Being close to the speakers does not bring me to a realistic [emotional] place in listening. I feel like I am listening to the speakers, not the music because I am so close to the sound source. I might as well almost be listening to headphones. YUCK.

Even if I have a string quartet or trio and a piano in my living room, I am still at least ten feet from the closest performer. If I am at a concert [I don't mean rock concert], I am never closer than 20 feet from the front of the stage unless I am in the first row or two, and even that has severe problems in halls. The highs literally go over your head because the first 10 rows (the number of rows varies with the hall) are noticeably lower than the stage. In practically all concert situations, I am at least 40 feet from the front of the orchestra. I don't like to be closer.

If I am listening to a small ensemble, I usually but not always want the system to bring them into my room. If I am listening to a large group or an orchestra, I want to be transported to the concert hall. YMMV depending on how some recordings are miked.

I find it extremely rare when people are trying to impress me when demonstrating their equipment that they play real orchestral music that has the timbre of real live instruments. Practically all demos are done with bright sparkly music or the speakers have tweeters that are so bright that you feel like the jazz drummers cymbals are next to your ears or the violins have high frequency harmonics that you NEVER hear when you listen to a real live violin. It seems manufacturers have been producing very overly bright speakers for a number of years that many people think is an advancement in technology because listeners expect to hear the highs with crystal clarity [read: blaring], and I fear one of the reasons for this is that many designers are my age and they have blown out their ears in their youth attending rock concerts. It is almost as if there is a vicious cycle of manufacturers who can't hear and the audiophiles who either don't know they can't hear or just think sparkly, tinkly highs are what cymbal sizzle or string harmonics should sound like. I have heard many supposedly world class (over $100K) speakers offend my ears and make me cringe because they are so bright.

 

[XV-1]

Gary

Your IRS speakers would have to be the speaker never designed for near field listening

 

[GaryProtein]

I never listened to any speakers I have owned near field except on my computer.

 

[microstrip]

How should we officially quantify near field listening? The only statement I can see about it is this thread is Tom reference to less than 60" (that I assume is measured from speaker to listener, not speaker plane to listener).

 

[JonathanK]

First, thanks everyone for such quick and thoughtful responses.

I would say that if you like your BC-1 (which are probably yet fuller and warmer in the midbass and lower mids than my SP1/2s), you may well find the Harbeth house sound a bit brash and bright. On the other hand, if you are thinking that your Spendors may be missing a bit in clarity and "aliveness," the Harbeths could be just the ticket. The Harbeths are quite civilized speakers, as modern designs go, but the Spendors you have are yet more "civilised" (British spelling intentional).

Yes, I might find the Harbeths a bit bright. I guess I'll find out soon. The thing about the BC-1 is that there is almost no fatigue factor as far I am concerned. I once purchased a pair of 4" Focal CMS40 pro-audio monitors which literally caused serious pain (no joke) at any listening level after just a few minutes. I can only listen to my Sonodyne 6.5" speakers for about 20 minutes at a stretch without quite noticeable fatigue.

I did notice in your supplied photo that you had applied some strategically-placed sound absorbent materials (rock wool?) to tame reflections. From everything I can gather (including posts from the Harbeth User Group) the M40.1 requires very precise room conditions for proper performance due to all of the bass energy it releases. I know everyone seems to think the BC-1 is a civilized speaker but to me it has a killer bass -- quite deep, punchy and surprisingly fast and responsive. The Harbeth SHL5 is thus likely more than enough speaker for me. Alan Shaw makes a strong point that the Radial2 cones deliver much greater clarity than other drivers, so I am very interested in hearing what I may be missing from my old hand doped bextrene drivers.

Part of what prompted my quest for new speakers (other than what we audiophiles do best) is that I had a bit of scare a month ago when my right speaker started distorting at low volume. I was able to repair the problem by disassembling the cabinet and rotating the woofer 180 degrees, presumably offsetting 35 years of gravity on the cone. I hope that this doesn't get back to Spendor -- I'd hate to void my warranty!

As far as my listening setup goes, I think that I actually sit (stand actually) closer than most of the other near-field listeners on this forum report. My BC-1 speakers are typically 5.5 to 6 feet apart and I often stand (ears at tweeter height) as close as 12" (but also as far as 4-5 feet) from the front plane of the speakers. The advantage of standing is that I can tweak the listening distance without any positioning of chairs and can find the sweet spot for any distance with very minor alterations in my position. To my ears the magic definitely occurs at the closer distances. Incidentally, I have tried, without any success, to achieve this near-field soundstage effect from a pair of AR-2ax speakers that I just had rebuilt, but cannot seem to get any kind of decent sound stage at all.

TMallin, I will check out your other speaker recommendations soon.

I'm may be rambling on at this point so I think it best to stop for now. Thanks again.

Jonathan

 

[JonathanK]

So is the Model 40.1 worth $13K or more? Yes, for some. But today, I recommend that you try to audition a couple of other very fine speakers before making that decision. You should hear the Sterling Broadcast LS3/6 as well as the PSB T2. Either one is about $4,000 a pair. Remember, you could have a surround system (if that idea appeals to you) with six such speakers for about the same as a pair of M40.1s will cost. And for $10k the Gradient Revolution Active (what I'm in the process of setting up in my listening room now) is also very fine; you will need to bi-amp those, but Gradient makes a bi-amped package available with crossover and amps still for only $10k. All these speakers have the advantage over the M40.1 of greater "room reach" in the sense of not requiring such near-field listening in order to minimize the contribution/contamination of the second venue of your listening room.

I just checked out theSterling Broadcast LS3/6 online and they look exactly like the BC-1 -- same dimensions and everything. They are also quite a bit less expensive than the Harbeth SHL5. Assuming that I have a way of auditioning them in my home they may make for a great choice. My only concern there is that if I'm going to go to the expense of purchasing new speakers, perhaps I should try to find something other than a clone of what I have now. From the review that I read it would seem that they are essentially a slightly tweaked version of the BC-1 which raises some philosophical/financial questions that I'll need to sort out. I will say that I'm glad that I'm not alone in loving this style of speaker.

Can you describe the characteristics of the PSB T2? Do they (or other tower-style designs) have the coherence suitable for near-field enjoyment that you explained in your original post? I ask because that design would appear to the untrained (me) to suggest a completely different listening approach and, given the content of your original post, seem present a design challenge as well. Would they work for me in my preferred listening position (i.e. standing up, ear canal at 64")?

I have had only limited exposure to this style of speaker but the B&W towers that I've heard sounded very harsh with poor imaging to boot. Who know, perhaps that was just an artifact of a poor setup that I heard. Towers are certainly popular now -- I saw that even Spendor has a tower-style model now. Please pardon my ignorance regarding this design approach. Perhaps someone can explain how it is possible to achieve driver coherence when the drivers are spread out over such a large plane.

Jonathan

 

[JonathanK]

So is the Model 40.1 worth $13K or more? Yes, for some. But today, I recommend that you try to audition a couple of other very fine speakers before making that decision. You should hear the Sterling Broadcast LS3/6 as well as the PSB T2. Either one is about $4,000 a pair. Remember, you could have a surround system (if that idea appeals to you) with six such speakers for about the same as a pair of M40.1s will cost.

TMallin, I took your recommendation quite seriously and have been listening to a pair of the new Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 in my home next to my Spendor BC-1s. Thanks for your input -- I knew that you'd be a great person to ask for speaker recommendations!

In blind tests I have been repeatedly fooled as to which speaker pair I am listening to. This reincarnation of the BBC broadcast is dead on! The bass from the new pair does seem to go a bit deeper and there may be a bit more clarity here or there, but basically Derek Hughes has captured the original Spendor/Rogers sound beautifully. I am over my philosophical/financial quandary thanks to a bit of luck. When I called the U.S. distributor for Stirling, I asked the representative whether it would be possible to audition the LS3/6 in my home. I was told that they don't do that but that he could sell me the demo pair (with a very small chip on the cabinet) used by Robert E. Greene for his review (http://www.playstereo.com/pub/review_StirlingLS36.pdf) which I could then return should I decide not to keep them. I'm not sure they would want me to publish the discount they extended so I will just say that it was an offer that I just couldn't refuse.

By all accounts, the SHL5 is the most subdued and warm sounding of the Harbeth line. It is the closest Harbeth model to the Spendor sound, I think. The 7ES3 is "leaner," but only by comparison. It is still very realistically balanced, as modern speakers go.

I had a chance to briefly listen to the SHL5 as well. My local Harbeth dealer brought them to me to audition in my home. And yes, they sounded really wonderful (and indeed warm), but not that different from the other BBC-style speakers I was comparing them to given the (now) huge disparity in price. I will say that had the price been closer I would have given them serious consideration. For one thing, the finish on the cabinet is absolutely gorgeous! I just didn't have the heart to ask the dealer to leave them with me and then drive back another day to pick them up.

Incidentally, I showed the Harbeth dealer my near-field arrangement and demonstrated the sound with a couple of recordings. His response was interesting and relevant to the actual thread here. His three comments (summarized) were:

1. "At this listening distance and volume you are probably only using about 1 watt of power".
2. "You don't really need a speaker this large to achieve the effect you are after"
3. "While you may be eliminating any undesirable room effects, you also aren't getting any desirable spatial room effects"

Thanks again for the advice and best wishes.

Jonathan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How should we officially quantify near field listening? The only statement I can see about it is this thread is Tom reference to less than 60" (that I assume is measured from speaker to listener, not speaker plane to listener).

You can't officially (or broadly) quantify the proper distance for near field listening, because it depends on the size and design of the speakers in question. IMHO, most of the speakers being discussed here are too large for near field, but I haven't heard them, so I could be wrong about that.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

TMallin, I took your recommendation quite seriously and have been listening to a pair of the new Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 in my home next to my Spendor BC-1s. Thanks for your input -- I knew that you'd be a great person to ask for speaker recommendations!

In blind tests I have been repeatedly fooled as to which speaker pair I am listening to. This reincarnation of the BBC broadcast is dead on! The bass from the new pair does seem to go a bit deeper and there may be a bit more clarity here or there, but basically Derek Hughes has captured the original Spendor/Rogers sound beautifully. I am over my philosophical/financial quandary thanks to a bit of luck. When I called the U.S. distributor for Stirling, I asked the representative whether it would be possible to audition the LS3/6 in my home. I was told that they don't do that but that he could sell me the demo pair (with a very small chip on the cabinet) used by Robert E. Greene for his review (http://www.playstereo.com/pub/review_StirlingLS36.pdf) which I could then return should I decide not to keep them. I'm not sure they would want me to publish the discount they extended so I will just say that it was an offer that I just couldn't refuse.




I had a chance to briefly listen to the SHL5 as well. My local Harbeth dealer brought them to me to audition in my home. And yes, they sounded really wonderful (and indeed warm), but not that different from the other BBC-style speakers I was comparing them to given the (now) huge disparity in price. I will say that had the price been closer I would have given them serious consideration. For one thing, the finish on the cabinet is absolutely gorgeous! I just didn't have the heart to ask the dealer to leave them with me and then drive back another day to pick them up.

Incidentally, I showed the Harbeth dealer my near-field arrangement and demonstrated the sound with a couple of recordings. His response was interesting and relevant to the actual thread here. His three comments (summarized) were:

1. "At this listening distance and volume you are probably only using about 1 watt of power".
2. "You don't really need a speaker this large to achieve the effect you are after"
3. "While you may be eliminating any undesirable room effects, you also aren't getting any desirable spatial room effects"

Thanks again for the advice and best wishes.

Jonathan

In other words, I agree with the Harbeth dealer, on all 3 counts. Except that I'm not sure I find the "spatial room effects" all that desireable. Or perhaps I'm not eliminating the ones I like. Near field does not sound like an over-treated room, or listening to speakers outside. Room effects are not eliminated by near filed listening; first reflections are greatly diminished, relative to direct sound. It's still all a matter of preference. Do you like hyper-realisitic pinpoint imaging? A recreation of the recording with minimal influence of the listening room? You would like near field.

Tim

 

[JonathanK]

Holographic Imaging is Gone

So after listening to the Stirling LS3/6 for a week I noticed that they were sounding pushed and strident at louder volumes (midfield and farther), especially when compared to the Spendor BC-1. It took a while to figure out, but I finally swapped out my 50W Jolida 302B tube amp for a 100W Yamaha Solid-State amp and the Stirlings opened up greatly. I had imagined that 50 Watts of tube amplification would be sufficient power but the clipping on loud passages of chamber music was painful. Even pleasant selections such as Kate Rusby's "Bitter Boy" sounded, at high volume, like I was being shouted at until I put in the 100 watt amp.

Unfortunately, using the Yamaha amp, the magical "holographic" presentation that I have been describing in my previous posts regarding near-field listening has almost entirely disappeared. It sounds like there is a giant hole in the middle of the sound stage where voices and instruments previously floated palpably before me.

Can anyone comment on whether this is an artifact of my Yamaha RX-V1065 amp (which was designed as an AV and 7 channel device), or whether this is a tube vs. solid-state issue? I ask because I am trying to figure out how to correct this. After some research on amps I'm trying to decide between either a Luxman L505u (SS) or Jolida 1000RC (Tube) depending upon the cause of this problem. I read one recent post on another forum by someone who described essentially the same lack of holographic effect when he switched to the L505u from a tube amp. The Luxman amp is so universally well regarded I find it hard to believe that it would fail to deliver such an important element of musical enjoyment.

I'm hoping people can comment on this so that I have an idea of how to proceed.

Thanks!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So after listening to the Stirling LS3/6 for a week I noticed that they were sounding pushed and strident at louder volumes (midfield and farther), especially when compared to the Spendor BC-1. It took a while to figure out, but I finally swapped out my 50W Jolida 302B tube amp for a 100W Yamaha Solid-State amp and the Stirlings opened up greatly. I had imagined that 50 Watts of tube amplification would be sufficient power but the clipping on loud passages of chamber music was painful. Even pleasant selections such as Kate Rusby's "Bitter Boy" sounded, at high volume, like I was being shouted at until I put in the 100 watt amp.

Unfortunately, using the Yamaha amp, the magical "holographic" presentation that I have been describing in my previous posts regarding near-field listening has almost entirely disappeared. It sounds like there is a giant hole in the middle of the sound stage where voices and instruments previously floated palpably before me.

Can anyone comment on whether this is an artifact of my Yamaha RX-V1065 amp (which was designed as an AV and 7 channel device), or whether this is a tube vs. solid-state issue? I ask because I am trying to figure out how to correct this. After some research on amps I'm trying to decide between either a Luxman L505u (SS) or Jolida 1000RC (Tube) depending upon the cause of this problem. I read one recent post on another forum by someone who described essentially the same lack of holographic effect when he switched to the L505u from a tube amp. The Luxman amp is so universally well regarded I find it hard to believe that it would fail to deliver such an important element of musical enjoyment.

I'm hoping people can comment on this so that I have an idea of how to proceed.

Thanks!

It's not a solid state vs. tube thing. My actives are solid state and present a phantom center...and series of pinpoint images all across the width and depth of the space between the speakers, that is so solid you can almost chew on it. Close your eyes and listen to mono; it sounds like there is one speaker, in the center. There is no hole in the middle. In fact, I'm trying to imagine how an amplifier could do that, period. Let's assume it even has dismal channel separation. That could smear the image, but I'm not sure how it could create a "hole in the middle." That, it would seem, would be a function of the dispersion characteristics of the speakers. Did you move anything? Not sure what you're hearing....

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I don't think it's a solid state or tube thing either. It's likely that the Jolida was just operating outside of it's range having to pump out more voltage to achieve the same SPL at the greater distance. What you describe looks to me like tube glare. As for the Solid State amp in the nearfield what you're likely experiencing is the loss of the Jolida's harmonics which does tend to fill in gaps. The options I can see are to use the amps that best suit the listening distance which costs nothing or get a higher powered tube amp for midfield listening. I can't predict however what that amp might sound like near-field. Small tube amps have a charm that big ones usually lack so it's a toss up. Just MHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Perhaps I'm lost in semantics, but I'm confused by the language being used. "Holographic imaging" I get. Monitors in the near filed can present an incredibly precise, detailed image. It might even take a bit of getting used to, because such clearly delineated positioning doesn't often exist in real concert situations. But it should not go away in a switch from tubes to solid state. In fact, as Jack said, tube harmonics do tend to "fill in the gaps." They should, if anything, soften the imaging. I'm also at a loss as to how a change in amplifier could create "a giant hole in the middle of the sound stage."

Jonathan, when you changed amps, did you also change speaker position? Toe-in? The position of your listening chair?

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I've wondered about it myself and have been left scratching my head because I have experienced it.

 

[P.C.]

possible incorrect wire connection when using the SS amp causing an out of phase image?