Nearfields for audiophile listening?

Sure, but it doesn't mean I am satisfied with my knowledge on that front.
Specifics of this conversation are best handled in one of those tube vs solid state specific threads.

What I have found out in my relatively short audiophile/diy nut journey is that being comfortable technically in some area biases my mind just as much as some dudes think pretty enclosure makes a device sounding better. These biases get less intrusive with age as other biases take over and in time things have evened out quite a bit. For example now I even think switcher psu is not the most evil audio electronics piece ever.
In the end an observation is the only thing I am certain in; being wrong so many times in my life trying to assume what's good or bad based on equations, graphs and in depth knowledge in underlying mechanics. (I think I need to swallow whole a pair of dirty socks and eat a hat for the things I have said in the past)

 

please tell me what are the shortcomings of a literal Gaincard lm3875 technically? this will be fun. a gaincard lm3875 have many inherent design advantage over many discrete amp junk in the budget and also midfi ss amp realm.

85db at mixing position in nearfield or midfield is loud. too loud for me and for most id argue. I just installed a system at my mom house, the jeff bagby continuum powered with a cyrus one. there's a not a chance in the world she would need more power. my friend let me borrow his audion golden night 300b SET amp (while my sony ta 707es being recapped), and you know what, I would have enough power for my needs.

 

Anyone seen these yet? Massdrop x JBL LSR30X....

https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-jbl-lsr30x-powered-speakers

Been considering getting a pair of LSR308's to start off with a speaker setup until i can go passive with a nice amp... will be paired with Gungnir Multibit and Freya...

 

From the 305 thread:

Probably a better deal to get a used pair of the original 305's.

 

Although having read the whole thread, I still don't get the "real" difference between nearfield monitors and HiFi (bookshelf) speakers.

Is it just purpose and marketing? I mean, a Hifi speaker can sound more neutral than a nearfield monitor, can't it?

Background story: I am searching for a good solution for listening to music at my desk. I need some kind of selection to narrow it down and I think nearfield monitors vs. Hifi speakers would be the first one. Active vs. passive, with or without subwoofer, price etc. coming in later.

 

Nearfield and Hifi speakers aren't really mutually exclusive. Typically speaker near/mid/far-field will indicate the intended placement distance from the listener. I've always broken it down like this:

• Nearfield: < 2m from the speakers
• Midfield: 2-4m from the speakers
• Farfield: > 4m from the speakers

So if listening to speakers at your desk is the goal, you're absolutely looking for something that's good in nearfield. There have been a few mentions of speakers more designed for midfield use in this thread, but the vast majority of the discussion seems to have centered around nearfield monitors originally intended for studio use/mastering. But just as there are plenty of said monitors that are just fine for audiophile use, there are plenty of studios that use Hifi speakers in the mixing room. I can think of a few that use B&W, and Katz uses big Dynaudio towers (though usually in larger rooms).

I usually listen in midfield to farfield though, so I can't necessarily guide you to anything specifically. However, is neutrality your main goal? If it is, then studio monitors may be a great option for you. I've got a personal preference for passive speakers, but that's built up over a lifetime of habits. If I didn't like marching a parade of poweramps through my system I may go straight for a pair of ATCs.

*revised my distance after doing a little math after reading Armaegis's post. originals were 1, 2, and 3 meters meant to be the start of the ranges.

 

Personally, I would roughly double Dave's distances there. I consider nearfield up to 2m (on the desk or recording console itself), midfield roughly up to 4-5m (on stands back and up from the console), and farfield anything past that.

One of the critical requirements of a nearfield monitor (or any speaker really) is coherency of your drivers. With your usual 2 or 3-way arrangements, you need to be a certain distance before the sound from the drivers "merges" together cleanly. As your speakers/drivers get bigger, the space between the drivers increases and thus your listening position moves further back. Nearfield monitors are also less concerned with even dispersion, as they assume that somebody will be sitting in the "sweet spot". Room filling speakers or PA's want sound to be the same (more or less) wherever you are, so they must contend with controlling how sound "spreads out".

Nearfield monitors are almost always toed in for the "equilateral triangle" positioning approach, with tweeters roughly pointed just above your ears. Midfield less so, and farfield are often flush mounted into the wall. With nearfields your "first reflections" are usually going to be the desk/console, rather than the walls.

 

I guess I don't really disagree that much (I definitely didn't leave enough room for midfield), but I definitely consider 5m to be farfield and do believe that 2m is the start of midfield (though that jibes with what you posted). I'll edit my original post for clarity.

 

I just came across this brand today, but it looks interesting: http://www.gsstudiomonitors.com/system-overview.html
Anyone heard of them? It says they use the ATC midrange dome, which is super interesting.

 

It's mostly appearance. Pro stuff looks raw and purpose built.
Hi-Fi stuff usually gets special treatment on looks front, that is not universally appealing in most cases.
Sound wise difference is that the minimum level of accuracy is better from pro gear, ie more consistency and freq response flattness is prioritized before every other technical parameter of sound, unlike in Hi-Fi where everyone has their own idea of best compromise. For this reason studio monitors often sound dead/flat in dynamics for the goal of lower reaching bass. Analytical/shrill in treble because large domes are used to cross over low with woofers for better dispersion characteristics.
Also in pro audio active 48dB/octave crossovers are common sight, again sounding more flat and boring than simple passive LR2 would.

 

Saw them in a big pro audio trade show in Frankfurt. I can't vouch for sound in any way because they were in an open floor plan type of situation. Doesn't look bad on paper. Dunno why they should be better than ATC. Overall dome mids interest me, but for truly full range operation they usually dictate a 4-way design.

 

The design reminds me a little of the Unity Audio Boulder + BABE configuration. I suppose if you wanted the 4-way you could just add their subs into the mix. I mean hey, if you're already spending upwards of 5 figures, a few thousand more isn't gonna hurt.

 

Thanks a lot for your helpful replies!

Right now I have Klipsch RB81, which are 2,6 and 2,9 meters away on a dresser and a shelf, so I'm not even sitting in an equilateral triangle.

The problem is the muddy sound at my desk which I notice since I use Dirac Room Correction in my living room and especially since I got into headphones.

As a first step I ordered some monitor stands to experiment with different listening distances. The idea is to get more direct sound at about 1-1,5 meters. I guess this won't solve bass problems with room modes, though. I also believe the Klipsch are not made for that kind of nearfield use.

 

Positioning can alleviate room impact significantly in my experience.
Mounting monitors on stands vs desktop has yielded better results in every scenario for me.
You certainly can't get rid of room modes with dsp,
but after some room treatment (if you are allowed to) or simply re-positioning, dsp could be useful for fine tuning.

 

Desk bounce sucks bigtime. I always recommend stands if there's enough space to use them. Interestingly enough, having a tidy desk makes things a bit worse because you lose some diffraction.

Well, you can comb something like this:



Into this:



The narrow null at 120Hz persists, but otherwise it seems like a good improvement. I mean DSP is no magic wand, but it helps tremendously if applied correctly. It won't change RT60, it won't do squat about late reflections, but there's always positioning and physical treatments to tackle it.

 

Just a note to say the Genelec 1030A active monitors (the predecessor to the current 8040B, I believe) are amaaaaazing straight from a Gungnir Multibit. Goosebumps galore. My partner literally cried while listening to Broadway theater recordings. Being able to hear individual piano key presses is eerily good. Wholly recommend.

 

I once read that it is possible to blow stuff up trying to compensate for a node, because a null is still a null even with an infinite amount of energy poured into it. Is that true, or... hyperbole?

 

It's very true. What's also true is that most speakers can take more beating than they're rated for. Exceeding linear excursion doesn't mean you're out of mechanical excursion.

I'd say that more bass woofers are destroyed by driving them in a ported box below tuning frequency. That's why careful filtering and sometimes limiting/compression can be useful if you want a fool-proof system.

 

It's possible if you crank it so high that the signal is clipping and you're specifically playing stuff focused in the boosted region at a loud volume. As a general rule, it is better to cut rather than add. Remember, for every +6dB you've just quadrupled the power requirement (and doubled the voltage swing). What a lot of people don't realize is that blowing a speaker is more frequently due to the amp being overdriven rather that the speaker getting too much of the magic juice.

 

I tried making a fool-proof system once... but the fools still managed to set the speakers on fire.


Twice.