I suspected that this is what you were referring to.
The problem here is that "near field" monitors are NOT near field in the scientific sense. They should be called "direct field monitors" since that is really what they are. They are in the direct field - where the direct sound swamps the reverberation. In this case the directivity become less important since the rooms integration of the total radiated sound into what we hear is minimized. This kind of listening is rather unique and almost no work has ever been done on how we perceive things in this case. All of Tooles, mine and others work on perception assume that we are in the reverberant field. Hence there aren't any real answer to questions about direct field listening - it's all a guess.
First, Happy Holidays to all 🙂
It's a small shame, how the studio world borrowed the term 'near-field', to create a confusing double usage.
I like Toole's terms for listening distances...'direct field dominant' and 'reflected field dominant'.
I think adding the word dominant helps differentiate those terms from classic near-field and far field, that are based on inverse square law.
Imo, Genelec does a nice job providing info about their monitors and on this topic..
Here's their chart showing the critical distance for their products.
Admittedly critical distance is freq dependent, and who knows exactly what rooms the chart is good for.... but it's a heck of alot more info than most manufacturers give...https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors
At the current state of sound engineering and mastering, on average, I prefer a non-direct field listening experience which is why I prioritized building the speakers that I did rather than electrostats. And I prefer my speakers to my Genelecs and headphones. They simply sound more enjoyable and impressive than a near field or direct field listening experience for the majority of recordings that I listen to. I have not tested the electrostatic panels which I have on hand and my opinions may change upon doing though I suspect they may fall short of the wave guide compression driver combo dues to their potential inability to play at mid-field satisfactory volumes. If someone could just figure out an electrostatic compression driver maybe by incorporating something like graphene and a massive voltage step up or an electromechanical compression driver through use of a continuous -- non stepper -- servo motor, that would maybe yield worthwhile improvements over current voice coil actuator compression drivers. Though such an endeavor, if even possible, could be unnecessarily complex depending on the degree of improvement.
I feel that the marriage between CD and WG is far more critical than many see. Its not just the driver exit angle or WG expansion rate which matter here, but on a large scale, moreso the proportions of these individual dimensions to each other. I'm not saying you can't get really lucky trying certain combinations that don't look good on paper, but the likelihood of failure is far greater than that of success.
The one main prejudice I can state is WGs with stepped diffraction slots don't sound that good compared to ones without or ones that have smoother transitions. This is probably why I like the 18sound XT1086 alot, although its a bit shy on the extreme top end. In contrast, the little B&C ME20 is pretty good despite the sharp step in the throat. It does get fizzy at higher SPLs probably due to the slot design it uses.
All of the seos WGs are generally pretty good sounding if the CD is compatible. At the lower cutoff, Seos WGs tend to do better than most CD horns and this is IMO down to how they load the driver, specifically past the cutoff. The phase shifts around this region can jump wildly which hurts every aspect of performance. Staying out of this area with the xover HP is critical. I've never had much success crossing close to cutoff, especially with a shallow slope. I try to stay an octave above the cutoff for best results.
Looking at CDs with extended, long throats and straight conical tapers (usually designed for line array applications) like the Celestion CDX1-1430, running it on shallow WGs generally doesn't work well. The thing is, this driver sounds so nice on a larger horn, which it wasn't really designed for. It's been said the horn/WG itself defines most of the real world audio performance in a CD / WG combo - why then does the driver choice itself usually make such a difference in SQ? Surely you can't just compare a no frills budget Eminence CD directly to a higher end Faital driver on the same horn!?
The one main prejudice I can state is WGs with stepped diffraction slots don't sound that good compared to ones without or ones that have smoother transitions. This is probably why I like the 18sound XT1086 alot, although its a bit shy on the extreme top end. In contrast, the little B&C ME20 is pretty good despite the sharp step in the throat. It does get fizzy at higher SPLs probably due to the slot design it uses.
All of the seos WGs are generally pretty good sounding if the CD is compatible. At the lower cutoff, Seos WGs tend to do better than most CD horns and this is IMO down to how they load the driver, specifically past the cutoff. The phase shifts around this region can jump wildly which hurts every aspect of performance. Staying out of this area with the xover HP is critical. I've never had much success crossing close to cutoff, especially with a shallow slope. I try to stay an octave above the cutoff for best results.
Looking at CDs with extended, long throats and straight conical tapers (usually designed for line array applications) like the Celestion CDX1-1430, running it on shallow WGs generally doesn't work well. The thing is, this driver sounds so nice on a larger horn, which it wasn't really designed for. It's been said the horn/WG itself defines most of the real world audio performance in a CD / WG combo - why then does the driver choice itself usually make such a difference in SQ? Surely you can't just compare a no frills budget Eminence CD directly to a higher end Faital driver on the same horn!?
Hello All,
Now that 2022 is nearly past perhaps we should wrap up this topic.
Originally horns were developed because tube amplifier watts were expensive and to limit coverage angle to the seats where people were sitting. People would want to hear. We all have had the experience of walking off to the side of the stage at the county fair and not being able to hear the vocals.
I venture to say that most of us here listen to our speakers in our home listening settings. At least that is true for me. I use CD - horns/wave-guides in a reverberant space where a smooth controlled dispersion is preferred. Cone mid-range drivers work out well for this application. The coverage angle is well known and documented. Where the coverage angle of the cone mid-range begins to narrow to 100 to 90 degrees that is where I crossover to the CD Horn/Wave-Guide tweeter. The CD / Horn / wave-guide is currently a JBL dual diaphragm D2 and the wave guide is a 90X50 thing from a JBL 825 speaker
On my bench I have a pair of home crafted 0.55 cubic foot sealed enclosures with 6.5 inch Purifi mid woofers installed with dome tweeters in wave-guides. (a sub woofer is tucked away below the bench) As @gedlee calls it, this is direct field listening. This is not reverberant space listening. I much prefer this direct field listening to in your head headphones.
A brief comment about horn distortion. Yes horns do have distortion signatures of their own. Some will tell us that 2nd and 3rd HD's do not matter so much. I am not a faithful believer in this. At some level distortion is audible. Some of the golden ears tell us that they can hear a mouse fart. On my bench is some measurement equipment; AP analyzer Gras microphones. If I start to see distortion creeping above 2% I start to to pucker a bit. CD / Horns / wave-guides can get up to double digits distortion pretty quickly. See the attachments below for a little of the back story.
Controlling dispersion above 2kHZ starts getting a little tricky quickly, that is why I us CD / horn wave-guides
http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/JBL/Technical Notes/JBL Technical Note - Vol.1, No.8.pdf
Now that 2022 is nearly past perhaps we should wrap up this topic.
Originally horns were developed because tube amplifier watts were expensive and to limit coverage angle to the seats where people were sitting. People would want to hear. We all have had the experience of walking off to the side of the stage at the county fair and not being able to hear the vocals.
I venture to say that most of us here listen to our speakers in our home listening settings. At least that is true for me. I use CD - horns/wave-guides in a reverberant space where a smooth controlled dispersion is preferred. Cone mid-range drivers work out well for this application. The coverage angle is well known and documented. Where the coverage angle of the cone mid-range begins to narrow to 100 to 90 degrees that is where I crossover to the CD Horn/Wave-Guide tweeter. The CD / Horn / wave-guide is currently a JBL dual diaphragm D2 and the wave guide is a 90X50 thing from a JBL 825 speaker
On my bench I have a pair of home crafted 0.55 cubic foot sealed enclosures with 6.5 inch Purifi mid woofers installed with dome tweeters in wave-guides. (a sub woofer is tucked away below the bench) As @gedlee calls it, this is direct field listening. This is not reverberant space listening. I much prefer this direct field listening to in your head headphones.
A brief comment about horn distortion. Yes horns do have distortion signatures of their own. Some will tell us that 2nd and 3rd HD's do not matter so much. I am not a faithful believer in this. At some level distortion is audible. Some of the golden ears tell us that they can hear a mouse fart. On my bench is some measurement equipment; AP analyzer Gras microphones. If I start to see distortion creeping above 2% I start to to pucker a bit. CD / Horns / wave-guides can get up to double digits distortion pretty quickly. See the attachments below for a little of the back story.
Controlling dispersion above 2kHZ starts getting a little tricky quickly, that is why I us CD / horn wave-guides
http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/JBL/Technical Notes/JBL Technical Note - Vol.1, No.8.pdf
Well, if you like headphones or near-field monitors, you don't need horns and CDs. But this is offtopic. Topic for people who enjoy life 😀
Who are you speaking to about being off topic?
Near field seems to be a common theme in this thread. There are at least 10 posts here that have extensive discussion regarding nearfield.
CD / Horn wave-guides are common in near field monitors.
The next iteration of speakers for my bench includes HF108R CD's and STH100 wave-guides. I like the toe-in effect creating a larger sweet spot. http://www.gedlee.com/Loudspeakers/Abbey.aspx
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/directivity.pdf see toe-in
Last edited:
I was just joking, I even added a funny smiley at the end.
P.S. In the near field, the CDs seem to be overkill.
P.P.S IMHO near field is boring.
Okay,
Speakers need to be small to fit on the bench top.
At first the speakers on the bench were just speakers, now they have been through several upgrade iterations.
The current Purifi drivers plus sub-woofer have much reduced HD and IMD measured distortion.
Used in the near field / direct field, these Faitial Pro CD / Wave-guides require very few Watts (1/2 or 1 Watt) to be loud. There is very little measured distortion. Over kill, perhaps? Sounds good to me.
I generally love overkill stuff. Purifi looks great, as Faitial's do (0,01 W possible?)). Just the near field is not my cup of tea.
(And just in case, once again, I was only joking.)
Mid field is my thing. Some people prefer the "large headphones" thing, but unless I'm working on mixing/mastering a recording, I don't enjoy being planted right in front of a pair of speakers. You don't get any of the rooms signature that way and not much chance of a realistic sound stage. The illusion of speakers disappearing isn't as pronounced and the drivers integrate less optimally with each other from being further off axis of both drivers being that close.The summed response will suffer from this.
The only type of speakers benefiting from near field listening are fullranges and coax drivers. I've listened to alot of Auratones in my day in the setting and you do hear more of whats going on in the mix, but its not what I'd call enjoyable. I'd compare it to audio forensics.
I had a small pair of Magnepans driven by a modded Dynaco ST70 and listened up close late into the night - very intimate but also boring. I'd rather.refer to this sort of music consumption as apartment listening. Thank God I dont have those volume restrictions anymore.
The only type of speakers benefiting from near field listening are fullranges and coax drivers. I've listened to alot of Auratones in my day in the setting and you do hear more of whats going on in the mix, but its not what I'd call enjoyable. I'd compare it to audio forensics.
I had a small pair of Magnepans driven by a modded Dynaco ST70 and listened up close late into the night - very intimate but also boring. I'd rather.refer to this sort of music consumption as apartment listening. Thank God I dont have those volume restrictions anymore.
Is three meters listening position still near field or mid field ? Mid field should benefice of a coax over classic splited solution ?
More the room is dead, more the speakers sound like headphones. Nearfield monitoring is something between headphones and conventional home listening, and it the sweet spot for the contemporary music production, especially considering majority of the average music listeners and considerable numbers of auidiophiles are listening to the music with headphones today.
I own large (dual 15" + horn) monitors, but I rarely use them because they are not as good as good headphones in terms of low frequency linearity. (I currently use Neumann NDH30). My room is far from ideal even after spending 10K for the acoustics. Nearfield speakers work better than the large for mixing in general, because we can grab a "big picture" better with nearfield at lower playback levels. Large and headphones show too much details, and they are microscopic.
Last edited:
Uh... I even didn't know Neumann had cans. Odd to see them on that market where big Headphones names rule... AKG, Sennheiser, Beyer, Audio-Technika, just to name few!
off topic : the cans subject is so complicate without EQ when it comes to choose one I finished with a little Fostex 7 th : 60 euros headphone ! Quite happy with it. I wish it was simplier to find a loudspeaker that sounds like that (ok, the listening room... I know).
I am I the only one that likes 'far field' (ie I am in a different room) listening sometimes? I like it when the music plays and It sounds like there is a live band next door.
I recently got a 60's Magnavox console stereo with horn speakers for our living room. I love it for playing music as a background.
The sound is coming from almost nowhere, like the ceiling speakers in cafe. It just fill up the sound in the room. What should we call it? no field?