c
I'm becoming quite excited by how this might come together, now. I haven't tried such close listening before and had actually considered it an unfortunate restriction of current circumstances. But just as system7 suggests there is certainly a clarity to things that the same speakers don't deliver at more usual distances (or maybe more usual SPLs), and I really like it. At least that is my perception; there may be more accurate and objective descriptions, but either way I'm greatly enjoying it.
Thanks,
Kev
Superb, thank you very much; that was my hope but it seemed too convenient!
I'm becoming quite excited by how this might come together, now. I haven't tried such close listening before and had actually considered it an unfortunate restriction of current circumstances. But just as system7 suggests there is certainly a clarity to things that the same speakers don't deliver at more usual distances (or maybe more usual SPLs), and I really like it. At least that is my perception; there may be more accurate and objective descriptions, but either way I'm greatly enjoying it.
Thanks,
Kev
Thanks also to Zuhl and system7 for all the ideas, lots to go on there!
Yes the bass drivers could be higher than the tweeters, or even doubled up - one of the advantages of now deciding to start with a clean sheet instead of using my existing drivers.
Given all the possibilities to try out and the challenges involved, they'll probably be given active crossovers (possibly as software), which might make some things a bit easier to tinker with, and would also open the door to easier DSP if needed.
Thanks again,
Kev
Yes the bass drivers could be higher than the tweeters, or even doubled up - one of the advantages of now deciding to start with a clean sheet instead of using my existing drivers.
Given all the possibilities to try out and the challenges involved, they'll probably be given active crossovers (possibly as software), which might make some things a bit easier to tinker with, and would also open the door to easier DSP if needed.
Thank you, I had not at all realised the room-power difference of doubled drivers; that isn't entirely intuitive. But it is very useful in this situation so certainly worth serious consideration. It might also allow better bass without going to larger drivers; one down-side of the 'wing mirror' arrangement is that the speakers would be quite physically intrusive if not of a compact design.
Thanks again,
Kev
I've been doing more testing with a pair of bookshelf speakers at various distances and positions. It seems that there is a gradual threshold somewhere around arms length; inside of that the sound-stage starts to become more noticeably close too. I like this for music that has an intimate feel about it, and it is also good for listening to quieter material whilst hearing lots of detail, and also integrates well with visuals playing on a screen at typical monitor distance. It seems less appropriate for big noisy material though, big orchestras and heavy rock etc.
Beyond that, if the speakers are brought very much closer then (perhaps unsurprisingly) things start to sound a bit like headphones, which isn't my aim. I may even be able to start localising the individual placement of tweeter and woofer, but I'm undecided about that - which is a good result really; i'd been concerned that this might be quite obvious at distances far greater, but it isn't at all . So anyway; it suggests that much less than arm's length is going to be too close for me.
At least that is with the existing random bookshelf speakers, which have approx 6" drivers crossed fairly high (though shallow) to piezo tweeters. I don't know how much difference other speakers might make; it seems from the kind advice above that on-axis listening might level the playing-field somewhat so maybe different speakers might not behave very differently.
The physical setup is going to be more important than I imagined though; the speakers will need to be small (or at least narrow) to avoid becoming hugely intrusive when close. Though a desk setup helps with that, as they seem much less weird/prominent when sat on a desk than when kind of leaning in over the chair arms in relative isolation. They might also need to be on some sort of tracks or adjustable arms that will allow them to be brought closer or further - partly for situations of different SPL and/or music types and partly for practical reasons of access to/from/around the listening chair.
Beyond that, if the speakers are brought very much closer then (perhaps unsurprisingly) things start to sound a bit like headphones, which isn't my aim. I may even be able to start localising the individual placement of tweeter and woofer, but I'm undecided about that - which is a good result really; i'd been concerned that this might be quite obvious at distances far greater, but it isn't at all . So anyway; it suggests that much less than arm's length is going to be too close for me.
At least that is with the existing random bookshelf speakers, which have approx 6" drivers crossed fairly high (though shallow) to piezo tweeters. I don't know how much difference other speakers might make; it seems from the kind advice above that on-axis listening might level the playing-field somewhat so maybe different speakers might not behave very differently.
The physical setup is going to be more important than I imagined though; the speakers will need to be small (or at least narrow) to avoid becoming hugely intrusive when close. Though a desk setup helps with that, as they seem much less weird/prominent when sat on a desk than when kind of leaning in over the chair arms in relative isolation. They might also need to be on some sort of tracks or adjustable arms that will allow them to be brought closer or further - partly for situations of different SPL and/or music types and partly for practical reasons of access to/from/around the listening chair.
Would there be any major disadvantage to using a full-range driver for such close on-axis listening?
For various reasons (not all of them sonic) a spherical enclosure would work rather well for one of my ideas, and a single driver would fit in the curved face better than two. (If it makes any difference, I recently reached my first half century so the behavior of at least the highest frequencies are probably a moot point by this stage).
For various reasons (not all of them sonic) a spherical enclosure would work rather well for one of my ideas, and a single driver would fit in the curved face better than two. (If it makes any difference, I recently reached my first half century so the behavior of at least the highest frequencies are probably a moot point by this stage).
Thank you, that is encouraging. Yes, I thought they may have some useful characteristics, though (just like close listening) I've not ventured into full range quality drivers before so wasn't sure of negatives for this slightly unusual application. if nothing major, then the two together would be a doubly interesting project for me. I will pursue the idea a bit further, then.
Thanks again,
Kev
Thanks again,
Kev
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I have been thinking about near field too, because some of my speakers are large. I believe that being near field is not just about the room but that you are close enough to a speaker that it becomes problematic for the sound from the different drivers to integrate into a ‘whole’ before it reaches your head. In these cases I think the traditional bookshelf of woofer-mid and tweeter crossed at 2.5kHz with moderate to steep slopes for protection of the tweeter and cut off of the woofer cone break up - is a bad starting point. I believe the better starting point is 1st order cross over and time aligned means a broad XO region with sound originating from both drivers over a good range of frequencies; to avoid interference effects the XO frequency needs to be low enough relative to driver separation. In other words, the FAST/WAW arrangement. If not, then single full range driver or a well designed coax (not many about?).
That is an interesting observation, many thanks! It is possible that the 2-ways I've been testing with might be reasonably good in these respects (with a shallow crossover and small/close tweeter) and so not necessarily showing up some of the pitfalls.
So, that adds to the weight of argument, in my mind. As this thread continues, I'm thinking increasingly of either full-range or else a compact 2-way with a low+shallow crossover. The upper range might even be provided by a small full-range driver, rather than traditional tweeter.
That might be heading towards WAW territory, just depends on where the crossover point is drawn, i suppose. In fact, if the crossover were low enough to avoid localisation issues, it could possibly allow the woofer to be situated separately and less obtrusively... except with this very near-field scenareo I'm less confident; fundamental frequency isn't the only factor in localisation.
Thanks again,
Kev
So, that adds to the weight of argument, in my mind. As this thread continues, I'm thinking increasingly of either full-range or else a compact 2-way with a low+shallow crossover. The upper range might even be provided by a small full-range driver, rather than traditional tweeter.
That might be heading towards WAW territory, just depends on where the crossover point is drawn, i suppose. In fact, if the crossover were low enough to avoid localisation issues, it could possibly allow the woofer to be situated separately and less obtrusively... except with this very near-field scenareo I'm less confident; fundamental frequency isn't the only factor in localisation.
Thanks again,
Kev
Bigun, are you talking about something specific for which you have an explanation? This sounds like the recent general "soundfield integration" misunderstanding...
I’m big on coax drivers for near field listening. You might find some used Tannoy drivers out of a System600 for auction. Great little drivers with the tweeter in the middle. Seas has a coax too that is good. The coax gives you a point source rather than separate drivers. They image better than separate drivers too. Take a look into them.
A cool thing, the coax. There's an ease with working with them in general, along with some minor fixed constraints.
In any case, a coax isn't a point source. Also, if they image better I would disagree that it's necessarily because of the coincident axis.
There is a problem with definitions in general, there is not just one kind of nearfield. It has a complex scope so one has to be specific what's being talked about or meanings become conflated.
In any case, a coax isn't a point source. Also, if they image better I would disagree that it's necessarily because of the coincident axis.
There is a problem with definitions in general, there is not just one kind of nearfield. It has a complex scope so one has to be specific what's being talked about or meanings become conflated.
Last edited:
Open baffle with near field is well worth serious consideration
The sound overall could be great. Soundstage in particular could be more expansive the other near field options. Build is quick and easy compared to making boxes and drivers can be inexpensive. OB with the null effect will reduce reflections off the desk and noise leak to your neighbour.
Maybe use a full range driver for the mids, potentially reinforced with OB woofer +/- tweeter. The "full range" allows crossover free midrange 150Hz -10000Hz. Many full range drivers will need bass reinforcement.
Use Hornresp to model your design. Using sims like hornresp will be essential to success. Using computer digital crossovers and active amps will aid dialling in the right response. It also allows effortless switching from desktop to room set ups.
This should scale well from the desk to out in the room. On the desk angle them at eg 45degress at your ears to allow rear wave dissipation and better imaging.
Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions! I'm still playing with (so many!) possibilities but it is certainly looking like a wideband driver will be the main part of the answer; I will need to narrow down what configuration might work best for me.
A single driver is a possibility, it does look like the technology is getting there (whether it is getting to the UK and at a reasonable price might be another matter). Though I'm currently thinking that a coaxial or else a wideband-assisted approach might suit my prejudices better. Possibly assisted by a tweeter, more likely by a woofer. The latter would be at least crossed-over below 1/4 wavelength, though maybe low enough for general localisation to be difficult.
I will need to try open baffles too. I'm not too optimistic for their size in this application, butt they could work well audibly.
Thanks,
Kev
A single driver is a possibility, it does look like the technology is getting there (whether it is getting to the UK and at a reasonable price might be another matter). Though I'm currently thinking that a coaxial or else a wideband-assisted approach might suit my prejudices better. Possibly assisted by a tweeter, more likely by a woofer. The latter would be at least crossed-over below 1/4 wavelength, though maybe low enough for general localisation to be difficult.
I will need to try open baffles too. I'm not too optimistic for their size in this application, butt they could work well audibly.
Thanks,
Kev
OB can actually have a size advantage for you. OB designs can be baffleless with "naked" drivers. Or they can have a minimal sized baffle. As such they can be smaller then boxes.
The issue is the bass extension. Being near field will presumably decrease the SPL burden and allow better bass output with driver Xmax. "Full range" drivers often have poor bass extension and might well need a woofer for bass extension. Hornresp can model OB vs boxes and save you lots of guessing.
Yes, getting good strong bass from very small speakers is always going to be one of the key compromises in this project. Though there are things that can be done, and as you say the modest SPL is helpful; the drivers can be stretched a bit more before excursion becomes problematic.
That said, I wouldn't have immediately thought of OB as an obvious answer to compact bass, but it is yet another of those areas I've not explored much before (I've mostly just built sealed or ported boxes). So it is definitely a thing to consider, along with all the other interesting possibilities here.
If I do go down the woofer-assitance route then potentially such a thing might come in low enough to avoid easy localisation and so be positioned separately, where size is less of an issue. Though I'm fairly skeptical of that working much above typical subwoofer-type frequencies, especially with the higher range(s) quite so close to the ears, so its assistance may be somewhat limited (especially as I don't want very low subwoofer frequencies, anyway). But maybe my skepticism is ill-placed and it might be worth testing the idea at least.
That said, I wouldn't have immediately thought of OB as an obvious answer to compact bass, but it is yet another of those areas I've not explored much before (I've mostly just built sealed or ported boxes). So it is definitely a thing to consider, along with all the other interesting possibilities here.
If I do go down the woofer-assitance route then potentially such a thing might come in low enough to avoid easy localisation and so be positioned separately, where size is less of an issue. Though I'm fairly skeptical of that working much above typical subwoofer-type frequencies, especially with the higher range(s) quite so close to the ears, so its assistance may be somewhat limited (especially as I don't want very low subwoofer frequencies, anyway). But maybe my skepticism is ill-placed and it might be worth testing the idea at least.
Do you have room for these?
Iconic and superb speaker and only at 200 quid at the moment...
OB so no gross room pressurisation and less bass into the neighbour.
Heh, i wish I had room for such things, but sadly I don't; especially not to set them up in suitable positions.
Are you sure you dont have space for the Quad 57's? They would offer you a very high end listening opportunity with a mid-range that is remarkable, within the confines of not disturbing your neighbour with bass. Being thin they could be stored against a wall or in a closet and with castors on the base easily wheeled out for a sublime near field experience. Like this nearfield set up pinched from the net:
Back to a two way cone desktop solution then. A big issue with that is bass output. Bass from a little 4" is going to be anaemic no matter what the design, but if you use a sealed bass 40-250Hz the neighbours might complain and seem to hear more bass then you.
From this point of view what are your bass needs? What music do you listen to?
Back to a two way cone desktop solution then. A big issue with that is bass output. Bass from a little 4" is going to be anaemic no matter what the design, but if you use a sealed bass 40-250Hz the neighbours might complain and seem to hear more bass then you.
From this point of view what are your bass needs? What music do you listen to?
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Specific? Well, most recently it has been a pair of khorns where i’m using a dsp to fiddle around with the XO and where the sound is clearly different vs distance from the speaker. Very different behaviour from my single driver Big’un 15“ Audio Nirvana.