Hi
Wondering if there is any science to what I am hearing here. When I have a 2 way speaker, lets called it a nearfield or bookshelf. At around 3.5 feet everything sounds great, there is a certain continuity between 2-5k that is seamless and present. When I back up to about 4.5-6 feet some of this clarity goes away, a lot of it actually.
This is happening to me in different well treated rooms, different monitors, at different orientations of drivers/cabinets.
Beyond phase alignment and bad reflections from the room, is there anything that would change frequency response with distance?
Is there a different approach for a speaker that will be listened to at a distance of 6-8 feet than one that might be listened at 3-4 feet?
I am a little confused, tempted to take them outside to see if its all just room reflections becoming more prominent and the perception of less upper mids and if I am crazy.
Dan
Wondering if there is any science to what I am hearing here. When I have a 2 way speaker, lets called it a nearfield or bookshelf. At around 3.5 feet everything sounds great, there is a certain continuity between 2-5k that is seamless and present. When I back up to about 4.5-6 feet some of this clarity goes away, a lot of it actually.
This is happening to me in different well treated rooms, different monitors, at different orientations of drivers/cabinets.
Beyond phase alignment and bad reflections from the room, is there anything that would change frequency response with distance?
Is there a different approach for a speaker that will be listened to at a distance of 6-8 feet than one that might be listened at 3-4 feet?
I am a little confused, tempted to take them outside to see if its all just room reflections becoming more prominent and the perception of less upper mids and if I am crazy.
Dan
For wide dispersion speakers, the throw is not much, as energy spreads into the volume of the space (and dissipates) rather quickly. As one moves away, the ratio between the direct and reverberant sounds also gets weaker. It could also be some radiation lobe effect, but more details need to be looked into, before discerning between the various possibilities.
This behaviour should be less noticeable in case of horn speakers.
This behaviour should be less noticeable in case of horn speakers.
That would be an excellent test. Keep on the same axis.
https://community.sw.siemens.com/s/...ee-versus-diffuse-field-near-versus-far-field
I'm not sure if you're lumping the overall crossover integration into your "phase alignment" bucket, but more shallow crossovers and larger driver spacings tend to take more distance for the drivers to integrate properly. Listening or measuring closer than the design distance can introduce frequency response changes.
Expanding a bit on what newvirus2008 said:
If your speaker has a significant lobe in its vertical directivity (especially one with a tilt), listening at a different distance may put you into or out of that preferred zone. First order crossovers typically have a tilt in their vertical directivity pattern, which is why you often see sloped or stepped baffles to counteract that, inverted driver configurations, etc. with them.
Beyond all that, near-field listening tends to give you more direct sound from the speakers, since room reflections are proportionally lower in level and more delayed than when listening at greater distances. Some people just prefer the near-field sound. How the room is set up is also likely to influence things. If your speakers are farther out into the room in general, some of the distance-related room effects may lessen.
Symmetry rules. Room geometry dictates optimal speaker placement. The clloser you get to equilibrium the better the result. The most important measurement ime is distance from front wall to speaker vs distance to backwall from your ears. It has to be exact.
This is certainly the difference ratio between direct sound and reflection/baffle step transition you experiment. Let call that the power reponse.
Although the most happens below your 2000 hz feeling. But indeed the indirect sound (reflexions) is a delayed in time signal so in power that overlapp the direct sound which is itself non linear in power below the bafle step dive beginning.
It certainly mainly happens from 310 hz minimum (if room is at 24°C and ears at 90 cm from the floor in a sofa then all frequency you hear below that is already partially a delayed reflection from the floor). The distance between you and the loudspeaker then change for the frequencies above the power response. Psyacoustic perception not only occurs where our ears is the most sensible. Move a little the head and with most of the loudspeaker the said equilibrium changes.
Although the most happens below your 2000 hz feeling. But indeed the indirect sound (reflexions) is a delayed in time signal so in power that overlapp the direct sound which is itself non linear in power below the bafle step dive beginning.
It certainly mainly happens from 310 hz minimum (if room is at 24°C and ears at 90 cm from the floor in a sofa then all frequency you hear below that is already partially a delayed reflection from the floor). The distance between you and the loudspeaker then change for the frequencies above the power response. Psyacoustic perception not only occurs where our ears is the most sensible. Move a little the head and with most of the loudspeaker the said equilibrium changes.
Last edited:
I've been wrestling with similar ideas lately.
At 6' or less, a single 6.5" 2 way is fine.
10' away laying on couch, still good, but bass in rock can seem distorted.
But sitting at the table, 15' away in a room maybe 13' wide and 26' deep, i hear it struggling.
So i turn it off and turn on the pair of 12" 2-ways.
A sub would help the smaller speaker, but then i would find it lacking in bass (bump, not thump/rumble).
I've seen a few articles on monitors.
My take away is 6.5" 2-way (or smaller) for ideally 3' but fine out to 6' depending on volume, eq, music).
But by the time monitors get out to far field, they end up on the bigger 2, 3 ways.
here is from a stereophile review on genlec 1031a
An 8" 2 way with what I would call an amazing way to horn load a dome tweet.
"The Genelec 1031A Studio Monitor is a so-called nearfield monitor (footnote 2). This means simply that it's designed to be listened to from up close, which is how I first heard a pair of them—from a distance of a little more than 30"........Nearfield monitors are designed to have a slightly depressed midrange, to make them sound farther away than they really are, and are not intended to be listened to from 7' or 8' away.......
From a nearfield listening distance of a little over 3', the Genelecs sounded almost shockingly real, with the kind of micro-detailing that is rarely heard outside of a live performance—barely perceptible finger squeaks, page turnings, valve clicks, and glottal sounds from vocals. This was detail of definitely high-end caliber. The Genelec has the best-sounding amplifier of any powered speaker I've heard, and delivered some of the most realistic, alive sound I've heard in my home.
Unfortunately, at a typical home-theater listening distance of 7', some of that magic was gone. Some detail was lost, and the high end became slightly hot, while the range below became (in my relatively dead room) a little laid-back and subtly blurred, as though the system was involving the room acoustics too much."
and
"So...would I recommend this system to a Stereophile reader? Not for typical listening at 7'."
eek..........................
"But Genelec's 1031A speakers are not crap; they are superb for the purpose for which they were intended—close-range listening. My problem with them in the context of this review is that they are being marketed for applications—far-field and multi-channel listening—for which they were not designed and are ill-suited.
It's obvious, though, why Genelec speakers are so popular with recording studios: Used as they are designed to be used, they are amazingly accurate devices."
and
"I recommend Genelec's 1031A for close-in stereo use"
here is stereophile's freq response chart
At 6' or less, a single 6.5" 2 way is fine.
10' away laying on couch, still good, but bass in rock can seem distorted.
But sitting at the table, 15' away in a room maybe 13' wide and 26' deep, i hear it struggling.
So i turn it off and turn on the pair of 12" 2-ways.
A sub would help the smaller speaker, but then i would find it lacking in bass (bump, not thump/rumble).
I've seen a few articles on monitors.
My take away is 6.5" 2-way (or smaller) for ideally 3' but fine out to 6' depending on volume, eq, music).
But by the time monitors get out to far field, they end up on the bigger 2, 3 ways.
here is from a stereophile review on genlec 1031a
An 8" 2 way with what I would call an amazing way to horn load a dome tweet.
"The Genelec 1031A Studio Monitor is a so-called nearfield monitor (footnote 2). This means simply that it's designed to be listened to from up close, which is how I first heard a pair of them—from a distance of a little more than 30"........Nearfield monitors are designed to have a slightly depressed midrange, to make them sound farther away than they really are, and are not intended to be listened to from 7' or 8' away.......
From a nearfield listening distance of a little over 3', the Genelecs sounded almost shockingly real, with the kind of micro-detailing that is rarely heard outside of a live performance—barely perceptible finger squeaks, page turnings, valve clicks, and glottal sounds from vocals. This was detail of definitely high-end caliber. The Genelec has the best-sounding amplifier of any powered speaker I've heard, and delivered some of the most realistic, alive sound I've heard in my home.
Unfortunately, at a typical home-theater listening distance of 7', some of that magic was gone. Some detail was lost, and the high end became slightly hot, while the range below became (in my relatively dead room) a little laid-back and subtly blurred, as though the system was involving the room acoustics too much."
and
"So...would I recommend this system to a Stereophile reader? Not for typical listening at 7'."
eek..........................
"But Genelec's 1031A speakers are not crap; they are superb for the purpose for which they were intended—close-range listening. My problem with them in the context of this review is that they are being marketed for applications—far-field and multi-channel listening—for which they were not designed and are ill-suited.
It's obvious, though, why Genelec speakers are so popular with recording studios: Used as they are designed to be used, they are amazingly accurate devices."
and
"I recommend Genelec's 1031A for close-in stereo use"
here is stereophile's freq response chart
Attachments
'Clarity' is in the 4 -6 kHz BW and sound power rolls off at 6 dB/doubling of distance plus higher frequencies by being exponentially smaller with increasing frequency; guess what rolls off first? 😉
Factor in any reflections to 'muddy the waters' and you're losing the 'edge', 'sibilance' required to 'understand' the rest of the signal same as when you lose your hearing due to the little ear hairs that are reduced/gone so nothing much in music, vocals has any clarity, though if you clamp your hands open fingers over your ears to roll off the lower frequencies you will clearly hear again, at least I can at 76+.
IOW, the lower the fundamental, the wider its BW, so for acoustically long distances for the drivers used you either need to roll off the lower frequencies and/or use a larger mids, HF radiator be it a point source, ribbon or horn, though historically most folks just boosted the HF to ~ the mean between the two listening positions by ear.
Anyway, now you know why the pioneers either used horns + woofer or large 12-15" 'FR' co/tri-ax drivers with 8" pretty much restricted to vocals in a multiway or alone for PA apps (public address systems) with the ground breaking? Acoustic Research's AR-1 with its 8" Altec 755 tri-ax for the mids, highs probably? the best HIFI example.
If you "back off" by walking backwards you will take yourself out of the on axis response both vertically and horizontally
Change the speaker toe in and angle so they fire straight at the new far field listening position
Use EQ
Fixed?
Dan,
Your problem might not be any more complicated than the fact that you are simply sitting too far way from the equilateral triangle formed by the speakers and the proper listening position. If they are only 3.5' apart on the desktop and you are 4.5' to 6' away then you are outside the sweet spot. Try moving them further apart and see if that solves your problem.
Your problem might not be any more complicated than the fact that you are simply sitting too far way from the equilateral triangle formed by the speakers and the proper listening position. If they are only 3.5' apart on the desktop and you are 4.5' to 6' away then you are outside the sweet spot. Try moving them further apart and see if that solves your problem.
The proximity effect kicks in more as you increase listening distance. The FR curve tilts upwards the further away you go from a typical direct radiating multi way speaker. A larger baffle area can combat that, but HF directivity is a big influence on the overall far field tonal character of any speaker.
The above mentioned Genelec 1031As are a valid studio reference IMO. I've mixed on many speakers and the 1031As are my favorite powered near field monitor. If you play a alto sax solo on them, you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. The only other speaker that resolved as well was the bigger PMC 3 ways used far field or even the late 80s incarnation B&W 802s.
The above mentioned Genelec 1031As are a valid studio reference IMO. I've mixed on many speakers and the 1031As are my favorite powered near field monitor. If you play a alto sax solo on them, you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. The only other speaker that resolved as well was the bigger PMC 3 ways used far field or even the late 80s incarnation B&W 802s.
Dan,
I don't think you are crazy for perceiving less detail at further listening distances from your speakers. This makes very good sense, even in treated rooms. I might suggest reading the Master Handbook of Acoustics from F. Alton Everest.
Generally, room treatments reduce the amplitude of reflections. Room treatments DON'T eliminate reflections. As your ears move further from the source/speakers, there will be more reflections and less of the primary sound source.
I think your perceptions are commendable and indicative of very perceptive hearing !
For me.... I have recently become less myopically focused on an generally flat response at a 3' measuring distance using a gated response avoiding reflections. I have become more focused on the measured response from the speakers actual placement in my living room to where folks normally sit in the living room. The latter response is replete with reflections. The response is often very uneven. It is still necessary to measure close for the phase relationships, but measuring and designing IN the intended environment has been fruitful for me.
I don't think you are crazy for perceiving less detail at further listening distances from your speakers. This makes very good sense, even in treated rooms. I might suggest reading the Master Handbook of Acoustics from F. Alton Everest.
Generally, room treatments reduce the amplitude of reflections. Room treatments DON'T eliminate reflections. As your ears move further from the source/speakers, there will be more reflections and less of the primary sound source.
I think your perceptions are commendable and indicative of very perceptive hearing !
For me.... I have recently become less myopically focused on an generally flat response at a 3' measuring distance using a gated response avoiding reflections. I have become more focused on the measured response from the speakers actual placement in my living room to where folks normally sit in the living room. The latter response is replete with reflections. The response is often very uneven. It is still necessary to measure close for the phase relationships, but measuring and designing IN the intended environment has been fruitful for me.
I have a similar issue so I'll semi-hijack this thread. My question is with regard to desktop acoustics. From anywhere in the room my desktop satellites sound fine, possibly a little bright for most tastes. However, sitting at my desk they sound awful., the vocal range is far too loud. The speakers are four feet apart with a three foot listening position.
I can only surmise that my issue is due to the cubby-hole effect.
I can only surmise that my issue is due to the cubby-hole effect.
Yup,
From the amplitude perspective - I suppose there might have been a speaker designed for such a space, but it would be a unicorn - profoundly rare. The lack of dispersion in your cubby would cause a plethora of unexpected bumps and dips in the response. With some effort, you could fix the ampltude problems with a MiniDSP and UMIK-1, but this would be tedious and would do nothing to affect the early reflections.
From the phase and reflection perspective - The early distinct reflections from the side walls and desk top would be very close in arrival (at your ear) with the very clear primary wave form. This would make the perception of distortion very profound.
Moving away - As you move into the room, all of the wave forms overlap and get muddied. This makes things... tolerable - in my experience.
Can't tell from the picture, but those speakers likely have rear ports. If so, placing them against the wall is going to really boost the bass. Way too much. If that is the case you can try to plug up the ports with some cloth. Won't solve your problem completely, but might help somewhat.