Nearfield listening - once more

I also wonder, is there such a thing as a "nearfield speaker" or is this mostly words? All speakers are nearfield if you sit close enough. The ideal speaker should sound good from the near, the mid, and the far listening zone. But attempts to improve nearfield sound are interesting.

I know that with a two (or more) way speaker you have to move the listener position so that the two drivers blend well. With my single driver speakers that problem is smaller. I can sit closer to the drivers and yet get quite full range and time-coherent sound. Even if my Fostex submini is limited it keeps up and enlarges the performance from my Arche fr2 speakers. 

I use Quad ESL57 in a relative nearfield position. See Virtual System. Imaging is excellent. 

Near field open baffle in my small 12x11 room is amazing! Full range 15" drivers and the music never feels overbearing until I really crank it up. Normal listening levels though are like being at a live show at times!

The local dealers set their speakers up very wide apart with toe in when using large floorstanding speakers in the nearfield. try it, see what you think.like 2 to 1. 2 ft apart for 1 foot back.

Small active speakers + tube pre-amp+ Nos Dac....

But in nearfield listening room acoustic matter in spite of the general belief...😁 I even use two wood screen to decrease crosstalk in some way in a mechanical way waiting to buy the BACCH filters ...

The mechanical controls of vibration and resonance by tuned damping and a sandwich of various minerals and wood and sorbothane plate ( granite-Oak-bamboo-cork -shungite plates) ... I used more than three times the weight of the speakers over them to damp them and granite heavy block on my desk with sandwich of various materials for the coupling-decoupling process under them ...The improvement was stunning ... A metamorphosis ...

The EMI shielding with shungite plate...Which tweak i myself designed with copper tape ...

The modification of the design of the tweeter and of the rear porthole matter a lot ...( my 4 inches woofer now go 50 hertz instead of the specified 85 hertz) I dont need a sub ... Timbre perception is very important and there is no natural timbre with 85 hertz of bass ... And integrating a sub is costlier and more complex, more easy to improve the speakers for me  as i did ...It is why i will never bought  small closed speakers without porthole ... Redesigning the porthole improve the speakers  and put them in another level ...

All this cost me peanuts because each piece of gear was carefully chosen ....

My main system is not speakers in nearfield but headphone ( the only hybrid ever designed which beat my speakers for naturalness and soundstage holography "out of the head".... ( AKG K340 driven from the headphone out of my powerful Sansui alpha 607i , no headphone amp can drive them properly 😁)

I own a secondary headphone S.S. pre-amplifier with tone controls for my AKG K701 which so good they are are like trash compared to the K340 ...I used them for movie at night ...Not music ...

Near field listening to be optimal need acoustic control of the room corner where the speakers are located ...

Small speakers are rarely good even those well reviewed as mine were by Steve Guttenberg when i bought them ( M-audio av 40 ) if you dont pay thousands of dollars i guess ... I hated my actual active speakers for 10 years and never listened music with these "pieces of trash " in my mind ... They shined only when desesperate with nothing else to use i create an acoustic dedicated corner and modify them as described above with a new porthole a more complex one with a bigger volume well tuned with different straws ... The tweeter was redesigned for near listening too ...I add a tuned wave guide with cardboard tube ....Dont laugh... The result is stunning on all acoustic count... No headphone can compete i ever owned ( 2 Stax, one magneplanar many dynamics) save the K340 which outshine them for speaker-like more realism with deep bass ...

My wife is almost deaf then i listen music alone ...

I dont feel any frustration or envy for big speakers at all ...Designing a dedicated acoustic room for big speakers take me one year full time ... I will never do it again , it was fun but once you know and learn something, revisiting it is less fun and will take perhaps a bit less time but anyway a very long time for the mechanical ears tuning ( i used a grid of mechanically tuned Helmholtz resonators ( 100 resonators from 8 feet to few inches ) 😊

i am happy with my near-field listening ... It is less stunning than my past acoustic room with big speakers but i learn to be happy because it is more complicate ... And anyway my actual headphone compete even with my past speakers/room ...

Dont buy the akg k340 by the way ... Out of the box they need to be modified and optimized ,they are old now .... Or buy them and sell me another pair .... 😉

In a word near listening is another kind of listening as headphone are ... Not a stop gap... A simpler way to listen music which can rival big speakers especially if they are less well embedded as it is mostly the case ( not in the bass for sure even if i am happy with clear 50 hertz) ...

To echo what Mahgister said, eliminating interaural crosstalk vastly improves soundstage/imaging. This can be done in a near-field setting by situating yourself and the speakers such that your head/face blocks much of the sound from the right speaker from your left ear, and blocks sound from the left speaker from your right ear.  

Regarding speakers especially suited for near-field listening, the Graham Audio LS8/1 are excellent.  Having enjoyed them for about three weeks now, I can vouch for what is said in the following very interesting series of post from a fellow LS8/1 owner: https: //www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/graham-audio-ls8-1-signature-edition-a-new-system.37339/

Thank you all for very interesting and positive responses! I will consider a bit, and come back.

@hiphiphan, I'm with you regarding your first paragraph.

That's what I experienced for the first time (coincidentally) just 3 weeks ago when listening to my surround speakers (Monitor Audio Studio 5):

- LS are standing in line with my head, slightly toed in, crossing path about 1.5 inches front my face

I was casually listening to music coming from these speakers. Very low crosstalk this way but no stage and depth. As it happens, I move the swivel chair about 5 degrees to the right and bam, out of nowhere (sic!) the sound was hanging right there approx. 4 feet in front of me, slightly above my head. Like a musical hologram. Moving to the left for 5 degrees and the hologram is gone.

Interesting: Listening to mono recordings, everything was in front of me. Listening in stereo, just a few instruments were in front of me. The other instruments were coming directly from the speakers to my ears.

Maybe the above might be a valid answer to OP's question no 1

While this sound experience does not reflect the reality as to where the musicians were standing during the record (like when listening to front speakers with depth and stage), it was nevertheless a kind of revelation to me.

I still have to work further on the front speakers to get the same result. However, I am not sure if this will ever happen.

Maybe my definition of "nearfield" is a bit off, but I think of nearfield as my desktop powered Audioengine speakers attached to the computer.  Sounds decent at 2-3 feet but not room filling by any means.

@o_holter  You cannot get big 3 way or 4 way speakers with multiple discreet drivers to sum and provide a coherent presentation at nearfield distances.

The ideal speaker for such an application is a 2 way single concentric driver ( tweeter and mid/bass driver --> point source).

Here are the best engineered candidates. If you are budget constrained, absolutely go with the Technics.

Technics SB-C600 (1100 per pair)

https://hifiheaven.net/product/technics-sb-c600-k-premium-bookshelf-speakers-black/

Mofi Sourcepoint 10 (3700 per pair)

https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/speakers/mobile-fidelity-source-point-10-bookshelf-speakers-pair/

I have a soundfield encompassing the listener position (3 feet) and 2 feet outside of the speakers with depth...

I used 100 bucks modified small active speakers ...Natural timbre and pin point imaging ..

But i modify the porthole design ...

On most speakers the porthole is not well design for esthetical and cost reason ...

The volume of the porthole must be tune , any speakers with a porthole is a Helmholtz resonators... In these resonators the ratio between the volume of the box the cross ratio of the neck dimensions is fundamental ...Most speakers designer generally did not invest invest in supplementary research cost to implement a complex porthole, especially extending outside of the wooden box...

And those designers who create an internal labyrinth for a well designed porthole ask for more than the cheap amount i paid for my 2 way speakers with a small inefficient tube as porthole... So well reviewed thy were my M-audio AV40 were disliked by me for 10 years BEFORE i redesigned the porthole ...

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/labyrinth-cabinets-are-they-good.2725345/

Then i recommend in near field a two way speakers with a rear porthole which you can simply redesigned using straws of different volume or lenght, inserted in one another and flexible ...

Doing this i goes from 85 Hertz to 50 hertz clear not boomy ...No need for a sub anymore ...

I also redesigned the wave guide tweeter form with cylinder of the right lenght   adjusted for my listening position ...

Absolutely transformative ...

But no audio company will sell these modified speakers  because it is too bizarre and unesthetical ...

i dont give a damn listening music quality soundfield and timbre  better than all headphones i ever own ( save the AKG K340 )..

Viva near listening at peanuts costs!

I suspect that there's some confusion over what the term Nearfield actually means.

Nearfield and Farfield are acoustic terms to describe the ratio of of direct vs reflected sound. If in the listening position you get more direct sound from the source than reflected sound from your environment (walls, floors, etc.) you're in the acoustic nearfield. If the opposite is true, you're in the acoustic farfield. In acoustics, there is no such thing as midfield.

If you're in an appropriately sized or damped space, you can still sit a great distance away from your speakers and be in the acoustic nearfield, vice versa.

As opposed to thinking about it in terms of of linear space or distance, I believe it's better to think of it in terms of arrival times. This is because whether or not your sitting near or farfield, both the direct and reflected sounds will ultimately reach your ears. The key difference is that your ear/brain knows to ignore late reflections that arrive after the initial source.

As for speaker manufacturers and the terminologies that they employ, it's pure marketing. Any speaker can be nearfield or farfield. None can be midfield.

Very important clarification for all here ... Thanks and welcome here by the way ...

Nearfield and Farfield are acoustic terms to describe the ratio of of direct vs reflected sound. If in the listening position you get more direct sound from the source than reflected sound from your environment (walls, floors, etc.) you’re in the acoustic nearfield.

It is why i always observed and mark in my posts that nearfield listening dont spare us of treating at least the acoustic corner or even the small room where we sit ... Because in nearfield or in farfield as well , what differ is the ratio of reflected waves versus the direct waves and the way the frontwave win over the reflected waves in some critical amount of time ...in the two cases there is reflected as direct waves anyway, but the way the brain/ears interpreted them is function of time and from the direction of the incoming  direct or reflected waves...

Reflections are not all bad by the way and i used them to create a three D holographic soundfield ...Timing is the key and the time  ratio between the source ( ceiling or wall or floor ) of the reflected waves versus the direct waves ... ...

The listener position head and ears is the primary factor analysing the timing ratio ...

Eagledriver, yeah it takes careful positioning through trial and error.  I've had best results with nearfield listening by positioning the speakers a few feet away from any walls (to minimize reflections), about 6 feet apart, sitting only about 1 or 2 feet away from them, tweeters at ear height and nearly pointing directly at my ears -- pointing just a little behind them.  The detail and clarity are almost like good headphones, but you also get the 3D soundfield of good speakers.  The instruments and vocals seem to be hanging in space out in front of you.  Optimal positioning and results I'm sure will vary depending on speakers and listener.  

@hiphiphan

Yes, sitting closer to the speakers, my face/head blocks more of the sound from the other speaker. Do you find that the best result is related to the toe-in of the speakers?

@steve59

> 2 to 1. 2 ft apart for 1 foot back.

Interesting rule - will try.

@o_holter Every speaker whether it is small or or large has a critical listening distance independent of the electronics or room. For an example, speakers with first order crossovers require one to sit at least 8 ft from the center of the two speakers. Why? because the output from three drivers (tweeter, mid-range, and woofer) needs that distance to merge. Now Horn speakers and monitors may not need 8 ft for the sound from different drivers to merge.

So near-filed and far-field are basically relative to the speaker design, but they all have a minimum critical distance to the sweet spot. Impact of "early-reflections" and "reverberations" from the room can be minimal for so called near-field listening. This is one advantage and may be the reason why it is appealing to certain listeners. For those who sits 8 ft or more form the speakers need room treatment to control "early reflections" and "reverberations." Essentially near-field listening gives you a listening experience similar to that of headphones, but with imaging and perhaps sound-stage.

One thing to keep in mind is that smaller speakers are limited to frequencies 45-55 Hz and above. Big floor standers will give you the bottom octave, but you need to sit away from the speakers. For an example double bass can go low as 30 Hz, and the piano down to 27 Hz. You will miss this kind of information with smaller speakers with near-field listening. Laws of physics dictate what you can get from small speakers versus large speakers and critical listening distance, etc.

@hiphiphan 

Height - is it always the case that ears are best served by height = the centre of the tweeter? I sometimes feel, somewhere between the tweeter and woofer (or bass port, in case of single driver speakers) is better.

Optimal height will likely vary a little from speaker to speaker - some tweeters are going to be too harsh in the set-up I've described, so may require slight adjustment in positioning - either with regard to height or toe-in.

So near-filed and far-field are basically relative to the speaker design,

For sure beside of the acoustic ratio and timing and direction of reflected versus directed waves importance, the design and the type of speakers play a great role ... Thanks for reminding us of this important fact ...

But if one listen nearfield and dont control acoustically the timing and direction of reflected versus directed waves with acoustic treatment in the room near the listening position , the result will be a no existing soundstage or one located only between the speakers ...

As you pointed to yourself:

Essentially near-field listening gives you a listening experience similar to that of headphones, but with imaging and perhaps sound-stage.

Nearfield listening with speakers is better well done than most headphone listening save perhaps with the best headphone in the world , in my experience, because of the soundstage which is out of our head, unlike almost all  headphone ( save my K340 ) ...

My near listening field encompass my listening position , is holographic and way out of the speakers plane in width and depth ... My speakers cost , so good they are , is very low then it is not the result of a superlative design ( i modify the porthole and the tweeter for sure) but the result of room acoustic and vibrations resonance controls, crosstalk control to some extent also ...

Room acoustic cannot be replaced or being disposed of because we listen nearfield ...

@pwerahera thanks! Seems reasonable. Basically I think you are right. Yet these are not the only laws of physics. Bi- or omnidirectional speakers sound different and work differently from traditional front-firers. I would say that room treatment is important also if you sit four feet from the speakers. Even if the indirect sound is now less prominent, it is there, coloring the direct sound. And even with headphones, where the material of the cusps can change the sonics quite a lot (cf Audioquest Nightowl debate).

My two way (horn treble + conventional woofer) floorstanding speakers sound good and quite coherent even from quite close. This is most probably due to each speaker having two identical set of drivers, two in front, two in the back. This arrangement is designed to create the correct spectral energy plus the right time alignment of the direct and indirect sound. It helps smooth the bass and treble and integrate the two.

I do hear bass even from quite close to the speakers. You wrote: "Big floor standers will give you the bottom octave, but you need to sit away from the speakers." Not so clear in my case.

you can get even the lowest octave in a nearfield set-up:  

@mahgister 

Thanks for comments - I agre with much of what you say.

You wrote:

"Room acoustic cannot be replaced or being disposed of because we listen nearfield ..."

Exactly!

But you also write "the result will be a no existing soundstage or one located only between the speakers"

If I sit forwards, almost between the speakers, yes, the soundstage will be located here. But is this neccessarily worse?

Personally I find that I often enjoy the sound, closer to the speakers, although I have not changed my main listening position, with more conventional distance to the speakers.

There are two main advantage of near field listening. 
 

#1 less room sound 

#2 more dynamic as less SLP is needed for the same listening volume. 
 

I always try to sit as close to my speakers as my setup allows. As you know there are lots of things at play that effect how close you can sit. 

If I sit forwards, almost between the speakers, yes, the soundstage will be located here. But is this neccessarily worse?

Yes it is the worse situation ... Because a well done acoustic relation between speakers position and listener position and room acoustics controls will always give a soundstage able to make many well recorded albums filling all space around you outside of the speakers limit border and in front of the speakers ...

Nearfield listening does not equal a soundstage isolated between the speakers ... This is why room acoustics, vibration/resonance controls of the speakers and decrease of the electrical noise floor of the room/house/system matter all together exactly as in farfield listening ...

Nearfield listening must be better than almost all headphones and never being a stopgap ... It is  so for me , with  active speakers i never liked for 10 years which cost me peanuts... But when i had learned how to use them properly and modify them and optimize them they metamorphosed themselves from caterpillar to swan .... What is possible with  this 100 bucks speakers as my own must be possible with any costlier speakers with a basic good design ...

Acoustic rules the gear pieces even in near listening ...

@hiphiphan I understand what Paul is saying about near-field subwoofers, but he also point out piratical implementation of this is challenging. Subwoofer reproduce bass by bouncing the sound from walls, roof, etc. Assumption is one cannot localize the frequencies below 120 Hz. You can hear deep bass from car stereos. My discussion was about reproduction of the lowest octave in a time/phase coherent manner with the rest of bandwidth in spite of not being able to localize below 120 Hz.

If you do the math, largest dimension of the room should be at least 26 ft to "accurately" reproduce 20 Hz frequency signal at the sea-level!  If one lives at high altitude (say 5,280 ft from sea level, aka mile-high), sound travels bit slower and largest dimension can be less than 26 ft. One can hear good bass in near-field listening as @o_holter pointed out with his floor standing speakers from 4 ft. Room modes play a big role for this kind of effect. But I cannot comment on this since I don't know his speakers nor about his listening room. If room modes rocks your boat and you think that is how it should "sound," then who am I to question that (LOL)?

I get better bass for tabla and double bass about 2 ft from my speakers. But I have listened to these enough to know that is NOT how they sound in real life without any amplification. In my case, I know room modes are the culprit. In my room, I need to sit ~12 ft from the speakers to get the optimum sound. There is lot more involve in sound reproduction than just words and technical phrases.

@mahgister I didn't imply that room treatments aren't necessary for near-field listening. I said the impact from the room is minimal since you get the more direct sound than indirect sound. Also I cannot comment on "soundstage" from near-field listening since it is depends on other factors.

@mahgister I didn't imply that room treatments aren't necessary for near-field listening. I said the impact from the room is minimal since you get the more direct sound than indirect sound. Also I cannot comment on "soundstage" from near-field listening since it is depends on other factors.

Ok i understand better ... Thanks for the clarification .. And for sure you are right about the other factors...

Wow what a load of information! Thanks!

Just a quick reply. I suggest that we leave deep bass out of the discussion, for now. Not because we dont need it! On the contrary I understand very well the idea of going from below, when tuning the system, start with the best bass, and so on. Yet I think, for nearfield listening, it is a secondary consideration. You have to get the nearfield sound right, down to 100 - 80 - 60 or something herz. Then you solve the problem of the deep bass. This is my experience from working with small speakers. I have tried 5-6 subs in my main system, plus some small subs in my office system. The idea that you cannot hear where the sub sound comes from below 120 or something herz is PLAIN WRONG to my ears. They can be heard and localized even if the specs say they shut up at 60 80 or something hz, in reality they dont. My smallest sub, a Fostex Submini, is the most honest about this, with a manual showing a curve of how the sub output continues upwards in frequency. Even if the volume level is lower. 

My nearfield desk system is a Linn Classik receiver driving Linn Kans, providing a nice deep holosonic soundstage from CDs, Qobuz and Apple Music. ifi Nano One DAC, and my workstation iMac are the source most often. 40 year old Kans, and 24+- old Classik.

@jkevinoc - good to hear the Kans and the Classic are still working so well. I have never heard them, but have been impressed by other Linn gear.

I am testing single driver speakers in my desk system - Arche Audio FR2 speakers and Arche D50A s-state amp, plus a Fostex Submini. I like tweaking to get the best out of a low-cost solution like this. The Arche system is made in S Korea, and does indeed have a bit "Korean" sound to my ears - very analytical, sharp, somewhat bright. I employ a cheap trick: I include the Audiotailor Jade (otl tube) headphone amp in the amplification chain, in order to 'humanize' the sound. Since I had it laying around already. Since the Jade output goes to the sub as well as the speaker amp, the bonus is the ability to control both sub and speakers with one volume control, retaining the balance between them.

I can well imagine that this single driver speaker path has problems, even if we avoid the dreaded crossover. And that the two-way Kans sound more 'holographic' than my setup. Probably also more forgiving of not-the-best digital input. The strength of my system is analytical sharpness, and this is what I mainly use it for - investigating music, potential vinyl albums to buy, for playback in my main system. I would guess that the Kans benefit a lot from optimal stands and positioning. Even with small speakers I thought I knew well, I've been amazed by the improved sound from precise and stable positioning. 

I'd like to clarify my statement on bass, above. Of course it matters, also for nearfield listening, although maybe a bit of the deep bass is lost. It is only that, in my experience with subs, I like them best when they are positioned like speakers, with the drivers front-firing, often in a line with the speakers, a bit forward. I have "heard" the subs even if the crossover is tuned down to 50-45hz. Because in fact the sub doesn't stop there, it emits some higher frequency sound also. This is with a Velodyne DD18, two REL Strata, and others. Maybe I would think otherwise if I had heard, for example, the Audiokinesis Swarm system. But maybe not.

Even with single driver or one way speakers, I compromise by adding a sub. I then have a two-way system with associated problems of integration. However my small Arche FR2 speakers dont go much below 100 hz. The upside is that they don't try to do bass that will distort and make trouble also upwards in frequency. The downside is that they need a sub to get the right tonal balance.

I also have a further question regarding nearfield listening.

Do you find that it works better with streaming, than with other sources (especially, analog / LP)?

If nearfield tends to sound especially good when streaming, there could be many causes (productions more tuned to ’personal listening’ and whatnot). But maybe mainly a more flat digital sound, compared to what one gets from LP playback, and therefore, more benefit of sitting closer to the speakers.

Testing nearfield listening in my main system.

First, I drag and push my heavy listener chair much closer to the speakers than I am used to. I then change the position from very close, to medium close, to not so close.

The test deserves one of my best LPs, The Beatles Magical mystery tour, Hørzu edition with true stereo. So I play Hello goodbye, a track I know by heart.

Result: from very close, it sounds disjointed, not fully coherent.  Medium is better, and not so close is best.

The test confirms the need for some distance to get the best coherence, soundstage and depth.

This preliminary result is very interesting.... more to follow...

With close and medium distance I can feel that the band is around me. Pushing the chair further back is like changing the position from the stage, towards the front seats in the concert hall, and then further backwards. I think this says something about good speakers. 

Testing some more with the Audiokinesis Dream Maker floorstanders. They stand ca 5.5 feet from the wall, and 5 from the side walls, toed in ca 40 degrees. They stand 6.7 feet apart, measured from the center of the drivers. My conventional listening position has been ca 8 feet from the middle of the front plane of the speakers. Now, I tried 2 feet away, 3 feet etc in small increments. Large impact on the sound. I found that 2-3 feet was too close. 4-5 was better, more coherent, and with some space and depth also. Although maybe, all in all, 7-8 was best. Not sure yet. Although I don't end up very nearfield, it may be that my listening chair should be closer to the speakers than I have thought.

My last visit to the shop the large Dali Epikore 11 were around 12' apart with the sofa about 6' back, the speaker toe in was extreme to the point that there was only 1 spot to sit, dead center between the 2, but results were special. I agree with a previous poster that nearfield with toe in does reduce boundary effects, but also think individual speaker design will divide results as much as moving speakers from the long wall to the short wall.

The idea that you cannot hear where the sub sound comes from below 120 or something herz is PLAIN WRONG to my ears

The 'magic' frequency is more like 80Hz. To that end, the subs must not make anything above that or they will attract attention to themselves. If you set the crossover to 60Hz the sub will still make some energy above 80Hz. So you have to be careful.

The classic nearfield speaker was the BBC Rogers LS35a. There are a number of manufacturers that have reproduced this speaker and done enhancements- get the 16 Ohm version if you can.

I did a combo experiment one time. What I mean by that is I put some small, wide dispersion speakers at a normal listening distance in a small room. I crossed them over pretty high, about 600 Hz, to some larger ported speakers which were within 1 foot of each ear, off to the sides. Those were attenuated and time delayed to match level with the smaller speakers. The result was that when I sat in the sweet spot right between the bass speakers the bass was very full, rich and smooth, but seemed to be coming from the soundstage in front of me. If I got up from that chair and moved away it sounded like there was virtually no bass in the room. It was really a very compelling sounding arrangement, allowing me to experience solid bass and a soundstage that seemed to fill the room, without much in the way of room interference muddling things up in the lower midrange and bass. It was also good for not bothering other people with bass. One downside was the need to sit fairly still and be well positioned between the bass speakers. Slight movement toward one speaker or the other would cause a rapid change in relative level between the left and right ears.

I think it's time I try repeating this experiment with my current setup.

Interesting experiment asctim ...

I used a foldable wood screen with absorption and diffusive surface as a focusing lens between my ears and the room speakers and walls ...It was not farfield nor nearfield ... I was in my listening position at 9 feet from the speakers...

Astounding... I felt like the best of headphone intimacy  coupled with speakers holographic and  realistic impression...

In some recorded albums the soundstage extended all around me almost behind me ...

But my room was heavily tuned with 100 different resonators ...

After this experience i understood why sound experience is mostly acoustics and psycho-acoustics ... Not taste ...

@atmasphere - my experience is that the sub needs to be cut off at a lower frequency than 80 hz. The Velodyne DD18 is the sub I've owned that really went low, and the crossover could be set to 40 - 45 hz. Even lower than with the two REL Strata subs I had before. Yet even at that low crossover, I was concerned about the sub positioning, and found that the DD18 sounded best, positioned in line with the speakers, or a bit in front, very directional - although this should not be the case. I have not (yet) experienced truly non-directional subs.

@o_holter My experience is similar in that I have to cross the speakers over at a frequency much lower than 80Hz. If you think about it, 40Hz is only an octave down so unless your crossover has a really complex and steep filter, there will be a substantial amount of energy above 80Hz with a 12 or even 18dB slope.

I have my sub's drivers facing the wall but my subs are Audiokinesis Swarm subs and so are designed to operate inside the room boundary effect. Most subs are not, so have to be placed well away from the wall otherwise they will be tricky as the room boundary boosts bass by about 3dB per octave as you go down. Duke's subs take advantage of this and so are designed to roll off at 3dB/octave starting at 100Hz. In this way they are flat at 20Hz, yet are compact and can be right against the wall, which is really important for space in my room.

Near fields are used specifically for studio environments where you are working close to your console, such that their polar response is quite narrow in the mids and highs  in order to reduce console reflections. they in general should not be used as everyday listening speakers unless you don't care about the room response. Most good near fields like Adams or Focal are also quite expensive ( $1000+ each),  most these days are bi-amped with XLR and digital inputs as well as 2pi or 4pi padding (low end EQing)  

Unfortunately marketing has stolen that phrase these days. satellite systems is the proper term for consumer items like what you have described.

for most listening its just better to be able to hear the room acoustics, and for better enjoyment to get your room analyzed  to see where unwanted resonances are and mechanically  remove them using  things like bookshelf's or phase detraction devices and bass traps . depending on how bad your room is. In the studio we spend a fair amount of time correcting room responses before we start using them. Best money spend is on getting your room sound good in the first place. DSP room eq's won't correct a bad sounding rooms either. 

Book shelfs work very well at preventing standing wave which cause those resonances, and are pretty cheap in comparison.

But dont use near filelds for your entertainment needs. 

Good nearfield listening must be done in a very small room ..

And the acoustic control of this small room matter very much for the S.Q. in near field listening ...

The speed of sound is such that in a room under 13 feet , the reflected waves from side and low ceiling and the direct waves participated  together in the holographic impression ...

Near listening in a non treated small room is not the same as in a treated small room.. It is my experience ...

Then saying that in near field room acoustic dont matter is not true ...😁

Thank you, all!

I have been into 'reverberant' sound, speakers trying to 'play' the room and so on since 1970 (Bose 901). The Audiokinesis Dream Maker speakers I have used the last ten years is a much more sophisticated version of this principle, made to resemble big Sound Lab panels but with dynamic/horn drivers. So I know my way around indirect sound, a little bit at least.

I think we all agree that room treatment and room/speaker synnergy is important even with nearfield listening, although the direct sound now plays a greater role. My impression is, whatever the speaker, it does play the room. You cannot avoid it, even if many speakers are designed to minimize it.

Now maybe the best thing about nearfield listening, in my case at least, with a fairly large room, is that is it not either / or. No harm is done to our living and listening room arrangement, by dragging the main listener chair closer to the speakers. The sound is just as good as it was before, in the rest of the room (unless I do some large changes of speaker positioning and toe-in - so far I have not felt the need).

@asctim - yes, very interesting experiment - it reminds me of what I hear when I have my head 'just so' a bit before and above the woofers in the speakers.

@atma-sphere - yes, from what I've read, the Swarm system is able to do the vanishing act that I ask for. Or most of it. Have never heard it, though. The bass management of the Dream Makers, with two 10 inch woofers per speaker, one in front and one at the back, is very good and pure on its own. I can hear test tones down to 28 - 25 hz or so.

the Swarm system is able to do the vanishing act that I ask for. Or most of it. Have never heard it, though.

@o_holter I have a pair in my system. My main speakers are flat to 20Hz so I added the Swarm subs to break up the standing wave only. One is to the left of the listening position and the other to the rear and slightly to the right.

The effect they have is dramatic. Without them there is bass along the sides of the room but none at the listening position. When I turn them on the bass is fine everywhere. Due to how the ear senses tonality, when they are on the mids and highs are more relaxed. They were very easy to set up.

You need to consider the type of crossover also.  With 1st order crossovers, you need to sit far enough back to allow the drivers to integrate.  

There are 2 kinds of nearfield system:

• The kind where the owner chooses to listen at a smaller distance that absolutely necessary in his/her room, for whatever reason. So for example a stand-mounted 2-way system is heard from 6 feet away (with a lot of space behind each speaker), when the system could just as well be heard at more conventional distances; or
• My kind, a cramped home office (13’ x 13’) w/a desk pushed against the front wall & the speakers mounted on the desk ~3 feet away & 3-4 ft apart

Nobody would chose my nearfield system as the optimal way to hear this or that speaker. Still, it’s all I have, and after having 4-5 pairs of powered 2-way speakers and 3 pairs of passive 2-ways here, I formed a few conclusions:

1. Ported speakers might work if the port is in the front, but if in the back, trouble ahead
2. I get better results all around with sealed/acoustic suspension 2-ways. Not only do they interact less with room boundaries, but the subjective quality of bass notes is much better
3. Get each speaker off the desktop as much as space/height considerations allow. My present speakers, vintage KEF 103.2s, have 4-5" from the bottom of the 8" woofer to the bottom of the cabinet. I place each speaker on 3" tall foam supports. It helps tighten the already tight bass
4. Use an electronic crossover to get the lowest frequencies off the desktop and to a good subwoofer. I can only fit one sub, but it’s a good one (JLAudio e110). The crossover is a Marchand XM6 with the variable crossover (24 dB/octave slopes up & down) set to 80 Hz. As most sealed 2-ways I’ve had here have a -3 dB point of ~50Hz, my crossover is set comfortably high, ~1/2 octave above the -3 dB point. I can’t localize the bass to the sub and it makes the desktop mounted speakers sound tighter, less boomy.

I’d love to have more room to play with, but I simply don’t. Years ago I had large living room situated 2-channel systems. Those were the days, but those days are gone...

With very small speakers 4 inches woofer i prefer rear porthole ...Because it is easier to redesign his volume /neck ratio in a more nuanced and complex way ...

The result i reach with this modification elevated the performance to an incredible level ... near 50 hertz strong, no boominess, clarity all along the frequencies scales ...I modified also the wave guide of the tweeter for my position ( 3 feet ) resulting in a soundstage extending way beside each speakers with frontal and rear death...

All that with 150 bucks well reviewed  but modified active  speakers but  also damped against vibration and resonance  with my own device which is concrete block with over it a sandwich of many different materials ( oak plate-bamboo plate- granite plate-shungite- plate cork -plate sorbothane plate ,alterning in this sanwich more softer material with the harder one for an optimal coupling-decoupling chain ) and the damping is with tuned load of concrete block over them also ... All my connectors are shielded with my recipe (shungite plate)...

I can assure you save for deep bass under 50 hertz  for sure, i lack nothing and my active speakers driven by a tube preamplifier beat all headphone i heard save my top best one and reference one : the only working hybrid AKG K340  optimized and modified  which go near 25 hertz clear ....

Some are proud of their 100,000 bucks system 😊... Me i am proud without reservation of my 1,000 bucks one😁 Speakers + NOS dac + tubes preamp and tones control and a new amplification ( Sansui alpha) dedicated for the headphone only with his own battery dac ...

I only need the BACCH system of filters as upgrade  ... Anyway even without them i listen a soundfield with differential space qualities ( i mechnically decreased the crosstalk ) in my speakers and out of the head soundfield with the K340...

All this to say rear porthole are not bad at all , if you know what to do ....😊

Ported speakers might work if the port is in the front, but if in the back, trouble ahead

Nearfield is a listening configuration that helps take room acoustics out of the equation. As such it serves as a very good reference point for how any system should sound. But fact is the farther from nearfield one listens the more the sound of exactly the same gear will sound different as room acoustics factors in more.

Some speakers are better designed for nearfield than others. A concentric driver design that is also highly directional is best at least in theory.

Sorry if I am a bit slow, answering the many good comments in this thread. Reason; I need some time to adjust my ears back to the music. I get tired listening to the sound. "Is A better than B, or maybe C", and so on.Testing is fine, now and then, but too much does not work for me. However, the discussion has been useful. I have moved my listening chair closer to the speakers, and will get used to this, before I change anything.