Nearfield Speakers

Speakers
1

I thought it would be nice to start a thread on the experiences with passive bookshelf speakers for nearfield purposes. There’s plenty of active bookshelves to choose from but rarely do people mention passive bookshelves.

A few of my friends and I have had success with Buchardt A500/A500se, Ascend Acoustics LX, Totem signature, Dynaudio Focus 110, Fritz Carrera BE, SB Acoustics ARA, and for more of a midfield setup or deep desk BMR Philharmonitors.

I’d love to hear your experiences and if anyone had any luck with more expensive speakers. I’ve been looking for the opportunity to upgrade mine but spending more money doesn’t always mean a better experience.

5 Likes
2

I think the reason people rarely mention passive speakers is that it’s a PITA to have the amp/pre to manage them and cost grows exponentially if you move to the high end. There’s also a lot of extremely good quality studio powered monitors that sound incredible dollar for when you compare them to passives and the associated cost for an amp. I think it’s just easier to make very good near field monitors as opposed to standard speakers.

On the low $ end I did have a lot of fun with a pair of Kef Q100 and an Emotiva BasX A-100. Very good pairing, great synergy, with the port plugged. Both entry level pricing and both have a 100 in the name. Can’t beat that with a stick.

2 Likes
3

Aren’t these active?

I’ll be looking for a nearfield setup soon for my desk so will follow this thread closely… thanks!

4

I have a pair of Dali passive bookshelf speakers on my desk. They also end up providing music to the living room now and then. Partner doesn’t see a need for more so there you go. Really like them and a very under mentioned, high quality, European brand. They also look pretty.

1 Like
5

The difference is that nearfield removes the room. Hence, it’s much easier to get quality sound without jumping through too many design hoops (so lesser designers can succeed as well). Also, “nearfield” shouldn’t be confused with “desktop” even though “desktop” is indeed “nearfield”. For desktop use you’re introducing the room back into the equation although with very different parameters.

1 Like
6

I used to use a pair of these nearfield for a long time and if you have the space I can confirm it’s fantastic. I also found that dynaudio special 40s with the right amp, voxativ hagen, harbeth p3esr and a lot of other bbc inspired designs, joseph pulsar2 graphene, omega super alnico, and audio note uk an-e spe to be wonderful in my setups in nearfield. Currently have a pair of borresen 01 that I’m going to set up as nearfield and see how they fare

I’d also say typically when people are looking for nearfield they also have space constraints and don’t want a bunch of extra boxes taking up their more limited space. I don’t know if I’d say it’s easier to make nearfield speakers, it’s just that it involves the room less which are more apparent in traditional listening positions

I would agree, although I don’t know if I’d go as far to say it removes the room, since I still think it involves it enough to potentially justify a bit of treatment or tweaking. I think the only things that can truly remove the room from the equation are headphones and iem imo, but nearfield typically solves a lot of room problems to where it’s a lot less consequential (but it’s not like that doesn’t come with its own tradeoffs either)

1 Like
7

Can you elaborate? I’d love to understand the difference better

8

Yeah, I just added them to the list of what my friends use and that I’ve tried myself. They have a nearfield setting but they don’t mix well with a passive setup.

Personally I’m using nearfield as a desktop setup but not everyone will. Nearfield/desktop still isn’t covered that much from what I’ve seen though. This is my current setup.

image
image1918×1438 727 KB

image
image1505×2007 529 KB

5 Likes
9

I think he just means that it’s possible to have a nearfield setup without it being on a desk per se.

2 Likes
10

Ah, perfect thread for my most recent listening experiences :+1:

Can we agree that head to speaker position in less than 8 feet of distance is considered near-field or mid-field? I am really close into my speakers in under 8 feet from the speaker and 6 feet from the center image. (Based on my listening triangle)

Sometimes I will move my chair in even closer (about 18”) and it puts me almost basically between the speakers (which can sound really cool depending on the set-up!)

Anyway, currently at the moment I have one of the most awesome combinations going, stupid amount of synergy :pinched_fingers:
The sound is absolutely exquisite, the speakers completely disappear and the midrange is just “To die for”. I have had these speakers for a few years now and this particular set-up is the best to date.

Please note, sometimes spending more money and also putting the effort into the small details really does pay off, use that info as you will🤗

Here you go: Innuos Sense 2.0 > Innuos ZENith MK3 streamer > Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC > Eddie Current Studio B running as pre-amplifier > Sugden FPA-4 amp > Falcon Acoustics LS3/5A speakers.

These tiny little nuggets are putting out an unbelievable sound signature, it’s stupid how good they sound, best I have heard them yet and this includes dealer demo rooms. Now, this is a completely subjective opinion, but it’s also my very sincere and honest feedback.

From my head to the amplifier is 6 feet.
From my head to each speaker is 8 ft.

image
image4032×3024 3.54 MB

image
image4032×3024 2.38 MB

7 Likes
11

It’s also a different environment with different acoustic needs. Using bookshelfs on a desk inbetween a monitor or something else is pretty different from setting up speakers in a room for nearfield listening imo. So what might work nearfield in a room might not work on a desktop setup nearfield. @NickMimi’s setup is a good example of a more room nearfield setup

4 Likes
12

This is a really great looking setup! Inspiring for sure I like the white theme going on there with the keyboard and everything.

Ok so that’s what I thought. Nearfield as in full blown system but close to the listener versus a desktop intended system (which is what I need to get soon). Thanks!

13

For Desktop purposes I have tried multiple combinations of equipment over the years to include; RP600M, R-51PM. JBL Arena B15/120, Pioneer SP-BS22LR, Monolith K-Bas, Falcon LS3/5A, Polk LSIM 703, Decware Tiny Radials & DecwareTube Tots. I have used everything from a $145 tiny class D all in one to a massive 60 lb tube amp.
My favorite speakers for desktop use are: Monolith K-Bas and Decware Tiny Radials.
The Monolith put out gobs of volume, perfect imaging, give a great sense of space along with good soundstage and in general play all genres fairly well across the board for what I consider to be a very fair price for the abilities they provide.

The Decware is a different beast all together, an Omni-directional and tiny speaker that when fed a good quality front end performs wonders at the limits of it volume abilities. On a desktop at modest and reasonable volumes I don’t think you can get a better performer any cheaper. :muscle: Because it is Omni-directional you are almost always centered in the space, and the soundstage just can’t be beat for what it is. Audiophile quality sound at bargain basement prices and the tiniest foot print available on the market. Win-win all around.

Warning though, the front end I feed these things costs thousands. It is what it is. :man_shrugging: :face_with_peeking_eye:

6 Likes
14

Naturally, nothing is absolute (other than death). But it’s a matter of “how much”. By listening nearfield you increase the time difference between direct and reflected sound. This results in less smearing which in turn improves pretty much everything. So no, it’s not an anechoic chamber but reducing smearing due to room interaction just 20% is a huge deal.

1 Like
15

Nearfield is the relative distance from the speaker to you. If the speakers are on stands in the middle of the room and you’re on in a chair or a couch, you’ve reduced the time arrival of the direct sound from the speaker to your ears. This also has the important effect of increasing the time difference between direct sound (speaker) and reflected sound (room). The shorter this difference, the more smearing there is (your brain’s ability to interpret “the sound” as a separate entity from “the room”). The longer the difference, the less smearing.

A desktop setup while being nearfield doesn’t alleviate this issue. Well, it alleviates the issue in terms of room reflections but in return it adds two very very near sources of reflection - the desk and monitor(s).

2 Likes
16

I’m wondering if there may be a bit of misconception with trying to get a room to be like an anechoic chamber for some audiophiles.

Correct me if I’m wrong but anechoic chambers aren’t meant to be used for two channel right? So I don’t see how it makes sense to associate treating a room used for pleasure listening to one used for measurements and what not… would that not be wrong usage?

Well that’s at least my observation from reading comments and posts in other places. Apologies if it’s a bit too off topic.

2 Likes
17

The distinction is usually close enough the direct sound from the speakers reaches you with significantly more volume than the reflections, hence the room is less relevant, usually 6ft or less, midfield is somewhere between nearfield and far field.

2 Likes
18

Actually the time of arrival of direct vs reflected sound matters more than volume (spl). The key here is whether or not the ear/brain perceives two separate sounds as one single one vs two distinct ones. That’s all time based.

Here’s an example.

If the direct and reflected sounds arrive too closely to each other, the ear/brain perceives it as a single sound. This is obviously an error and the ultimate result is smearing of low level detail, imaging, spatial cues, etc.

If the reflected sound arrives long enough after the direct sound, the low level detail (responsible for imaging, spatial cues, etc.) remains intact and unaltered.

How volume (SPL) affects things is in the following way (as long as it’s delayed enough from direct sound):

If the reflected sound is relatively high, it will be interpreted as an echo. Separate from the original sound but relatively close in SPL.

If the reflected sound is low enough, it won’t be perceived and won’t matter.

Those are the two extremes. What happens IRL is somewhere in between and generally acts to give a sense of space/reverb. Basically it’s a low level, short delay echo. Same thing as you would experience in any room when a sound occurs and gives you a sense of the room’s size.

IRL, both timing and SPL play a role in what you hear. But knowing which does what can help you tune your system to be better.

Lastly, an anechoic chamber is not “just used for measurements”. It’s the ideal reproduction of sound since there’s nothing to augment, smear, mask, etc. it. However, listening to music (or anything else) in such a chamber is generally weird and unnatural. It is so because no matter where we are on Earth, there is always ambient noise and various objects to give spatial cues. The chamber lacks both.

2 Likes
19

I read an article a few years ago about an enechoic chamber that was built in a university for research and people inside the chamber would start to get batty after a prolonged length of time as the only things that made sound were your heart beat and breath. It is entirely unnatural environment to exist in.

I found a YouTube reference to it.

4 Likes
20

what I want out of speakers 2-3 feet away sitting at a desk are much different than my listening room sitting in my eames chair 6-8 feet away. The active monitor options for desktop usage are such a bargain I couldn’t imagine going passive. I guess if I had money for a Harbeth 30.2/P3ESR that would change my mind.

I did find that ribbons/amt tweets like that of Adam were piercing for desktop usage but not so bad midfield. Still don’t love them for long listening sessions but for an hour or so they are a good value.