I'm sure there are many definitions for nearfield, and many opinions and disagreements (as we've seen) about who came up with it first and whose is correct. But whenever I hear "nearfield" I think of sitting at a desk, and the speakers are on either side of a computer monitor (usually) and the speakers are at most about three feet or a meter away from the listener. That pic I posted earlier of the P3ESRs in my office, while they are fairly close to my listening position (maybe 5 feet), I don't think of that being definitively "nearfield." Disclaimer: I don't know anything about anything, but I do make a good cup of coffee. Alternate wide-angle photo of office, from desk chair position...
There are not many definitions of nearfield, there is only one right definition. Only because several peoples (like Cardas for example) use that term to explain something that has nothing to do with nearfield doesn't make it a definition. To me it is people talking about stuff which they don't have any knowledge about. BTW: Ask any serious recording engineer what nearfield means and you will get more or less the same answer. Only in hifi it is possible to claim totally BS (directed to Cardas) about technical stuff because as a customer you only need two ears to talk about hifi.
Terms can take on new, different meanings as they are used and discussed in different cultures. Word useage and adaptation can happen when a term does not yet exist in a different culture, a current term or word can be adapted to fit the needs of the new application. This seems to be what happened with the term "near field". Obviously the recording industry have been using near field monitors for decades and the term has a set definition within their culture. Seems as if companies like Harbeth that started off making studio monitors certainly were familiar with that term and how it was used. When they started making home audio speakers they and much of the audiophile community carried the term near field forward and expanded on its definition to include a speaker positioning pattern for much larger monitor based speakers intended for home use. I have read and heard the near field term used in this expanded form many times at audio shows and dealers. The adaptation of the term is clearly in use and its new meaning is implied and understood by many. While the official documentation of the culturally adapted meaning of the term "near field" has likely not made it into any audiophile dictionary, its use within the audiophile culture is real. In fact the current dictionary definition does not even define it within the recording industry culture. The documented definition lists it as a communication technology description: near field communication noun : a technology for digitally transmitting information over short distances (usually between a smartphone and another device) using radio waves. We can't really say that near field as used to describe recording studio monitors is incorrect becsuse that definition does not technically exist because it is widely used in that culture. I submit the same can be said for its evolved use in the audiophile community.
From an audiophile terms dictionary: Near Field. Any listening distance where the sounds you hear are directly from the speakers. See far field. https://playbutton.co/the-complete-glossary-of-audiophile-terminology/
From a recording industry dictionary: Near Field – The area between 1-5 feet from the sound source. Studio monitors are generally considered “near-field” speakers because they are meant to be listened to at close range. (See also “Far Field.”)
Really? This is a silly definition. That would make pretty much everything near field. To me near field is what they use in the booths of recording studios or when someone has speakers on their desk, or even if they sit on a sofa and have the speakers within 3 or so feet from them. But near field definitely doesn’t mean any distance where you can hear the sound directly from the speakers.
Again, nearfield reflects a range of distance from the speaker where the direct sound from the speaker is higher in intensity than the sound coming from reflections. The farther away you sit from the speaker, the lower the intensity of the direct sound, and at some point, the sound bouncing around the room and reaching your ears will be more than that coming directly from the speaker. Because your ear/brain localizes sound based on both intensity and timing, one will subjectively think that most of the sound is coming directly from the speaker (timing advantage of the direct sound) and will also integrate very early reflections into that perceived location. That is why one tends to not realize that most of the sound being heard is coming from reflections from all directions--off the ceiling, off the walls, off the floor, off of furnishings, and after many re-reflections. In typical rooms, that nearfield is pretty close to the speaker (e.g., zero to 5 ft from the speaker). When in the nearfield, the ear/brain is locked in on that predominating direct sound and it does not perceive as much of the frequency cancellation or reinforcement caused by reflected sound having a different path length than the direct sound; room reflections become less important to the sound. But, if the recording was balance and mixed with what rooms add to reverberant energy in the sound, nearfield listening might not, at least in this aspect, be ideal. Just because nearfield may be, based on a particular room, particular location of the speaker, and particular sound radiation pattern of the speaker, limited to a particular distance, that is not to say that listening at close to nearfield puts one in the enemy camp. One should experiment and pick what sounds best, and utilize theory as merely a rough guide. I've heard the Harbeth 40.2 (i.e., big speaker) up close and it sounded very good that way. I even heard a fairly large horn system in a tiny office, and the sound from 4 ft away was amazing.
Me too! Yes, but let's take this one step further. When you reach that golden point a few feet from the speaker or speakers, something happens to the sound field. This phenomenon has nothing to do with the room, but your placement physically close to the speakers. What if we take this outside? Set up a pair of speakers on stands with no boundary walls or hang them from a beam. From, say 12' away, they will sound thin, because you are not getting the benefit of room reflections, reinforcing the sound. But if you get within three to four feet away from the speakers, you will find yourself immersed within their sound fields. You will have that same nearfield experience that you had when inside of a house.
Using a wrong description even used by many people still is wrong. I don't get why people using specific technical terms and don't really know the meaning. Hifi only works in the boundary of the laws of physic. So it is 100% technic related and not by terms from "dealers" and "users" with only two ears as a technical background. I don't know how to describe it better because I'm no native speaker. I also don't mean it offending in your direction it only makes me angry as a man with two technical educations when technical terms are used the wrong way.
AXPONA audio show in suburban Chicago is next Friday and I am looking forward to hearing all of the Harberh based systems. Should be at least 3 rooms and hopefully one with 2 systems. They usually stack up quite well against anything in their price range and then some. The Harbeth SHL5+ blew me away with its unusually clear and life like sound at my first AXPONA over 7 years ago and it became my dream speaker. 4 years later the dream came true!
I get the impression that as long as they're not close to room boundaries, Harbeths aren't really that picky about placement. Toe-in does affect the sound more than other speakers I've owned .. at least in my room. I've got mine 7 feet apart (center-center) and I'm about 9 feet away . I'll try them farther apart to see if that changes the sound/imaging, but 9 feet apart isn't possible in my room.
You are actually following the Harbeth user guide. I actually prefer being a little farther away than an equal triangle too but need to do some work on my rom to get there.
Again, the User Guide - Harbeth doesn't have a listening distance advice, the picture is an example as it is written in its headline: "Typical set-up with surface absorption" "Here is the typical set-up in a normal living room. The side walls have been optionally treated with sound absorption panels or heavy curtains." A.S. about positioning his speakers:
It's the way I positioned all the speakers I had, Harbeth or not (only exception of Andio Note ones). The important thing, to me, is to have space behind your listening point.
Try a different dictionary. And why would you go to a dictionary for a phrase definition in the first place? Your near field communication reference (which is perfectly accurate) also has nothing to do with the Cardas 1:1:1 nonsense. Plus, near field RF (or any frequency band) is ultra-low power and requires that two devices be within centimeters of each other. Physically near - very near - each other. No 1:1:1 triangles involved either, which is the errant definition used to start this part of the thread in the first place.
Adding food for thought to this thread initially mentioning (bitching about) the seven to eight week lead time way back in July 2019... If anyone has tried to order new speakers and electronics recently wait times of up to a year are not uncommon. Tough times that haves to affect dealers and distributors, my sympathies.
