[Vinnie R.]

With respect to toe in, I find "how much" really depends on the speaker.


That is the key. It takes time and effort, but it is well worth it. Even after you think you've nailed it, it's worth revisiting. I've spent as much as two months experimenting before settling in with a particular arrangement... and I'm always open to further improvement.

 

[Wind Chaser]

For some reason the italicized portion of the quote in blue didn't copy over. Here it is in black...

One really needs to experiment with positioning, listening, re-positioning, listening... and more and more listening - before you find what works best for you.


 

[Rocket_Ronny]

I think we need to define near field and far field because Wind's use of the term is different than Vinnies?

My understanding is that near field is up to aprox. 5 feet from the listener to speaker, mid 5-9 feet, and far 9 + feet. Don't know where I got this from.

With this definition Wind Chaser does not listen near field but more towards far field. I think his definition of near field is an equilateral triangle, or greater, arrangement. Now I could be wrong on that, but I never heard him describe his setup as near field before.

Regarding toe in. Almost all the speakers I have had, except for the Gedlee Nathans, and Volents, end up pointed about 15 degrees of my ear axis. This gives good imagining while offering up some air to the sound.

Rocket...Near and Far Field...Ronny   (Depends on which system I am in front of)

[Wind Chaser]

If the distance between the speakers is greater than the distance between you and the speakers, that is near field. 

If the distance between you and the speakers is greater than the distance between the speakers, that is far field.

The distance between the speakers determines the size of the field.

[seikosha]

I've always considered near field within 5-6 feet of the speakers.  Getting direct sound from your speakers before the room can contribute sound...that's what defines near field for me.

[Vinnie R.]

If the distance between the speakers is greater than the distance between you and the speakers, that is near field. 
If the distance between you and the speakers is greater than the distance between the speakers, that is far field.
The distance between the speakers determines the size of the field.

Hi WC,

I'm not sure if this is true.  For example:

If the distance between the speakers is greater than the distance between you and the speakers, that is near field. 

So if the distance between the speakers is 12 feet and the distance between you and the speakers is 10 feet, that is near-field?

If the distance between you and the speakers is greater than the distance between the speakers, that is far field.

So if the distance between you and the speakers is 4 feet and the distance between the speakers is 3 feet, that is far-field?

I've always considered near field within 5-6 feet of the speakers.  Getting direct sound from your speakers before the room can contribute sound...that's what defines near field for me.

I don't believe there is an "official definition" of near-field, mid-field, and far-field listening, but if you search the numerous threads in the various audio forums about this topic, there seems to be a loose consensus that:

Near-field: Distance from speaker to ear is 4 feet or less.
Mid-field: Distance from speaker to ear is between 4 and 9 feet.
Far-field: Distance from speaker to ear is greater than 9 feet.

Getting direct sound from your speakers before the room can contribute sound...that's what defines near field for me.

Yes, but in stating this it would be better defined in terms of distance between A) speaker and ear, and B) distance from speaker to first reflection point + distance from first reflection point to ear, where the first reflection points can be the floor, ceiling, and walls. 

What would the ratio be?   

So I think in general, it is hard to pin down an exact definition. 

Vinnie

[jtwrace]

There's NearField and VinnieField.  I got a taste of the latter with a system he changed.   

[Wind Chaser]

Vinnie,

When the net result of the set up puts me near the soundstage, that is what I deem as near field. In other words near field is close proximity to the soundstage.

The distance between the ears and speakers without considering the distance between the speakers means nothing. There is a definite relationship between these two things that matters in terms of the perceived effect of ones proximity to the soundstage. 

John

[debjit.g]

My understanding is near field is the one that is used in almost all recording studios which is basically sitting very close to the speaker to get the direct sound from the speaker toed in. Far field is the one where you sit far away from the speaker, thus adding the room's signature to the sound. Probably the distance between the speaker and listener doesn't have any relation to far and near field terminology, for example, you can setup a far field and yet have speaker to listener distance less than speaker to speaker distance. 

[Vinnie R.]

There's NearField and VinnieField.  I got a taste of the latter with a system he changed.   

LOL - jtwrace, maybe for that system nearfield wasn't ideal, but it was still fun to try (for me!) 

When the net result of the set up puts me near the soundstage, that is what I deem as near field. In other words near field is close proximity to the soundstage.

Hi John,

Ok, now I see where you are coming from with how you deem the term near-field (referring to how you hear the proximity to the soundstage in the recording).  I find that changes with different recordings.

Vinnie

[rebbi]

Bill says he's got 400 hours on them and that they are ready. He's using the Red Dragon Mono's and I can't remember what else upstream. His M3's have replaced his Reference 3A de Capo BE. Another speaker I might have been interested in if I had more than 8 watts. Should be interesting. Will report back later.

That's so interesting - I went from the De Capo's to the M4's, and just upgraded to the M3 Turbo S!   

[rebbi]

Oops, sorry for the rogue post.

[rebbi]

In any case, next time I drive out to Kelowna I plan on taking my 8 watt SET. I am really curious as to how well it will pair with the M3ts. If it works as well as I hope, then I am quite certain I will place my order.

I used an 8 watt SET with my M4's (and with my new M3's) and it was s sublime combination. 

[Wind Chaser]

I used an 8 watt SET with my M4's (and with my new M3's) and it was s sublime combination. 

That's good to know. Is eight watts enough to break them in or did you use another more powerful amp for that task?

[rebbi]

That's good to know. Is eight watts enough to break them in or did you use another more powerful amp for that task?

Oh, 8 W was just fine. If the goal is to get the drivers moving to physically loosen up the suspension and other components, 8 W is plenty. I have a smallish to medium-sized room (around 16' x 13' with an 8 foot ceiling) and anything much beyond "9 o'clock" on my volume knob is too loud for me, depending upon the music. So I don't even have to push my amplifier very hard to drive the speakers more than loud enough for effective break-in. Hope that helps.

[Wind Chaser]

That's so interesting - I went from the De Capo's to the M4's, and just upgraded to the M3 Turbo S!   

Bill really liked his de Capo's a lot. In his opinion they are among the finest stand mounts available. In a few respects he feels they are better than the Spatials, but overall he does prefer his M3ts by a pretty good margin.

Hopefully you'll get around to commenting on the differences between the M3 & 4 when you are ready. 

[Wind Chaser]

Oh, 8 W was just fine. If the goal is to get the drivers moving to physically loosen up the suspension and other components, 8 W is plenty. I have a smallish to medium-sized room (around 16' x 13' with an 8 foot ceiling) and anything much beyond "9 o'clock" on my volume knob is too loud for me, depending upon the music. So I don't even have to push my amplifier very hard to drive the speakers more than loud enough for effective break-in. Hope that helps.

Thanks, I use the cheap tubes that came with my amp for that purpose.

[ric]

Interesting comments on nearfield listening. I have the M3's about 3.5 feet away from walls (side and rear) about 8' apart and I am less than 10' speaker to ear. I also have these toed in towards the listener as this seems to give the best imaging. I will check out the 1: 1.414 ratio as well, thanks.
I originally thought I would not need my homemade Hallowgraphs because of the OB design, but I find myself toeing them out to give even more air and space to most recordings and have been thrilled by the M3's incisive, live sound. Because of the M3's sensitivity, I find that system tweaks, speaker cable changes etc. are much easier to hear. I want to give kudos to Mr. Shaw on this brilliant design and aesthetic and look forward to hearing about X1!