2. speakers
  3. 1122590976

Why Energize the Whole Room/Virtual Reality Audio?

Nearly all high quality loudspeakers are designed to fill, or at least attempt to fill, an entire room with sound. Why haven't more manufacturers and listeners taken an alternative path towards a more localized and individually oriented sound reproduction paradigm? I'm inspired by the concept of virtual reality video glass where the moving picture image is placed so close to the eye that the viewer is totally immersed in the image. Why not place the speakers within inches of the listener's head? Since you're not trying to fill a room with sound the speakers could be physically smaller (and cheaper) and the drivers should have less travel (and lower distortion) than traditional loudspeakers setups. Soundstaging and imaging should be greatly enhanced and the negative effects of the listening room should be greatly minimized. Except for the social aspect of sharing music with friends or it's impracticality for listening to music in the background, maximum extreme nearfield listening (MENL, pronouced MEN-L) should have enormous appeal for the serious listener. Or, am I missing something? I've never actually tried those virtual reality glasses, so I really don't know if they work let alone this idea inspired by the VR glasses.

On a practical note, this concept would probably require a single cone or planar type speaker in order to maintain coherence and proper sound integration which is probably not a bad thing. If anybody reading this has a pair of those mini Gallo balls, try placing them free field six inches in front of your head and let us know how they sound.

The obvious question is, why not just use headphones? Unless the music was recorded for headphone playback you'll get that sound in the middle of your head effect. I'm looking for a properly placed soundfield.
128x128onhwy61
robm321
932 posts
 
Eldford,

Stereo or not, headphones create a soundstage in your head... a very small one. Instead of having a large stage in front of you which can create the live experience better. But, if you get past that headphones are great.

Onhwy is right, the room degrades the sound, which is a big benefit for headphones. But, the room is necessary to get the ambiance and soundstage on natural recordings.
s7horton
1,077 posts
 
Onhwy61, audiophiles are rarely interested in new technologies to own themselves. They may show interest in reading about it or having it demonstrated. How many audiophiles own SACD's? A fair amount, but I guarantee the number that can play only redbook far outweighs SACD, even though it offers better performance. As far as the room only degrading the sound, I disagree. It's a personal preference. I happen to like what my room does to a sound system.
johnk's avatar
johnk
1,976 posts
 
Its called near or close field listening many have done this.I do for monitoring but large loudspeakers in big space sound more like real music.You dont get the image in the head sound when you do this.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61 OP
5,256 posts
 
Johnk, it's not near field listening. A typical near field listening setup has a speaker 4-6 feet from the listener. Even in a studio environment, where near field listening was first employed, the speaker is still 2 to 4 feet away. I'm talking about placing the speaker 4 to six INCHES from the listener's head. It is clearly related to, but really is a different concept than near field listening.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Robm321...Maybe my earphones (that I no longer use) were better than average, or perhaps my head is bigger than yours, but the soundstage I experienced when I closed my eyes was as real (and expansive) as it gets. Of course all this soundstage stuff is in the head (or mind), regardless of how the air vibrations reach the ears.
More to discover