Near field, technical definition

[Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> A recent discussion on loudspeakers as monitors or in other applications provoked these definitions of near field:
> 
>>> The near field is less than half of the wavelength of the lowest frequency emitted from the sound source or less than twice the largest dimensions of the sound source, whichever is less.
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/noise1.pdf
> 
>>> The near field of a source is the region close to a source where the sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity are not in phase. In this region the sound field does not decrease by 6 dB each time the distance from the source is increased (as it does in the far field). The near field is limited to a distance from the source equal to about a wavelength of sound or equal to three times the largest dimension of the sound source (whichever is the larger).
> 
> 
> and the excellent general introduction, 
> 
> http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_tech/Noise.Technologies/PAV.Sound.B&K.Primer.pdf
> 
>>> The near field is the area very close to the machine where the sound pressure level may vary significantly with a small change in position. The area extends to a distance less than the wavelength of the lowest frequency emitted from the machine, or at less than twice the greatest dimension of the machine, whichever distance is the greater. Sound pressure measurements in this region should be avoided.
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/definitions-n.htm
> 
>>> that part of a sound field, usually within about two wavelengths of a noise source, where there is no simple relationship between sound level and distance, where the sound pressure does not obey the inverse square law and the particle velocity is not in phase with the sound pressure
> 
> 
> 
> Some parts of the definitions coincide, some disagree, some omit certain elements. Because of B&K's eminence in the real world of acoustics, acoustical measurement, and design and manufacture of critical equipment, I am inclined to take this as [more] definitive.
> 
> Any thoughts / comments / wisdom?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kevin