Why not "field of audition", in reference to what we can hear?
The field of audition, bounded by the curves of minimum and maximum
loudness as functions of frequency, has been determined for a large
number of ears, and the smaller included area most used in speech has
In this case, however, there is an ambiguity: Field of audition refers chiefly to the range of frequencies that the ear is able to perceive. If you want to speak in terms of distance (which would be a bit dubious due to the factor of "volume" also playing its part), I guess you could say something like "within audible distance", a term that seems to have been officially adopted by German scientists.
IMO, same ambiguity applies to John Feltz's far more colloquial variant "range of hearing".
When it comes to vision, there is a much clearer distinction between one's field of vision and the so-called spectrum of visible colors.
In reference to smelling, you could possibly say "olfactory capabilities", or something like that, since "field of olfaction" is chiefly used to refer to the field of academic research, as such. (Check out Wikipedia's article on olfaction or olfactory receptors).
As for touch and taste, there is no field, as John Feltz has already noted.