2. speakers
  3. 137738-1464

narrow and wide baffles and imaging

According to all the "professional" audio reviews that I've read over the last several years, narrow baffles are crucial to creating that so-desired pin-point imaging.

However, over the last few weeks, I've had the opportunity to audition Harbeth 40.2, Spendor Classic 100, Audio Note AN-E, and Devore O/93.  None of these had deficient imaging; indeed I would go so far as to say that it was good to very good.

So, what gives?  I'm forced to conclude that modern designs, 95% of which espouse the narrow baffle, are driven by aesthetic/cosmetic considerations, rather than acoustical ones, and the baffle~imaging canard is just an ex post facto justification.

I can understand the desire to build speakers that fit into small rooms, are relatively unobtrusive, and might pass the SAF test, but it seems a bit much to add on the idea that they're essentially the only ones that will do imaging correctly.



128x128twoleftears
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
4,966 posts
 
Well you must know something that Arnie Nudell (rip), Paul McGowan and Bill LeGall don’t...

Just going by what I personally hear and read about.
Good small two ways on open stands always have great image.
Audio Phyic's speakers very narrow baffle great imaging.
The IRS Beta (no baffle) to me was a master at imaging.
And the Infinity Prelude design is reviewed as an imaging master.
All these and my own experience with my friends Amati's v his Stradivarius.
Another with Wilson Alexia.
My own ELS's all say to me, little or no baffle is best for imaging.

And to top it all of placement, nothing between the speakers or close to the side wall for good side to side and outside imaging. And well out from the back wall for good front to back depth perception   EG: equipment racks, tv, even the back wall ect.
My system friends say has a holographic image you see and hear that you feel you can walk into and/or reach out and touch, because of the above.
 
Cheers George  

tomic601's avatar
tomic601
2,164 posts
 
one of the reasons i like to own several speakers w widely divergent design philosophy but from competent designers....


josh358
225 posts
 
Yes, the IRS V had a very large baffle. But Arnie Nudell, physicist that he was, curved it back to minimize the effects of diffraction.

Also, the note that the mids and tweeters are right next to one another, producing something close to a coherent line, and they covered a wide frequency range, with only the deep bass, which is hard to localize, produced by the separate woofer towers. By comparison, line sources like Maggies or Apogees have more separation between the drivers, smearing the image laterally.

Paradoxically, it’s the wide baffle of the IRS that makes the extended frequency range of the line possible, by better supporting the bass.

The problem that I had with the imaging of the IRS Betas that my friend had was that each frequency range came from a different height. Maybe his listening seat was too close, but it used to drive me crazy. Very cool plasma tweeters, by the way!

prof
1,741 posts
 
one of the reasons i like to own several speakers w widely divergent design philosophy but from competent designers....



Same here.


I own Thiel and love the first order/time/phase coherence aspect of the design.


But I also enjoy owning diverging designs.  Right now I have speakers from Waveform (very "NRC" in approach),  Spendor, Hales, and most divergent...MBL Radialstrahler speakers.


No speaker  I've ever heard "does everything" for me, and I like the things one speaker may do that another doesn't.   Also helps with not getting bored. 
Post removed 
More to discover