narrow and wide baffles and imaging

+1 Totem Forest Signatures image very well. 

N

I'm offended that tomic601 misspelled Richard Thompson.

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.

That is certainly most of it. Those who claim otherwise haven’t heard a properly setup pair of SP100s that can completely disappear, unlike numerous "high end" towers. As for time and phase alignment being critical, that’s total hogwash - it's important for decay, not imaging.

Yes but shape of the baffle is just as important - rounded smooth edges are best.

Very Narrow baffles will image second best.

Very wide baffles (like mine) will image third best.

Speakers flush mounted into a wall with essentially an infinite baffle image the very best.

 Intermediate size baffles tend to be the worst (about 1 foot to 2 foot).

Wilson triangular angler Watt puppy design is a very good example of a small effective unobtrusive baffle.

summary 

Excellent < 1 foot (think small two way and audio physic narrow designs)
1 foot < mediocre < 2 feet
very good > 3 feet
perfect > 10 feet

but remember the shape of baffle edges can be just as critical.

When people start talking imaging I sometimes wonder what they're talking about. I know some people are just talking about some sort of left-to-right point specificity. If that's all you're getting, I don't consider that very good imaging. I expect a field of sound that exceeds the spacing of the speakers. It should convey at least 50 or 60 feet of convincing depth of field to have any hope of being "good", and likewise reach out towards me. A single guitar amp sitting on the floor should sound low in the field and overhead cymbals should sound way up there with clear specificity of location. All that jazz takes the right speakers in the right room. If those attributes are high priorities for you, you pretty much need narrow speakers and space to place them for proper boundary interaction. The physics of wide baffles and sharp corners can and have been modeled and the results do coorelate to poor imaging. Sound waves ride along the surface until they reach a corner and then project from it like a second source of sound with the corresponding delay and distortion. Siegfried Linkwitz did a great lecture on imaging and baffle interactions at BA that is full of great information that strongly supports small drivers and the minimal/no baffle approach to speakers for best imaging. That's not too far off from what Wilson tries to do with their narrow cabs covered with heavy felt and small drivers crossed over at the lowest possible frequencies. It seems to work.