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.



twoleftears
melbguyone
Fyi, the information I provided you, and which you chose to dismiss, is called circumstantial evidence in the legal community ...
I didn't dismiss your data at all. I put it in context citing first-hand experience. That seems to have upset you.

Enjoy your Magico S5s. Those are great speakers.
Post removed 
Kalali,

I don't know what kind of drivers you listen to, but you'd need a 7" tweeter if you don't want it's passband effected by the baffle. The mid-range would have to absolutely massive as well. 

Here's an interesting design.

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/PMS.htm

Notice that there's no attempt to take advantage of what could be the total internal volume; the enclosure remains a box, and the front and rear baffles, as far as I can see, don't even join up at the sides.