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.
| Post removed |
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. |
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.It was also to re-enforce the bottom of the midrange so it could be xover (mated up) to the bass towers without a big hole in the upper bass/lowermids. as they were yet to bring out the much larger LEMIM low mid/bass driver that’s use in the IRS Beta a far better imaging speaker, with no baffle. Cheers George |
