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
of course if your designer is trashing time and phase information, all bets are off on imaging anyway....
 I think that's a bunch of BS. Some of the best imaging speakers I've had have had hugely wide baffles. Of course I'm sure it helped that they were point source but still if the baffle was that important they would've been a lot worse 
you missed my point about it is more than about imaging....did you try the simple experiment and hear the change in sound ?
you can also take any small narrow point or even line source speaker and enlarge the baffle with a sheet of MDF, back your speakers up against the rear wall and get same effect plus more bass.... just basic math and physics...
also the large baffle will generate positive and negative cancellation which shows up as frequency response anomaly.....

these simple experiments in what and how younhear are agnostic to brand and speaker religion...and IMO help to further educate the avid listener...

I am deeply sorry IF my post offended any...

back to hearing Richard Thompsen sing about some redheaded girl...