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
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
@twoleftears

Yes you are correct. Also mid sized ATC like the ATC 100, JBL and other big boxey three ways tend not to image (or disappear) as well. It all has to do with mid range and tweeter frequencies because the LF sound wraps around the entire speaker (wavelength is much larger than the woofer)

I did not mention but a waveguide around the mid range or tweeter can create directivity and reduce the baffle issue too. ATC mid range has a waveguide and so does the tweeter but nevertheless the smallest models image best. A horn works well too like Avantgarde.

Audiophysics really do the disappearing trick and so did Bose Acoustimass although the audiophysics are a fantastic speaker and Bose is average but you get the idea....

It is more the disappearing act than imaging that is most immediately noticeable...

Genelec have done a lot of work on this

https://www.genelec.com/key-technologies/minimum-diffraction-enclosure-mde-technology




tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,744 posts
 
see Jim Smiths excellent book on getting your gear off to the side
pretty much every competent designer is doing the radius trick with the grilles
also as mentioned the massive baffle causes frequency response issues....just basic physics... yes you get more output but most of it is distortion...and finally, true to internet where we argue w words, nobody has two small sheets of cardboard to do the physical experiment
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,744 posts
 
and as an Infinity dealer, I was very aware of the plus and minus effects of the large wood baffles as one moved up the line, louder...yes
better? not so much.....
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,744 posts
 
@wolf_garcia .....I hurl at spelling......and typing with ipad...

IMO imaging is way more than speakers disappear, it is 3 D depection of the soundfield and the acoustical space ( what there might be of it ) by the system...
massed chorale in church, environment not severable from performance..
multitrack studio..not so much....most of the depth is relative volume and reverb

for those who might care see Youngs slit experiments, nice utube videos, U Conn physics has some decent stuff, not hard to see what the bigger baffle does....

perhaps Alon knows of math where the edge discontinuity matters not? 

wolf back to Cowboy Junkies......ambisonic....
prof
3,435 posts
 

In the wider baffle speakers I'm familiar with, a consistent impression has been a bigger, more full sound especially in the midrange, vs the typical narrow profile speaker.   That's certainly a big aspect of what attracts me to the Harbeth and Devore speakers.

(Though, at least in my case, when I bought the Harbeth Super HL5 plus speakers to try at home,  I couldn't get them to image with the believable depth that I'm generally accustomed to).
More to discover