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
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,879 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
12,879 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
3,468 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).
Post removed 
twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears OP
5,314 posts
 

So what about the SF Elipsa series, which if memory serves is a good deal wider than any other SF models?  Did SF ever provide a rationale for why they did the Elipsa's that way?

@prof  Exactly!  That's precisely what struck me--and impressed me--auditioning the 40.2s and Classic 100's.  The "sound launch", for want of a better term, seemed more substantial, had more body, than just about anything else I've heard.  Besides narrow/wide baffles, made me wonder too about woofers located on the sides or back of the box, rather than on the front.

More to discover