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
melbguyone

you’ve concluded your individual experience trumps that data
Yes, certainly. Your data does reveal differences between the two generations of L-EMIMs, but you haven’t shown any correlation between that data and actual, real-world performance or the defect "rattling" hearsay that you repeat. So yes, the experience I’ve had over decades of use, combined with confirmed first-hand reports from other users, trumps your hearsay and "data" acquired from other sources.

If my L-EMIMs suddenly start rattling next week, I’ll be sure to let you know.
Post removed 
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 
Post removed