Open Baffle vs Box

Very interesting posts from everyone. Makes me think that the people who love open baffle designs are much like the Vandys fans of which I’ve been for many years. Either lovem or not so much. Speaking with Clayton he believes that open baffle designs will ultimately dominate the market at some point. My room is 14x16x8 old style cape with hardwood floors pretty open area rug and no window treatments. Using a Krell Digital Vanguard to drive them. I liked that the Vandys have a wide open soundstage and sound pretty good even from the next room. So do the Spatial’s have a narrower sweet spot? And is placement as critical as with the Vandersteens?

An open baffle would cause the back wave to distort the front wave. Thats the whole point of a box to stop that. If you enjoy distortion then thats your choice.

 Another belch, from the Dunning-Kruger Poster-Boy!
.

@elizabeth 


agreed and unfortunately I only know what I read. I, too am an apartment dweller and might be forever which is where Spatials we’re first recommended to me. I’ve put it out there on the Spatial forum that I’d like to hear them from a local and in 30 minutes I’d know what I want to know about them. Seems there are no locals who have them who also post there.

i keep scrubbing them off my list but they keep being re-added. On paper they check all the boxes (with bass being the unknown quantity). If I could just add subs then I’d go that route.

I went from Maggies, to Emerald Physics(the original designer, Clayton Shaw, owns Spatial), for tube-driven main speakers, in my actively bi-amped system. Needed the added efficiency. Same openness/spatial realism and instrument size/excellent imaging, as my various pairs of planars(Acoustat and Magnepan fan, since 1981).   I could easily get along, without my SS-powered woofers, running my Emerald Physics/tube monoblocks full-range.