Magico - Wide vs. Narrow

@audiokinesis Thanks for that input. See I keep thinking about Snell’s downward firing cone and the behavior that the 3-4" high slot would have. Not that I can replicate it in my current listening environment, but still find very few speakers with that sense of the speaker dominating the air pressure in a room like that.

I had thought that the slot loading was a kind of low pass filter, and when you mentioned the tweeter and close wall placement I had to rethink what I knew.

What I think @tomic601 is missing is that the right kind of reflections are euphonic AND increase our sense of spacial perception.

The idea of an anechoic cave in which the speakers sit, one approach of which was called Live-End, Dead-End (mid 1980s?) , has long ago given way to a more nuanced understanding of the importance of diffuse early-ish reflections in improving the illusions of a sound field.

No insult was intended, really.  Just being realistic that audiophile level imaging is not what most consumers buy for.  Engaging, rhythm, and a wide sweet spot however are on most buyer's short list.

A wide sweet spot is by definition lossy.

l think a lot more goes into that, and even if lossy, often highly desirable by most music lovers, if not necessarily by audiophiles entranced by imaging.

@jonwolfpell - Very interesting perspective.  I'm curious about one thing though.  Did you find a difference in imaging?  Would you say either speaker had a wider sweet spot?

@audiokinesis  - That's an interesting POV.  I would have thought that the slot would act like a severe low pass filter.

Also, incidentally, the tweeter and mids on the Snells were among what we'd consider "high value" (i.e. inexpensive) devices today.  They did not achieve their  performance with supreme high-end drivers. 

Incidentally, the superb Snell Type A-III mentioned by @erik_squires also had a rear-firing tweeter, if I recall correctly.

@audiokinesis  is correct, of course.  As I recall it could be switched on and off.  In my case my audition occurred with the speakers flat against the wall though. 

Duke may be onto something. Snell A/III was wide, but also attempted to get close to hemispherical. The SF Stradivari isn’t just wide but it’s curved as well. Another wide baffle speaker with curves would also be the mid-tweeter towers on the Infinity Reference Standards.  The wings on the IRS were pure facade with nothing behind them.

Hey @rauliruegas  ---- Not really.  I get what you mean about apples to orange comparisons but I think it's possible to hear trends, especially in regards to the acoustic effects I'm asking about.  :) 

When I was thinking of Magico as a wide-baffle, I was thinking of the M5 with the ring radiator. It has a baffle that is proud of the cabinet. For me this is still a wide-baffle speaker.

I’m also not trying to pick on Magico per se, just looking more for a company that has done both.

Sonus Faber may be a better brand to ask about since they have the Stradivari  but not sure how many have heard the Strad and the narrow models to compare. The larger Focal Utopia line may also in a sense be like this, the mids and tweeters were much narrower than the baffle width. In start contrast to say Wilson or Vandersteen who minimize the baffle width per driver.

Again, not looking to argue about overall value of any brand, just want to know if others have noticed distint differences we could attribute to baffle width.