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.
Yes, the IRS V had a very large baffle. But Arnie Nudell, physicist that he was, curved it back to minimize the effects of diffraction.It was also to re-enforce the bottom of the midrange so it could be xover (mated up) to the bass towers without a big hole in the upper bass/lowermids. as they were yet to bring out the much larger LEMIM low mid/bass driver that’s use in the IRS Beta a far better imaging speaker, with no baffle. Cheers George |
Well you must know something that Arnie Nudell (rip), Paul McGowan and Bill LeGall don’t... Just going by what I personally hear and read about. Good small two ways on open stands always have great image. Audio Phyic's speakers very narrow baffle great imaging. The IRS Beta (no baffle) to me was a master at imaging. And the Infinity Prelude design is reviewed as an imaging master. All these and my own experience with my friends Amati's v his Stradivarius. Another with Wilson Alexia. My own ELS's all say to me, little or no baffle is best for imaging. And to top it all of placement, nothing between the speakers or close to the side wall for good side to side and outside imaging. And well out from the back wall for good front to back depth perception EG: equipment racks, tv, even the back wall ect. My system friends say has a holographic image you see and hear that you feel you can walk into and/or reach out and touch, because of the above. Cheers George |
Ok so I got my terminology wrong.Yes you can have a big baffle still with no box, as the IRS V has, but the Beta is truly baffle’less, as are the Plasma’s as are most ESL’s. The moment you ad "wings", you make a baffle and it re-enforces the sound but will also screw up the image compared to no baffle. That’s why very narrow speakers such as the Audio Physics image like there’s no tomorrow. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=audio+physic+speakers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&v... The Infinity Prelude also had a good rep for imaging well. https://www.stereophile.com/content/infinity-composition-prelude-p-fr-loudspeaker " I could hear precisely where each instrument or voice was in the soundstage, and images were highly focused, tight, and compact, making the presentation sound like a collection of individual instruments in three-dimensional space. There was also a remarkable stability and tangibility to the images, further heightening the impression of instruments before me." Cheers George |
I could be mistaken, but the IRS-V’s midrange/tweeter panel was also baffle’less, no? Yes line array, but that sure looks like a baffle to me, even though it curves away. http://www.infinity-classics.de/models/IRS-series+Beta+Gamma-Delta-Sigma-Epsilon-1988-95-98/IRS/IRS8... Cheers George |
The best imagining Infinity ever, was the IRS Beta’s with midrange, tweeter, and super tweeter baffle’less. http://product-images.highwire.com/12510183/1772-14.jpg But as far as highs having a 3 dimensional image, nothing touches my 360’ MP-02 Plasma Flame tweeters https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/V5sAAOSwCJxZ6PXy/s-l1600.jpg. Cheers George |
the Stradivari presented a more weighty, unusually solid picture that seemed to be a three-dimensional curtain wrapped behind the baffles and extending well back into virtual space.A friend had the SF Amati’s which were really nice and had a great believable image/depth presentation, then his dealer persuaded him to trade up to the SF Stradivari same system same everything, ask me around to have a listen a to give my opinion as he wasn’t happy. As soon as he put on a Diana Krall cd that I’d heard on the Amati’s just a week before, I turned as said to him "my god, why has she's suddenly got a 10ft wide mouth" he said "exactly" no amount of re-positioning fixed it, next day he had his Amati’s back. Cheers George |
Yes the narrower the baffle the better, but also a similar thing to image destroying wide baffles is, so many "audiophiles" love to put all their equipment on racks in between their speakers. Just so they can gaze them it in wonderment while listening. This is one of the biggest image and depth destroyers there is. Stop the "glitz gazing" and put that stuff over to the side/s and have nothing in between your speakers and beside them and behind them as far back as you can as well. The late Neville Thiel (T/S speaker speaker design laws) told me to do this once many moons ago he called it the 3 x B’s, and I have never looked back and never had anything "between, beside and behind" the speakers. I have an image and depth heard and seen that makes you think you can get up and walk into it Cheers George |
