Driver/ driver configuration improve soundstage width

[andy2]

Is it true that some drivers or driver configuration offer better soundstage width than others?

For example, a MTM gives better soundstage than just TM?

What drivers in your opinion provide better than average soundstage?

[DIAR]

Phase linearity and time alignment.

[Bill Fitzpatrick]

Originally posted by andy2

For example, a MTM gives better soundstage than just TM?

What drivers in your opinion provide better than average soundstage?

I would think that soundstaging is not a function of MTM vs MT.

IMO, source material is the greatest culprit in poor soundstaging. The room also plays a significant role.

[soongsc]

Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick


I would think that soundstaging is not a function of MTM vs MT.

IMO, source material is the greatest culprit in poor soundstaging. The room also plays a significant role.

Agree with Bill on this one.

[morbo]

The room also plays a significant role.

I beleive that is why the imaging argument is made for MTM configurations, or at least the D'appolotio configuration - supposedly the narrower vertical dispersion cuts down on floor/ceiling bounce, which supposedly improves imaging. I've never really compared a good MTM to a good MT or to be totally fair, TMM, in the same room, so I can't really comment on the argument one way or the other.

[soongsc]

Originally posted by andy2
Is it true that some drivers or driver configuration offer better soundstage width than others?

For example, a MTM gives better soundstage than just TM?

What drivers in your opinion provide better than average soundstage?

Originally posted by morbo


I beleive that is why the imaging argument is made for MTM configurations, or at least the D'appolotio configuration - supposedly the narrower vertical dispersion cuts down on floor/ceiling bounce, which supposedly improves imaging. I've never really compared a good MTM to a good MT or to be totally fair, TMM, in the same room, so I can't really comment on the argument one way or the other.

The MTM configuration has a benefit for close up listening.

Normally when you have a TM or TMM etc. configuration, whenever you have mustic instruments that has a frequency range crossing between two drivers. You can hear the player in one position when he's playing higer notes, and in another position when he's playing lower notes. When you have an MTM configuration, you elimnate this effect.

The further you listen, the less difference it should make.

[K-amps]

The advantage of the MTM is the ability to simulate a pointsource radiation pattern. i.e. All Sound coming from the tweeter plane.

This pseudo coincidant radiation pattern has "some" theoretical benefits as it applies to imaging. But is affected by diffraction because of the tweeter's output being modulated by 2 co-incidant pulsating planes above and below it. (The Mids)

The advantage of the TMM configuration is slightly less of intermodulation caused by dual adjecant drivers and also if there is reduction of baffle behind the tweeter ala the old B&W matrix 801/802 jigs, then there is a certain amount of sparkle and air that I have not witnessed in a MTM.

You might like different configurations on different source materials so I'd experiment.

TMM is easier to design to be level at ear, the MTM has to be slightly higher, thereby physically separating the MTM from perhaps a woofer or (in the absense of it) making the speakers taller than they would be for a TMM.