That's what I didn't understand
Why would you want to move your head when listening to reproduced music unless you were trying to locate the speakers?
Maybe, but again, wouldn't that just help with locating the source? I can see how it might work with multiple channels and some clever software.
Were the tweeters like cone speakers with the magnet outside ( on top )? I think German Phisics do something similar.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are forgetting diffraction.
Or something like that. We all know almost all cabinets produces diffraction and the wider the cabinet, the later in time this occur, and the later it occurs, the more smeared things sound. We essentially lose details and definition. For a long time, I was convinced that narrow loudspeakers was a fashion statement until had the opportunity to audition YG Acoustics Hailey 2.2. It outperformed every other loudspeaker in the store in terms of soundstage, definition and most of all, clean.... it sounded so clean. While the tweeter is not the most resolving there is and I felt it lacked some brilliance, that was compensated by the fact that the human voice sounded realistic.
With reference to an earlier post which referenced Loudspeaker Enclosures are Waveguides threadwhich states; "By making the baffle narrower, the beamwidth of the waveguide is narrower across it's entire bandwidth, and directivity control is extended downwards by about one octave."
What I personally took away from this experience is that a) go wide as possible ... or b) as narrow as possible. And I prefer the later one because its easier to get correct and a more pleasing presentation (imaging, soundstage and definition) from a narrow cabinet IF we consider the size of an average listening space in a home.
Just my 2 cents.
Or something like that. We all know almost all cabinets produces diffraction and the wider the cabinet, the later in time this occur, and the later it occurs, the more smeared things sound. We essentially lose details and definition. For a long time, I was convinced that narrow loudspeakers was a fashion statement until had the opportunity to audition YG Acoustics Hailey 2.2. It outperformed every other loudspeaker in the store in terms of soundstage, definition and most of all, clean.... it sounded so clean. While the tweeter is not the most resolving there is and I felt it lacked some brilliance, that was compensated by the fact that the human voice sounded realistic.
With reference to an earlier post which referenced Loudspeaker Enclosures are Waveguides threadwhich states; "By making the baffle narrower, the beamwidth of the waveguide is narrower across it's entire bandwidth, and directivity control is extended downwards by about one octave."
What I personally took away from this experience is that a) go wide as possible ... or b) as narrow as possible. And I prefer the later one because its easier to get correct and a more pleasing presentation (imaging, soundstage and definition) from a narrow cabinet IF we consider the size of an average listening space in a home.
Just my 2 cents.
I didn't get to see them that I recall, they were under a grill. The grill and assembly thet were visible looked just like photos I've seen on the Ohm Walsh tweeters. The builder said that's what they were, he did the woofer, woofer cabinet and crossover. Their sonic image was startlingly unique.
shure, anyone can have an opinion, but one must be careful not to draw any wrong conclusion. how do we know, for an example, that the yg loudspeaker not should perform even better with a wider baffle? the narrow baffle is perhaps a marketing compromise more then a sonic optimization, do we really know?
You are right, everyone can have an opinion, but every opinion doesn't count."Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
But lets address what you want me to reply to: First of all, my post was a personal reflection over wide vs narrow baffle. If the engineer(s) at YG Acoustics have wanted a wider baffle, I am sure they would have used that, but they didn't so. If the loudspeaker is "flawed", then move on. Its not the end of the world. People are different, prefer different things and and perfect does not exist, only that which you like.
But lets address what you want me to reply to: First of all, my post was a personal reflection over wide vs narrow baffle. If the engineer(s) at YG Acoustics have wanted a wider baffle, I am sure they would have used that, but they didn't so. If the loudspeaker is "flawed", then move on. Its not the end of the world. People are different, prefer different things and and perfect does not exist, only that which you like.
You can't judge if I made a wrong conclusion or not, you are not in a position to know if what I prefer or concur with is correct or not. My observation is exactly that, an observation. It might change in the future or not, but right now I consider it to be correct.
After all the Sonus Faber Stradiveri which is quite large is known to voice correct and image as well.
YG as Magico are on a marketing niche. Do you need to make your cone from aluminium bloc as enclosures ???
I don't think it matters more than the shape and filters work. I can be wrong, but firstly an enclosure has an important function which is to be seen for mile reasons : the nicer the more expensive -Sonus Faber are wonderfull in that regard- B&W looks Nice as the JM Lab. Magico as YG can certainly find an eye in the modern minimalistic art enthusiast (not my taste). The nicer, the WAFer as the wow sometimes looked for by the owner in the eyes of the friends.
I'm not sure from an industrial perspective a Magicoor YG metal enclosure whatever the widthness is so costy... maybe less because less human hand process.
Look at Vivids speaker flagship... what do you have in the passive filter ??? Poor Bennic MKP caps - looks like anyway-. What is seen is important when you putt some monney on the table and all tastes exists : large speakers as thin ones.
If the cabinet wase so important for them on asounding side, you will see more brands making loudspeakers with splitted bass and small cabinet for th mid-tweet. It often works better on the soundstage quality factor.
Two questions : is it cheaper from an industrial point of view to manufacture ? No ! Is it easier on a marketing point of view ? No ! It's less looking intrusive and many people like (evn Madame) to put monney for something that has is remarkable in the ethymologic sense of the word !
How looks the flagships ? The biggest and the heaviest loudspeakers... always!
All of that to say you can not involve brands about the shapping of the front baffle to make any conclusions on the sound quality : they are biased by essence ! Ask to the CEO with who he prefers to eat at lunch time? The Technical manager or the Sales Manager ?
... YG are phallic !
YG as Magico are on a marketing niche. Do you need to make your cone from aluminium bloc as enclosures ???
I don't think it matters more than the shape and filters work. I can be wrong, but firstly an enclosure has an important function which is to be seen for mile reasons : the nicer the more expensive -Sonus Faber are wonderfull in that regard- B&W looks Nice as the JM Lab. Magico as YG can certainly find an eye in the modern minimalistic art enthusiast (not my taste). The nicer, the WAFer as the wow sometimes looked for by the owner in the eyes of the friends.
I'm not sure from an industrial perspective a Magicoor YG metal enclosure whatever the widthness is so costy... maybe less because less human hand process.
Look at Vivids speaker flagship... what do you have in the passive filter ??? Poor Bennic MKP caps - looks like anyway-. What is seen is important when you putt some monney on the table and all tastes exists : large speakers as thin ones.
If the cabinet wase so important for them on asounding side, you will see more brands making loudspeakers with splitted bass and small cabinet for th mid-tweet. It often works better on the soundstage quality factor.
Two questions : is it cheaper from an industrial point of view to manufacture ? No ! Is it easier on a marketing point of view ? No ! It's less looking intrusive and many people like (evn Madame) to put monney for something that has is remarkable in the ethymologic sense of the word !
How looks the flagships ? The biggest and the heaviest loudspeakers... always!
All of that to say you can not involve brands about the shapping of the front baffle to make any conclusions on the sound quality : they are biased by essence ! Ask to the CEO with who he prefers to eat at lunch time? The Technical manager or the Sales Manager ?
... YG are phallic !
@diyiggy: I know you speak in general so I'll make this one a short reply: Not to defend my opinion, but my remarks was towards dispersion, soundstage, imagine etc. on a narrow vs wide baffle. Their manufacturing choice, engineering, material etc. is a completely different form of debate - but I do sense your frustration, which is fine .
Every company make weird choices from another engineers perspective, its just how it is. But I do agree on the "WTF" choice of capacitor that Laurence made (Vivid Audio). In the end, one cannot judge a speaker based on one aspect only, it is always the whole package. Change one of does aspects and the whole loudspeaker change.
. Every company make weird choices from another engineers perspective, its just how it is. But I do agree on the "WTF" choice of capacitor that Laurence made (Vivid Audio). In the end, one cannot judge a speaker based on one aspect only, it is always the whole package. Change one of does aspects and the whole loudspeaker change.
I'll see your lateness of diffraction, and raise you more wavefront support sliding to a lower frequency, combined with more spreading in space.
If any of this is important to a DIYer then I'd expect them to make the diffraction go away first... leaving only the question of controlling directivity.
Before I turned my focus from flat baffles I had come to the feeling that a baffle approaching A2 (paper size), but at least A3, had benefits. Controlling reflections in this lower/mid region makes for smooth midrange, they are not easy to undo using treatments or EQ.
I mentioned this earlier, but dispersion is proportional to size. What this quote, taken out of context, refers to is using a concentration of diffraction to cause cancellations.
By making the baffle narrower the beam-width is wider?....and directivity control is lessened?....who wrote this lol...or am I off? - ("I mentioned this earlier, but dispersion is proportional to size. What this quote, taken out of context, refers to is using a concentration of diffraction to cause cancellations").....ooooooh
I agree that the front baffle is (akin) to a horn......the ways (I know) to increase directivity with a horn, increase mouth width and increase throat depth (shape/profile as well)....The front baffle is a throat-less horn....which leaves width (mouth flair and edge style)....the wider the higher the directivity....the signal reaching the horns mouth edge is no different than the front baffle edge....
Last edited:
but if one want to know if a narrow or wide baffle is flawed or not then we just can not compare any random narrow baffle speaker to any random wide baffle speaker, there is just to many ifs and buts to draw any conclusion. sure, we can like one over the other but we can not tell if it is due to the narrow baffle or not
From much earlier in this thread:
+1, I agree. I have heard too many examples of narrow baffle speakers which sounded quite awesome too accept that there is something inherently inferior in this architecture. Very wide baffled speakers are less common, but I have heard a few that were also amazingly good.
I can't think of a direct radiator, non-horn loaded, box speaker with a baffle width of 16 to 24 inch that I really liked. Hmmm...
Edge diffraction affects frequency response, but it also has an effect that goes beyond its impact on frequency response. In my opinion it affects the 3 dimensional quality of the music.
+1, I agree. I have heard too many examples of narrow baffle speakers which sounded quite awesome too accept that there is something inherently inferior in this architecture. Very wide baffled speakers are less common, but I have heard a few that were also amazingly good.
I can't think of a direct radiator, non-horn loaded, box speaker with a baffle width of 16 to 24 inch that I really liked. Hmmm...
Edge diffraction affects frequency response, but it also has an effect that goes beyond its impact on frequency response. In my opinion it affects the 3 dimensional quality of the music.
Last edited:
Soffit mount and Corner loading are the best we can do execution wise right? The quote I read somewhere is that if you've never soffit mounted your speakers...you've never really heard them" Resonances live where they live...acoustical treatment for that right? The lack of reflections by either method create higher resolution in the FR.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.