Narrow vs Wide Speakers - Which is Best?

[@IBuildIt]

The current thinking is that narrow speakers create a better defined sound stage and imaging than speakers that have a wide baffle. But is this true? And if true, how true is it? In this video I tried to set up a test to determine that, but consider the results partly inconclusive. While I didn't hear a notable change in the sound stage and imaging, the speakers sounded different enough to cause a distraction. My impression is that if there is a change to the sound stage and imaging, it is very subtle and probably not something that could be used to consider when building (or buying) a new pair of speakers. Also worth mentioning that I'm doing this in my acoustically treated listening room, and the results may differ if listening in the typical echo-chamber that most people listen in. My listening to compare the two conditions was several songs that I'm very familiar with, playing them with and without the extensions in place. The recordings were done one channel at a time with the mic placed 1 meter from the speaker pointed at the area between the midrange and tweeter. I then combined both of those mono recordings into a single stereo track and that's what played in the video. One is without the baffle extensions and the other is with it, while the third is the original track used. The music I used is from the KZbin audio library and has a fairly good amount of stereo separation to project a reasonable sound stage. However it's not a particularly well recorded and produced piece to begin with, but I can't spend hours looking for something better. I would love to use something better, but use of copyright material could cause problems, including having the video taken down.

[@gman7625]

Hi John, at the 2 min mark you stated that it's best not to have stuff in between the speakers for better imaging. Not sure exactly what you meant. Can you elaborate?

[@scotto541]

Piece of music play the recorded makes it extremely difficult to make any judgments about differences between the Lo-Fi intro and having to go through that each time. And the phasing effects in the studio mix make it a lot harder to tell the difference between the microphone recordings in the CD audio. It feels like this was intentional to shut up any of his doubters. But the few of the audience who are intelligent and honest we're also denied a quality judgment experience.

[@scotto541]

​@@gman7625anything you put in between the two speakers like a chair or television or other furniture will have the effect he's talking about

[@scottlowell493]

I've owned both narrow and wide baffle speakers. With the right setup, the wide baffle gives nothing away. I've heard plenty of wide baffle speakers disappear behind the music.

[@bbfoto7248]

John, for these types of A/B/X listening comparisons, it is best to use an identical and very short section or clip of the music of about 2-3 seconds at most and cut them back-to-back repeatedly.

[@BobbyKinstle]

As someone who suffers from crippling overthink during speaker design, I'm really grateful that you're making this series of videos.

[@ventedvoice]

Leave him alone. I watch his video's for therapeutic OCD reasons specifically connected to my own audio world.

[@iggynub]

Read white papers by Dr. Harry Olson for speaker design, and following up with some Dr. Toole for speaker interaction with the environment. It is a science, people have spent their lives narrowing this down for you - not adhoc youtube tests.

[@nicoras8803]

The upper midrange of A is accentuated more than B and C, it is very obvious, but which one is the oversized baffle you cannot tell without seeing it. If I had to guess, then A had the increased baffle area.

[@Jannesmitderwelle]

Me too

[@wio27]

The midrange/treble what changed the most to me. A and C sounded much fuller. Thank you for your time and sharing your thoughts!

[@FixthisCD]

my thoughts too

[@andrew1977au]

The bass sounded better in c

[@ambikaprasadkapoor1178]

Correct. C was best balanced n widest soundstage. A was close but separation was not as clear as in C. B felt narrow n focused..as ir ir would cater to only one or at most 2 ppl sitting on couch in front..a cosier setup

[@glenncurry3041]

Surface acoustic waves and edge diffraction. I gave seminars on that in the late '70's while introduce the new AR Series 9 line. Sound waves from the drivers will us the laminar flow in fluid dynamics across the surface of the mounting board until it reaches the edge. What happens next depends on design and frequency. As you say, a frequencies lower than one wavelength from the driver to the edge, the wave will wrap around and if open baffle, cancel with the back wave, or tend to radiate towards the wall behind the speaker cabinet. That's why many expensive tall speakers today are somewhat wing shaped instead of flat sided rectangle boxes. If the distance is a wavelength or less the sound will tend to diffract and disperse. Adding energy into the room at that frequency out of time and blur the details. Simple test. Get a peice of carboard the size of a typical speaker mounting baffle. Cut a hole/ slit in the center jusg big enough to get your lips through. Talk to someone, or them to you without it. Then put it in front of your face with your lips sticking ot and talk. You will sound very different! Then hang some towels draping over the front but leaving the opening exposed and talk. The towels will absurb the SAW and sound more like no cardboard. AR introduced the "Acoustic Blanket" felt and foam surrounds to their mids and tweeters mounting board areas to accomplish this.

[@BootJamesOut]

Hello folks: there is nothing wrong reinventing the wheel or why make the same boo boo that someone else did. I feel that he's jumping the gun. Early Loudspeaker Cookbook editions address this. Plus i can see because of all the time doing videos only if there was a few extra hours each day to use but there's isn't any handy. He has to fine a way to save a few hours a day. To be a half day ahead going pure moving forward. Some viewers are young some older I'm on the old side. Then again this is his Channel and he can run it how he feels fit too. His woodworking skills is fantastic, art. Handed down from father to son. ( another for me to say it) Ride Easy

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

What happens if you cover the entire baffle with foam? Does that completely negate any baffle effects?

[@glenncurry3041]

@@Canadian_Eh_I It is all a matter of material density and frequency/ wavelength. At higher frequencies, not as long/ deep/ dense of material is needed. At lower frequencies you can not use enough material.

[@88sstraight]

B and C were too close to call for me, but maybe that’s because A sounded so much clearer! Thanks for all the beautiful work and research you put into this subject.

[@albertkelly7129]

Completely agree, A was fuller for sure where as B and C sound thin and slightly muffled.

[@michaeltablet8577]

Great video! Thanks again for all of your videos on this channel and your other channels.

[@Roger_Gadd]

I don't have a clue which is which. I prefered the sound of A a bit more than C, with B being a distant third. I'm almost certainly wrong, but I'm picking B as the direct injected signal and A & C being the speakers because the sound to me was fuller suggesting the presence of reverb from the room and perhaps a small amount of ringing from the speaker crossovers. Anyhoo, my hearing is in even worse shape than yours, John, so I'm looking forward to being corrected.

[@bonzainews]

Ranked by me from best to worst, B A C... B at first seemed to project the midrange/upper midrange noticeably louder and almost turned me off to it but as the bass came in it actually sounded cleaner and more cohesive. C seemed muddled a bit compared to to the others and A was just a slightly cloudier version of A to me. I was listening to this in my car while driving so take that with a grain of salt. Maybe a bit different to me with a set of headphones.

[@bradstone2603]

How am i supposed to use this video to help me make design choices in my own DIY build if you won't tell my which is which?

[@DesignVisStudios]

open baffles probably not really affected so much by the width. box speakers create more radiating source with surface area so that's why slim is 'better'. Stick bits on the sides are not really going to be energized, so that probably does not do a lot.

[@TheRealAudioDidact]

A sounded the cleanest. B sounded thin and light although soudnstage might have been better. C was a bit ambiguous but perhaps it was more like B than A. FWIW.

[@henrykpycha1637]

Thank you for confirming my auditions. You are 100% right in your monologue. Thank you

[@BostonMike68]

I enjoy your experiments as a diy speaker designer its like you are reading my mind save me the time from doing these experiments myself. Thank you

[@NackDSP]

Which is best depends on the crossover frequencies and the desired directivity for the speaker. Every individual speaker driver transitions from beaming at high frequency to becoming omni-directional at low frequency depending on the diaphragm size. The width of the baffle comes into play to restrict the dispersion at low frequencies, as if the cone was larger. The transition from beaming to omni-directional results in what is called the baffle step and the frequency of transition has to do with the sound wavelength and the baffle width. With a narrow baffle, the baffle step and resulting 6dB drop in forward output, happens at a higher frequency than with a narrow baffle, so the crossover may be designed to compensate for that drop in level. A baffle is just a flat wave guide. Narrow baffle speakers with no other waveguides tend to have wide variations dispersion at the crossover frequencies. This leads to "entertaining" artifacts added to the imaging of the speaker as it transitions between narrow and wide dispersion up and down the scale. I no longer care for this effect myself. I like a uniform dispersion. A narrow uniform controlled dispersion for some recordings and a uniform wide dispersion for others. I have a wide baffle speaker I designed with low crossover points that has a uniform wide dispersion pattern of 90 degrees, determined by the wide baffle that sends lots of energy to the side walls for an "it is performed in this room" effect. A "wide" baffle of maybe 25 inches may restrict the dispersion from 350 Hz and up to 90 degrees. This effect is designed into the Grimm Audio monitor speaker. Narrow dispersion speakers and a room with acoustic absorption on the walls, like studio monitors and cardioid pattern speakers in a studio environment, avoid reflecting sound off the walls and allow hearing only what is in the recording without confusion from the listening room acoustics. There is a great white paper by Bang and Olufson on the Beo-90 speaker development that describes the listening experience produced by speakers with various radiation pattern. In a four or five way speaker with high crossover frequencies it may be possible to avoid illuminating the baffle entirely above a few hundred Hz, such that the baffle width would not impact the dispersion or the sound of the speaker at all.

[@Justwantahover]

Love your enthusiasm and impressed with your workmanship. I experiment with a unique concept with semi open, semi dipole, semi omni effect, in my single driver and also plus woofer designs. My biggest thing is point source. The speaker and ear forms a straight line, instead of a triangle as with regular 2-ways (I have some B&W 706 regular 2-ways). They are my frequency response reference speakers. My made speakers flog them! Not so much in FR but more in acoustic characteristics and holographic effect. Even more holographic than regular mounted single driver speakers. Easy EXPERIMENT for the best speakers! Making it simple I will describe the single driver speaker (without the woofer). Make some floor stander cabinets (with a 1' x 1' 2" base and nearly 3' high). These dimension are approximate, it's just an OVERSIZED box for the 5" driver. (Thinest side of box facing you). Next you make a hole 6,5" round on the top panel (like an omni). A bit tricky...make a 4" deep tube the same diameter as the hole. Polypipe a similar diameter will do if you make the hole in the box with the polypipe. Hole size is also reasonably approximate. I did exactly that. Get the polipipe first! You have to jam it in, but still be able to get it out for tuning. Cut the polypipe if too long and start long. Mine is about 4" deep (after a lot of tweaking sessions). Next, put in solid stuffing on the bottom 6" only and start with minimal wadding elsewhere, and add wadding if needed. Next BIG step is doing the "impossible". You mount the 5" FR driver just above the hole (centered) and on an angle and this is difficult. I made a triangle out of cut down skewers and hot glue, for the raised back of the driver. And a cross-piece over the hole for the front of the driver, made with a skewer and hot glue. My $10 (modified) driver fits well, just hot glued it on. But it's only temporary. Maybe a 3D printed mount might solve the problem. You may be able to do it since you are a tinkerer. 😅 Now it only sounds good at a certain angle. Like 35 to 38 degrees angle from the high back to the front (that's level with the hole). It's an ACOUSTIC NIGHTMARE cos a couple of degrees make the difference between the best speakers, and the worst speakers. But when you get it right it's holographic heaven! Best speakers I have heard. They don't sound like normal speakers (in a really good way). But on 70's stuff like Don Maclean and Van Morrison, they just sound like any other speaker. Crazy. And on the more ambiant stuff, the speakers smoke anything! Except maybe really good point source panel speakers. Also I modify my FR drivers. No dust cap or whizzer cone, just the single cone source! And try cutting the cone with a razer blade 3 mm out from center (right around). Leaving 5 mm gaps between the 8 mm cuts (so the cones don't fall apart). This makes the BEST TREBLE ever on a FR driver! Better than a tweeter! Most realistic, morre metalic so crisp but easy on the ear! The silver sound! Build phase plugs to fill the gap in the center. And carefully glue in. 😅 ❤

[@martingarrish4082]

This recording technique of combining separate L&R mono recordings is by far the best I have ever heard for listening to speakers over the internet. I am not hearing any room reflections. First impressions are that there was no significant difference between A, B & C. But as you comment it is not the best recording. The human voice is normally the best way to judge sound quality, but wouldn't help in the frequency range you are considering for this test. So I conclude that you have produced a neutral set of speakers and that correct baffle step correction avoids any real difference between narrow and wide speakers.

[@alexw890]

You can calculate the baffle step frequency based on baffle width. A 6” baffle will start rolling off at 760hz whereas as 25” baffle will roll off at 180hz. That’s a big difference requiring different levels of compensation in the crossover.

[@ThresholdZhor]

I have certified on tests that narrow will give better image and soundstage, one of the best giving image are the Avalon's by their box design, another vital thing to give good image is the phase align of the speaker

[@AmazonasBiotop]

Is it not that the science is that we have edge diffraction.. And the distance to the edge is somehow maybe effecting. But what is effecting is how the edge is. In the thumbnail the narrow one has a normal 90° sharp corner. But in the wide baffle it has rounded corners. That rounded corners is a technique to get less baffle edge diffraction. But in the video it is not the tested speakers as in the thumbnail. At the edge of the baffle we get yet another one reflective dispersion going to your ear(s). That sound (from the edge) will jave a longer way to travel than the direct sound from the woofer. The edge diffraktion is easily seen in REW measurements but probably not that easy to hear.. a way to prevent or make the edge diffraction issue lower. We see those jaged adhesive felt around the driver on the baffle. That for example willson Audio uses on some of their models.

[@Audio_Simon]

If I keep my eyes closed for a long time I start to feel like I'm in a much larger space usually. I'd guess cues from long reverbs on tracks. As soon as I open my eyes it all collapses back! I think it's *really* difficult to ignore visual effects when listening for soundstage and imaging.

[@jacktough]

Did I miss the part where we were told which was which was which? (A/B/C) ☺️

[@dionaldtubang2894]

A is widest baffle added more on the 350 hz and the sound is a lot more forward. B is unmodified the reflection from the back is more pronounced and created the illusion of a soundstage. Fairly flat but Scooped around the 500-600 hz. C is mid sized buffle. Like the sound best on this one. Added a slight peak around 400-500 hz. So it flattened the scooped sound compaired to B. Can hear the center but still hear the reflection from the room. Presented the instruments better and not trying to create a cloud of instruments from the back of the speakers. I like the instruments to be in your face since Im a musician and used to hearing the instruments played next to or in my face. And not from the audience perspective

[@gregs7918]

Testing outdoors is better with a narrow baffle, but my experiences is that reflections, obstacles, and placement dominated in a real listening room.

[@edd2771]

Perhaps you mean a single driver may need equalization? By definition, a crossover addresses the interaction between two or more separate drivers and cannot apply to a single driver.

[@cardiod]

I recommend EQing the response of the widened baffle and testing. Cool comparo and track. Thanks

[@gregmatula9749]

In wall speakers would be taking that test to the extreme I would think. It looks like they are pretty popular now but I am unfamiliar with them.

[@99Duds]

For the recordings, C had a proud mid, B sounded natural/neutral, A had a bit of a canned sound to it. I paid most attention to the mid and that drum. Small diff in A and B but very noticeable on C.

[@mkshffr4936]

An interesting question. It would be very difficult to test. Like you say you would have to make otherwise identical speakers but in reality other than speakers like the AR-9 the driver compliment for narrow speaker are generally smaller. In the world of commercial speakers you are trading off a bit of precision in imaging for impact and realism. It seems that narrow speakers can be stark but a bit clinical.

[@firecloud77]

The best imaging and sound stage is acquired by placing an twin set of tweeters and midrange drivers on the outside of your main speakers and wiring them to the opposite channel in reverse polarity to cancel crosstalk. That's how the Polk Audio SDA's work.

[@DrSinisster]

Excited for this. I have always tried to see what the strong points of each to see whats beat for me. (Post Video)Well it seemed A was a Fuller, Richer Sound. B was airy, with more detail n tone, but lacking a bit of Full Body. C seem to Lack Air, Body, and a Slight loss of detail. I didnt really notice any difference in Soundstage, or Imaging. The False sense of Soundstage from an airy sound was at first hard for me to stop my brain from hearing. I found A’s Mid Range to be to my liking the most. This is my main sound character I prefer, a nice toned clear Mid Range. Of course they all sounded very close as they are same just with a baffle change. Great Video. Looking forward to more of these videos.

[@rvaillant]

I built a set of Horn Shoppe clones using a Fostex 4” full range driver. Instead of having the driver mounted on the face, I built it out 3/4” and then put a 45% all around. Comparing it to the actual Horn Shoppe I could definitely hear an improvement using the narrower baffle with 45% sides. Images were more 3D and organic verses the original.

[@paulhirst3548]

I could not tell the difference but then again, my hearing is not the best. Time for me to start moving my speakers around again to get my soundstage and center back. If I was smart I would have marked their location that I found ideal before moving them to put on the grills.

[@timberray9572]

I like the narrow speakers myself because of the side firing woofers, you get a really nice tight sounding bass when they are facing inwards and more of a rumble when facing outwards.

[@fermitupoupon1754]

I feel like there's really no "correct" answer to this type of question. I preferred A over B and C, with C being the least favourite to me. But then that's coloured by my own audio setup on my desk here as well as by my ears and preferences. I've had people tell me my setup sounds "too clinical" or that they prefer a "warmer" sound. But when listening to the setups of the people who feel my setup is too clinical, I feel like theirs is too muddled and lacks clarity. Yet when it comes to our own individual setups we're all as happy as a dog with 7 bones. So for me, I don't care what "audiophile" youtube says. It's all about personal preference. I like my sound crisp, clear, and perhaps a bit more on the cold and clinical side. But that's how my preferred music sounds best to me. Same in games of films, I just like the sound the way I've got it set up, and in the end that is what matters.

[@BrentLeVasseur]

Open baffle speakers have better soundstage and holographic imaging over closed box. It also reduces room boom, because open baffle bass doesn’t pressurize the room like a closed box does. The baffle width has more to do with center image focus and tightness of the instrument placement within the soundfield. The best combination is an open baffle narrow width line array speaker, similar to the Gr-Research NX Extreme.

[@IBuildIt]

Another myth is that open baffle doesn't "pressurize" the room. The pressure for bass is sound pressure, not air pressure, and the same amount of bass will do the same thing in a room regardless of where it's coming from.

[@BrentLeVasseur]

@@IBuildIt Not really. I have a 45 hertz room mode and it was very noticeable when I had closed box speakers, and since I swapped to open baffle the room mode is barely noticeable. You also get better texture and tone and faster bass.

[@IBuildIt]

Chances are your new speakers are not putting out as much as your old ones at 45Hz. Did you run before and after measurements to check?

[@FOH3663]

Perhaps you're each referencing something different? I agree, dipole 45hz could easily outperform monopole 45hz at the listening position. It's the raison d'être of dipoles; less modal excitation (other backspace generated challenges are addressable, not propagation). Theoretically, the math suggests nearly 5dB lower room energy vs direct energy. A listener experiencing a dipole at a given SPL of 45hz, enjoys more direct sound than room sound. The figure-of-eight nature doesn't pulse the room's resonances with high Q thumpage ... which of course can be quite fun too, but time and place.

[@IBuildIt]

Remember that I went through a period of trying different subwoofer types while building my room, which included dipole subs. I ran in-room measurements through it all and saw no reduction in modal excitation between dipole and boxed subs. You only get a reduction when there's less of it at the frequency that matches it.

[@scoobtoober2975]

John you hit the head on in the beginning. The center channel in any MTM design that is horizontal, always has canceling as you sit in the room moving left or right. It oscillates and is very location changing. In many ways i love amir from ASR (audio science review) he has a klippel analyzer all around the speaker. It shows with all center speakers this cancelation that runs in waves just about at all distances in front and off axis. There maybe a small sweet spot for a center channel but the reflections in various room shapes will be all over the place. I think a regular 2 way or 3 way speaker in its vertical normal position is best for a center. But that's my two cents. bezel

[@FelixRisingOriginal]

A - bass sounded more recessed, whilst B and C were close, maybe C had more overall bass boost? Hard to tell between B and C without switching back forth during the same section of music more frequently.

[@peterbaugh51]

Speaker A had way too much midrange. B was clear, C was a mix. Pleasing. But it is up to personal preference. Sound stage was good on all three. Interesting.... Nice music too. Thanks!

[@naibafabdulkobor4301]

Did we ever get the resolution which sample is which? I find it quite amusing how many commenters are ranking A/B/C from best to worst, but hardly anyone noted that one of the 3 was the original file, so they were really JUST listening to their OWN speakers (fed by lossy KZbin) 😛. My guess: A = wide baffle, B = small baffle, C = original track. I liked the effects introduced by B best. 😄

[@birdyflying4240]

would ad that it also depends heavy on the diameter and design of the mid range speaker. I use a 55 mm. D54 Dynaudio dome mid range with a wide dispersion (640 Hz - 5k Hz) and no baffle around the unit, the same for the planar tweeter. This means I get a wide and homogeneous wave front. If you walk through the room or are in a other room, you do not hear much tonal difference or shift in high / mid / low. Cone mid range drivers tend to be much larger, like 10 - 15 cm and more and radiate more to the front in a funneled way and do not play so high. A cone sounds different then a dome because of this radiation difference. Sound disperses more natural with a dome, I think. With closed eyes, you can not pin point the speaker.

[@mrupholsteryman]

They all sounded the same in my car.... disclaimer... I am not an audiophile and these are factory speakers in a 2016 Mazda 3 hatchback. But thanks for your insights! 😊

[@johngutmanis3204]

Hi John, great video! I would agree that what's between the speakers and the placement of the speakers will affect soundstage much more than the with of the speakers. Right now I have a pair of 1980's Klipsch La Scala's about 9" apart and 3' from the front wall in an 18X30 foot room with 8' high ceiling. I sit about 8" from the speakers. The speakers image very well for what they are. My rack sits between them and to the back of the front wall. I noticed the soundstage get more defined when I turned my preamp, cd player, server, everything on the rack askew, in other words I toed in and out each component in the rack so they were not parallel with the front wall. I also have a pair of Magnepan LRS speakers next to and between each La Scala. I never play them so I took them out one day and noticed the La Scala's sounded different, soundstage was not as deep, maybe. so I basically use the LRS's as sound absorbers. Kind of crazy to use $600 dollar speakers as diffusers, but if some people are paying $600 a pop for power cords, well maybe lets not go there! I think one of the keys to great sound in a room is to confuse and deflect and absorb just the right amount of sound bouncing around the room so you can hear the speaker, not the room.

[@BB..........]

"I sit about 8" from the speakers" 8 inches?! Talk about nearfield!

[@nicktube3904]

It would be really interesting to compare the renders you made from the line array vs ‘coaxial’ point source design!

[@nate1sam]

From my understanding with a proper crossover sweet spot will be largely similar. As soon as you start to move off axis things change quickly.

[@matthewsackman]

To my ears, and with my setup here (Benchmark DAC, Hedd 20s), B is the odd one out - pretty sure B is the original track. I can't hear anything obviously different between A and C without cutting them out and doing much more careful back-to-back listening. Both have bass that I would describe as "too flabby" but I'm sure that's just personal preference.

[@nicoras8803]

When you say the back generated sound cancels more with that in the front is of course only true for open baffle speakers. If they were boxed speakers or even boxed open baffle speakers, the baffle is infinite and theoretically there is nothing behind that will cancel or enforce the front signal other than wall reflections. Narrow speakers sound different to wide baffles as the edge of the baffle is closer to the drivers because of corner emissions being more delayed in large baffles, This is easy to demonstrate in a wave bath. Sound is visually simple to demonstrate in a wave bath as you may be aware, and even reflection and refractions is easy to see. You can visually demonstrate speaker placement and all kinds of anomalies in the wave bath without having to build these things physically and testing them. This is synonymous with surface acoustic wave propagation.

[@Drewcipher5150]

Which was which? A and C sounded like pa speakers. B the most natural.

[@jvburnes]

Except the two best imaging speakers I've ever owned I setup with plenty of equipment in between. The first were little Dunlavy SM-1s. Not open baffle. The second pair, a set of Alon 1's had beautiful, holographic soundstaging. Not quite as pinpoint as the Dunlavys, but I remember a choral work, recorded in a church (Festival Te Deum) where the accompanying organ could be heard above and *behind* you. This was an open baffle. Its kind of a legendary Carl Marchisotto design.

[@JohnCharlesHutt]

Thought your comments about soundstage issues with your console were very interesting. Wouldn't the same issues exist for sound bars?

[@IBuildIt]

Yes, I made a sound bar a few years ago and noticed the same thing. But the ones you can buy might be doing some audio processing tricks to "project" what seems like a real sound stage, so I can't saying anything about those.

[@DaveJHarry]

I'd be interested in your take on the differences between multi-cone drivers, as featured at 1:07, and discrete multi-driver systems. I still use the 4-way with 12, 8, 2, 1 inch drivers that I built >30 years ago (have since replaced cone seals).

[@IBuildIt]

That would make an interesting video, so thanks for the question :) In a nutshell, I'm not a fan of "fullrange" drivers and prefer at a minimum a 2-way design. But the driver I used was perfectly suited for that application (the console) and I don't use it for serious listening.

[@RennieAsh]

The full range driver will generally have more cone breakup (peaks, resonance) and narrower high frequency dispersion. That being said you have to design a multiway correctly or you could end up with just as many issues

[@JungYT]

Maybe you could cover the area in the middle of your console with absorbent material.

[@v8soarer1991]

For me with a middle ear imbalance. A - Was like it was playing through from behind a bed sheet. B - Had the Sax brought out and the high treble on the drums. C - Lost top end and played lower in the Freq range.

[@oraz.]

I wonder why newer speakers don't offset the tweeter anymore to make room for a front port. I read somewhere it's it's good for diffraction but it seems to not be done as much.

[@johndough8115]

IDEA: Based on my previous comment... with the tweeters and mids potentially distorting due to speaker vibrations from the woofer + woofer backwaves... Imagine if you hung the tweeters and mids from suspension cables. The drivers would be in the smallest possible enclosures, to prevent them from being moved / vibrated. The metal cables could double as the Positive and Negative, to both hang and Drive them. They could hang from the ceiling OR you could have two narrow poles that rise up above the main woofer box... and then fold over forming 90 degree Hangers. One might need to put an additional weight on the hanging drivers... to give them even more stability, preventing them from easily being moved around... depending on the mass of the drivers + enclosures, themselves. Hanging Drivers are going to be FAR more resistant to the main woofers vibrations, from the very Source of their output... since these cables wont conduct vibrations very well. Especially if you add some springs on the ends.. to further absorb vibrations.

[@danboron1]

Great vid, thankyou :) I imagine it is like a narrow door versus a wide door. Or, let us say, a 1 cm wide vertical slit versus a 1 meter wide vertical slit. You hear music coming from the other room, and your ears tell you it comes from the slit. And with a narrow slit, you hear the sound from "only one direction", in the horisontal plane. But from the 1 meter slit, you hear the sound from "many directions", in the horisontal plane, and your ears can NOT "pinpoint one point, where it comes from". Our ears can actually distinguish, wether a sound comes from a point (or narrow slit) or from a large surface (or wide slit). When playing stereo music from wide cabinets, the result is "loss of precission" about WHERE each instrument is on the soundstage. I think glenncurry3041 actually explained that effect, just in more technical terms. I will add: The frequencies which can move sideways along the front baffle, "should not hit your ears"... However that sideways flow (pressurewave) will displace the "present" air, forcing it away from the baffle, "partly moving it in a right angle away" from the front, so the "displaced air", becomes a secondary pressure wave, which actually moves towards you, and hit your ears... The resulting "pressure wall", will have the shape of a very flat cone, so it is "almost like a flat wall"... Our ears can not detect the slight delay, from the parts, which is not "the top of the cone"... So our ears percieve it as a fully flatt WALL. So it is wrong when some draw the presurewaves from a unit, as half circles, or rather "half balls", with center in the middle of the unit... They are "like walls" which are (almost) totally flat in front of the moving membrane, and also almost flat, most of the way out to the sides of the cabinet. Which is why it sounds, like the loudspeaker unit is as wide, as the entire front of the cabinet. All in all the sound which reach you, does not come from "one point" but comes from "many points", like the voices in a quire... Listening: My new DALI speakers are as narrow as they CAN be, with two 6,5" bass units, which also handles the mid tone... 19,5 cm ≃ 7,73 inch wide. The first reaction from an audiophile friend was: WOW, what an impessive "stereo stage" :) Yes he could hear exactly from where each sound came. His own speaker are really really good, but are wider. So he is not used to that degree of "clarity" from a narrow front cabinet. Measuring: With equipment able to measure the phase of the pressure waves, it will be possible to confirm, the actual shape of the soundwaves, right in front of the front baffle of the cabinet. Meauring 2 and 4 and 6 and 8 and 10 cm from the baffle, would show the actual shapes. Final detail: Even when some frequencies will come like "almost flat walls, with slightly bend edges" seemingly coming from the entire front of the cabinet, it is most likely, that out in some distance, those "flat walls" will actually end being "Half ball shaped", (If we imagine the loudspeaker is hung on the middle of a wall, which is "endlessly long and high"...) Just like lightshells will do... The first lightshell from a hot cube, will have same shape as the cube, except the corners will look like spikes, but in some distance the lightshells have become ball shaped... Asuming they meets equally strong lightpressure from all directions. That is simply the normal behavior of pressure waves, and we can see the same behavior, regarding waves on water.

[@scottwolf8633]

My question is; What about Eigenmode vibrations of the taped on, added surface, baffle area?

[@FOH3663]

I know this, I've not likely experienced any system more impressive than flush mounted mains, inwalls. Baffles sidewall-to-sidewall doesn't get any bigger! Well sorted room geometry preserves the ITD gap, thus it resolves all the depth of any recording. Maybe that depth is baffle forward, but its all there and its glorious. -- As to baffle width in the typical sense; I think overall execution, independent of width, is most impactful.

[@IBuildIt]

I should clarify what i said a bit. I can hear fairly good sound stage and imaging with my console if I move in a lot closer, but it mostly disappears when I'm in my normal seat 8 feet away. Contrast that to my mains in my listening room and at 8 feet away I'm completely enveloped in a wide deep and tall sound stage that has perfect imaging. If I move in closer it just gets more vivid. I had the same lack of sound stage from the sound bar I made 5 years ago, in the same room. Soffit mounted speakers are supposed to be the bees knees for a mix studio, but I expect they take the time to make sure the speakers are toed in properly to get the best presentation. When the speakers are completely parallel to the front wall, they may not give the best sound stage, and that's what's happening with my console.

[@FOH3663]

@@IBuildIt Re; your console soundstage issue. I had a jaw dropping soundstage experience removing a cabinet between my L and R mains many years ago. Late 80's, wife of 35yrs and I were newly married, in an apartment in an 1870's newly renovated schoolhouse downtown Indianapolis. We listened to music all the time. CDs were still new, and we were buying music regularly. I got the apartment for the listening room. Big room, 16' ceilings, wide/deep. Perfect. As a wedding gift from my parents we received a big modern, oak AV cabinet, glass doors, space for a big 25" TV, it seemed nearly 4 feet tall and a bit wider than tall. I proudly racked up all my gear in it, the TV in it ... I mean 80's oak gauche. Let's party. 𝙄𝙩 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙. My Pearson's Rule of Thirds setup was suddenly blurred, lifeless, flat and uninvolving. It took me a long time to fully accept it. It turned fully dimensional stereo into indistinct, resonant mush, eliminated any depth. Reluctant as it was a gift, several months passed prior to pulling the plug. Mom and Dad loved that big oak and smoked glass masterpiece! We felt obligated. But wow! Removing the big cabinet, brought back everything that was good about that system. Dimensionality, open, clear. Everything from the listener forward has acoustic significance. The area up between and around the loudspeakers ... is akin to the Forbidden Zone Charlton Heston encounters in the Planet of the Apes (that sobering rant; "everyone you've ever known is gone").

[@vincentrockel1149]

Wonder how the console would preform if the speaker enclosures had been bumped out a bit from the rest of the console.

[@impuls60]

Imaging comes from timing differences between both ears and only using 1 mic makes this next to impossible to differentiate. You only hear the tonality changes because of response changes due to less cancellation. Running binaural mics would be even better for this experiement :)

[@bbfoto7248]

I don't think you properly understood his recording technique. I am a musician and studio recording engineer and the technique he used to record each speaker should provide a perfect stereo imaging and soundstage effect, albeit with the room's contributions in two of the tracks.

[@hwr9675]

Check the size of an instrument. Use one speaker only (mono) put two blocks of Basotect right ond left of the tweeter an listen. With blocks (wave sucker) instruments become smaller. In Stereo the image is more precise (separation of instruments.)

[@wadimek116]

I like A the most, sounds the clearest but its youtube and recording of your room goes to mine. Im curious of the results

[@rabit818]

I plan diy my four identical speakers. What kind of crossover do I need and how do I connect the speakers? Any recommended link?

[@petertimp5416]

Initially, B sounded more open compared to A….but then C just confused/overrides my ears…so who knows???? Thanks for your questions.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

And as always if you read through the comments there's no consensus as to which sounds better. Some prefer A and say it has a "fuller" sound Some preferred B or C and say A sounds "thin and tinny" I see this on every sound comparison, it tells me that our hearing isn't all the same. Yet people spend thousands of $ on a cable It's a very strange game this audio thing

[@jeffbrooke4892]

When I reach an "inconclusive" conclusion like this it means, like you said, there is no perceived difference and one should stop their search because the results really mean you would be happy with any of the three. And what more needs to be said? Thanks!

[@Nightjar726]

Don’t we make up for any of that in our xo design through baffle step compensation? Thanks

[@ronhochhalter3491]

Couldn't tell much if any difference between the 3 different tracks. The first thought that came to mind when doing a comparison like this is my ability to comprehend, and remember what I heard from each example. Some people the ability to differentiate between samples, more accurately than others. For example, I have a heightened sense of visual discernment between similar objects. This comes from my experience and training in my line of work. My vision is not superior, it's how I process the information. The same can be said for all of our senses. Would it be a fair comparison, regarding our sense of touch, if one person could tell the difference between 120 grit sandpaper and 180 grit sandpaper by touching it? Being able to tell the difference may not be reliant on your sensitivity to touch, but rather, how are you comprehend the information?

[@wattspeakers]

Cool video. Were there going to be 4 choices? I thought A sounded excellent. I thought B sounded a little more muddled and distant. C sounded more similar to A. I'm interested in the reveal for which is which. If I had to guess, I would guess that A & C are with the cardboard.

[@psdaengr911]

It makes less difference in smaller (enclosed) room than in a larger one or an open area with an actual stage.

[@Justwantahover]

I intend to clone my plus woofer design, which is similar to the single driver, but with an added woofer on the bottom panel. This is cos the woofer ones handle more power. Also there is a delay in the lower med from the woofer (compared to the main driver) which gives the med range more ambiance. Sounds great. It's not pure but still good. Really, the single driver design is just for purists like me. But I may get a sub plate and build a sub box for the single driver one. No residual med in a sub like in a stereo speaker woofer, making it more point source. 😅

[@cleatuslewinda]

A sounds flatter, less colored so id guess the original track. B feel a bit more forward, projected almost so I'd guess thats with the baffle extension.

[@csilt]

Listening to the clips on my HD 650 headphones through a UA Volt 476 Interface. I preferred clip B as it had more focused and detailed highs and sounded most like the original recording which was C. A sounded a little bloated in the mids but not totally bad like game changer bad.

[@GurvanBHC7]

In professionnal music studio they have there speaker in wall. I don't think sharing the same baffle is a problem. This is just my opignon

[@IBuildIt]

That is true, but those are usually angled as well, to have them pointing toward the listening position, and that effectively pushes them out away from the middle. Just guessing here, because I haven't actually heard any.

[@kevindoinghisthing]

A- brighter yet somewhat tinny B- fuller mid C- more bass

[@vincentrockel1149]

I would think box dimensions would effect bass response more than anything else.

[@HomeTheatre101]

A is Extended Baffle, B is Direct Source, C is Unmodified Baffle. ✅🍿

[@chuckmaddison2924]

For pinpoint accuracy, you need headphones with dummy head recording . Just can't beat it as microphone's are at same position as ears and not 10 feet apart. There are demonstrations on KZbin.

[@craigblackwood2165]

A = narrow B = original C = wide or so it may seem.

[@939Productions]

I've made speakers that are 2 feet wide and image well and I build 5 inch wide speaker that imaged a bit beter. Not much but beter. I think it's the beter drivers in the slimmer that does 90% of the lifting in this case.

[@GuteisFinger]

C is the augmented baffle. I'm 50.0001% sure.

[@Rowuk2024]

Diffraction on the cabinet edges destroy imaging. Baffle step just changes the frequency response. Just taping a frame to a speaker just diffracts at a lower frequency!

[@IBuildIt]

"Diffraction on the cabinet edges destroy imaging" Proof? Please link to a properly run study that conclusively proves that diffraction is audible in any way, including imaging.

[@Rowuk2024]

@@IBuildIt I have never needed a "study". I simply tried it and the results were so conclusive that I never turned back. If you have a speaker enclosure with sharp corners, experimental roundovers can be made from dense foam, half round wood stock or half round molding. I recommend a radius of more than an inch. If you want to measure diffraction, an impulse measurement works best. Correlating primitive measurements to what we hear is usually out of range for social media armchair warriors. If your only motivation is your definition of "properly run studies", then we really have nothing to talk about. I have been building speakers for fun for over 55 years. Being a professional musician (orchestral trumpet), I have a lot of exposure to real acoustic events. Cabinets with sharp corners and having wide dispersion drivers sound like the sound is originating from the speaker. The image between the speakers is not stable. Adding generous roundovers reduces that effect of the sound originating from the speaker. Even horn speakers benefit from these roundovers. Naturally, a big roundover will change the necessary baffle step compensation, so depending on the speaker, tonality can change.

[@IBuildIt]

No, you need a study to back up what you are saying, when you are saying it like it's a well known fact. Otherwise it's your opinion and worthless to anyone other than yourself. There have been no properly conducted tests that conclusively show that diffraction is audible.

[@Rowuk2024]

@@IBuildIt No, I do not "NEED" to do anything. I only practice audio for my own enjoyment and have discovered things that are no-brainers. I can reproduce them at will with various speaker architectures. I do not need anyone to agree but I do certainly suggest that "more" people try reducing diffraction. The important part is the ROUNDOVER, not a sharp chamfered edge as in one of your recent examples. In fact, you even arguing about it shows that you have not even tried it. That is perfectly within your constitutional rights but means that I am no longer subscribing. Ignoring something this effective, easy to implement and cheap if need be does reduce credibility. The second thing is measuring by impulse measurement - not frequency sweeps. The impulse measurement shows and quantifies the late arriving "diffraction" in relation to the initial signal. It also documents if the measures taken reduce the effect. As to audibility, this is like anything else in audio - even carved in stone there will be those not liking the color of the stone. I have learned that the audio press is not so interested in "facts". As far as there being no properly conducted tests, I question the effort of you trying to find it! Here are several links from peer reviewed sites. No Commercial bla bla. My selection is not comprehensive, but as I said, this has been so obvious over many years of building speakers, that I really do not care about finding big names that agree. www.linkwitzlab.com/diffraction.htm (old paper) www.researchgate.net/publication/228649367_Diffraction_correction_of_frequency_response_for_loudspeaker_in_rectangular_baffle www.researchgate.net/publication/239417042_Application_of_the_Geometric_Theory_of_Diffraction_GTD_to_Diffraction_at_the_Edges_of_Loud-speaker www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20240909/13024.pdf

[@IBuildIt]

Whatever you think you've discovered is of no consequence unless you can prove the "discovery" is authentic. Audio as a hobby is stocked full to overflowing with guys who will swear up and down that they hear this or they hear that. But not one of them (you included) is able to present verifiable evidence to backup what they are saying. You talk like you think you are an expert, but real experts rely on fact, not opinion.

[@juststuff5216]

C - I didn't like B - Sounds the best IMO A - Exaggerated top end, a lot of energy.

[@garysmith8455]

Unfortunately, being a MONO recording (presentation here), there is no stereo soundstage to help determine any real differences in that respect. Maybe try something like this again in stereo, it may have a better result for us listeners. Thank you. OH, and I have a beautiful pair of Allison 130's. Talk about a wide speaker and VERY short depth cabinet, yet the stereo width is very pleasing. I would have never thought it would be, but there are always surprises with VINTAGE audio from the 70ies and 80ies. Again, we have not come that far in all this time. 😉

[@IBuildIt]

The recordings are not mono. It's one channel recorded at a time, then put together in a stereo track. You should be hearing a pretty good stereo image from it, when compared to the original.

[@garysmith8455]

@@IBuildIt Ok, perhaps I need to throw on a pair of headphones. My sound bar is usually pretty wide if fed a stereo signal, yet everything was coming from the phantom center. I'll give it another listen (O:

[@philliparudolph9595]

A felt to me wider while B was thinner and tighter sound. C was ...

[@jimspc07]

Has any thought been given to the origin of wide speakers and narrrow speakers, not refering to the box but the speaker itself? Was a wide speaker a shallow cone in a 12" frame or something and a narrow speaker a deep cone in a 5" frame or small frame. Not the width of the box at all. That would account for the saying with a bit of reality as a shallow cone wold be less directional than a deep cone. A deep cone would move air in a more controlled column than a wide one which would disperse air more. What things are and how they are colloquially described change or get corrupted over time. All it takes is for someone who is recognised as a national power person to get something wrong or change the meaning from one thing to another and it can be there for ever. E (s) are now I (s) and A (s). U, Y and W and now OOs. The alphabet can be reduced by several characters easily at this time. Route 66 (Root 66) is now Rouwt 66, witness the song and the movie. Even Columbo started his wonderful series with "lets not go that root (route)" and somewhere towards the end changed it to "lets not go that Rouwt".

[@edouble0325]

A sounds better than B to me. Detailed and fuller sounding.

[@ptman3]

I don't know which is what, but I do know I like A better. I'm listening to this on a fairly decent Acoustic Energy system. Well, decent for a PC.

[@johnholmes912]

stuff in between the speakers has never made a difference in any of my set ups

[@KravchenkoAudioPerth]

👍 B original, C wings clipped. Maybe I'm right. Width is less of a factor than many people like to believe. Agreed. Mark

[@IBuildIt]

I think the width thing is tied into the notion that great sound stage and imaging rely on the early sidewall reflections. But I can state without hesitation that you do not need those reflections to get an amazing sound stage. In fact by absorbing those reflections imaging and clarity is improved, at the expense of the localization effect you get with the reflections. But then my sidewall reflection speakers bring that right back, but without corrupting the sound.

[@KravchenkoAudioPerth]

@@IBuildIt The early reflection is a red herring. Think monitors at a mixing desk. Many time soffit mounted and no wall reflections that are loud enough to become arrival cues for our ears. Same goes for a well done vehicle. There are many fallacies in audio That get repeated as gospel truth. Damping factor. Fast woofers. Fast bass. These things do not exist. They are invented by audio writers that do not understand what they are describing. And do not have a handle on the physics to be able to explain them clearly. Keep up the good work. Mark

[@bbfoto7248]

​​@@IBuildIt Ummm...that's essentially the effect that you would hear when listening nearfield to studio monitors, for example. You minimize the contribution of the room's acoustics and smearing of imaging cues. Using either wide or narrow baffle loudspeakers, what provides for "good stereo imaging" is that the levels and spectral balance (frequency response) from the Left and Right Loudspeakers is as similar as possible AT YOUR LISTENING POSITION. You have an acoustically "good" room with good decay times. When you added the baffle extensions to BOTH speakers, they both still maintained a Similar Response between both the Left & Right speakers, hence stereo imaging was maintained, even though the overall response between the speakers with their standard baffles and with the baffle extensions changed slightly due to baffle step compensation and room interaction. If you measured both speakers independently with full bandwidth Mono Pink Noise with and without the baffle extensions, you will obviously see the differences in FR between the "narrow" and "wide" pair. But both speaker Pairs should measure very similarly to each other when measured as a pair with the baffle extensions and as a pair without the baffle extensions...maintaining the stereo imaging and soundstage. I posted some better Stereo Imaging Track suggestions previously from the EMMA (European Mobile Media Association) car audio judging disc (lossless downloads). The "POSITIONING" tracks in this collection would have been MUCH more useful for this demonstration. HOWEVER, FYI, NONE of the Samples that you included in this video contained the direct Original Source File. I have this original source file ("High Noon" by TrackTribe) and all of the Percussion elements as well as other elements are panned very wide to far Left & Right and distinctly placed across the soundstage. NONE of your included samples "A", "B", or "C" produce the actual Stereo Soundfield (or spectral balance) of the original STEREO track. All of the imaging in ALL of your samples are pretty much Centered, with little if any Stereo "Width" or Ambiance, as if they were all MONO tracks! FYI, I am listening on a capable high-end system using HiFiman Susvara headphones. Check your files again, mate. Load them into Audacity or Premier or whatever DAW software you are using to compile these tracks and compare Left vs. Right waveforms. ;)

[@IBuildIt]

​@@bbfoto7248 Congratulations, of the 27,000 people who watched this video (so far), you are the only one who correctly guessed that none of the samples were the original. I did that deliberately just to see the result. But here's an exercise for you to do that may put things in perspective: Try recording YOUR high-end system and compare that recording to the original and see how it sounds. Let me know how it goes.

[@bbfoto7248]

@IBuildIt Thanks John. I've done both in room and in car recordings with my specialized mic setup. If you allow me to post a link I can post a link to my Microsoft OneDrive cloud storage to download the files

[@indigobaloon8091]

All you do with different baffle widths is pushing the baffle step up or down. That's how i see it.

[@kennethnielsen3864]

Thanks for sharing.

[@chinmeysway]

Audio sample comparison for beginners/ 101: sounds have to touch when there is consistency in the track; the sample/song can’t start over!! As memory is useless regarding subtle differences.

[@MrStatusqwo5]

If that is true 🤔that is really sad because 90% of as have a big flat screen in the middle of the tower's speaker woofer helps if you put it in the middle,aso center speaker for spatial audio....

[@svtcontour]

I prefer the sound of wider baffles

[@TokoOsito]

So what was A en what was B & C?

[@danielesbordone1871]

Never liked small ring a ding drivers on a narrow tower speaker.

[@sc0or]

I guess B is an original, A is wide (flat and boring), C is open

[@blerblybliggots9801]

A sounds the clearest, B sounds the muddiest . C sounds between A and B

[@BudGood420]

B has more presence through my little desktop speakers(edifier 8500)