Narrow vs Wide Speakers - Which is Best?

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 YouTube 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.

You can help support the work I do in making these videos:
Support this channel on Patreon:

#diyspeakers
#johnheisz
#audio

My "Scrap bin" channel:

My main channel:

[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 YouTube 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.

[BobbyKinstle]

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

[wio]

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

[glenncurry]

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.

[michaeltablet]

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

[nicoras]

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.

[sstraight]

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.

[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.

[henrykpycha]

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

[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.

[BostonMike]

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

[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.

[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.

[bradstone]

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.

[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.

[edd]

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.

[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

[jacktough]

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