bpape said:
Your logic is still wrong on the baffles. You CANNOT make the logical jump from narrow baffles helping to all narrow baffled speakers being better than wider ones or certainly not to only narrow baffled ones being ABLE to image.
When did I say that
all narrow baffled speakers could image? I did not. Please re-read. What is contained in my statement is that if by using your contention(that small baffle speakers such as small bookshelf monitors image substantially better because of the baffle width), a small baffle as found on a bookshelf will always improve the image better than an average baffle width. I do not mean that statement to apply to 'all' as a blanket coverage. My use of 'any' is intended to apply to a control situation; variable being the baffle width. For example: Any speaker will benefit in imaging significantly from a narrow baffle.
But let's forget this, and re-read my original statement that is my attempt to understand your claims. Based upon what you said, I made this conditional statement:
"If a small cabinet width as found on very small bookshelf monitors has a substantial improvement effect on imaging in itself, then by this logic, only speakers with such a small cabinet baffle must have excellent rated imaging. No speakers with average or large size baffles can have excellent rated imaging based on this simplisitc assumption."
This statement functions based on
your previous claims that a small baffle width monitor speaker has better imaging as a function of it's narrower baffle width. You imply this is a substantial effect. If this effect functions to improve the imaging, and it is a substantial effect, then a small baffle speaker will always have better imaging than an average width baffle speaker when baffle width is the variable. The use of rating 'excellent' is used to emphasize 'best' in my statement. The narrower baffle is ALWAYS one-up on this substantial(as you imply) parameter. Therefor only a small baffle speaker would have the best imaging. Not ALL speakers, but in the ideal cases of each is the intended meaning here.
There are many other things that contribute to good imaging. Narrow baffles help but can't overcome other major technical blunders.
So, you realize that narrow baffles are but one variable. Now please consider what I said in the first post in this thread that relates to polar response. Now consider that narrow baffles(as found on a small bookshelf that is 6" wide for example) do not really help with diffraction in the frequencies that are actually most critial for imaging/localization cues. To have a substantial effect throughout the relevant bandwidth using baffle width as the variable, you have to have a baffle that is small in relation to the radiated frequencies as to prevent the edge re-radiation disruption from occuring. A 6"(a typical width for a 2 way using a 5.25" diamter midwoofer) flat edge enclosure is going to have some small effect starting at about 1100Hz, with substantial ripple occuring by 1600Hz and continuing for the rest of the bandwidth upwards. A 1" square-edged baffle would increase the frequency to about 9000Hz before substantial rippled started to occur; that is
if it was a flat square edged baffle area. However, the tweeters used in such small approx. 1" size such as ones used on B&W Nautilus speakers resemble a sphere in the front, because of the spherical shape of the front of the tweeter, and effectively no substantial edges surrounding the tweeter. Almost no diffractive effects persist in such a design; passband ripple is insubstantial. Additionally, even if the 1" tweeter was not essentially a sphere, the average dome tweeter begins to become directional by 10kHz, with directionality increase with frequency, thereby edge radiated energy is reduced in direct proportion, thuse diffraction effects are not an issue at these higher frequencies under this circumstance.
Obviously you're not seeing the logic flaw (my college professor for logic would have a cow over this one). This is one of the classic logic flaws taught to show what not to do. I guess we'll have to move on.
No, you are trying to apply my statements to mean 'all' with no qualification, when that is not the case. This has been, for the most part, a casual conversation. My statements are built upon your previous implications and claims, and are functioning as such; they were not meant to stand alone in isolation, nor am I doing much in the way of proof reading, so if I made a grammatical error that caused confusion I apologize.
Is this all a result of a misunderstanding?
I do find it interesting that many of the things you claim make the Lowther/Fostex drivers problematic and inferior would be eliminated if they were used in a multi-way system.
Yes; but then these are no longer full range systems. Some of the full range drivers make for excellent midrange drivers if used in a multi-way system; refer to Jordan drivers.
Also, thank you for helping to make the point about 1st order xovers and mutiple drivers causing issues. That's EXACTLY my point. In theory, a 1st order xover is superior. However, the complexity in a multi-way system almost necessitates a MUCH more complex (read more phase issues and more expense and more changes to muck it up or use cheap components) xovers.
A 1st order crossover is superior in theory in transient response, and within a very narrow polar response axis range. A 1st order is not superior in theory so far as off axis response. A 1st order will not be cheaper to construct a good design; the drivers will be more expensive because of the increased bandwidth that needs to be reproduced with minimum technical problems -- the crossover will not be simple because of the substantial notch and contour filters required in order to get the drivers to adhere to a 1st order target slope throughout a sufficient crossover lapse. You can simplify the crossover by using drivers that are yet even more expensive to manufacture, and have an even wider linear operatational bandwidth.
-Chris
