Mirror-imaged speakers vs Non-Mirror-Imaged

Gang-Twanger

Resident Wharfedaliophool
I couldn't find any other threads on this, so here it is. I'm curious what the consensus is around here on mirror-imaging vs non-mirror-imaged speakers. I do know that there are MANY great non-m.i. speakers out there, dating all the way back to the '50's (In some cases, like 2-way horn systems, and also in the case of my W90's, mirror-imaging is a moot point, but I like a good 3-ways system).

Anyway, what's your "stance" on m.i. vs non-m.i.?

(I'll throw that one in, since it's the first Tuesday in November)
 
Last edited:
I'd bet there are some "great" non-mirror imaged speakers but many more "great" mirror imaged speakers. Just a guess:)
 
Mirror imaging is good idea in principle; in practice, symmetrical designs work fine for me and are of course significantly easier and cheaper to build/stock for the manufacturer.
 
Mirror image as opposed to symmetrical?

Or mirror-image versus two "lefts" or two "rights"?

JBL has been known to produce asymmetrical "pairs" where tweeter offset is the same direction off-center on both speakers. For instance, here are my pair of L80T mid-restoration:
DSC_1402.jpg


Obviously it would have been simple to just produce these as symmetrical pairs. It boggles the mind though I would doubt the two-inch total offset difference would make much difference in a home-listening situation. But it's obvious JBL thought it important for studio monitors in near-field conditions, especially those intended for horizontal use such as the 4412 while the 4406 were offset the same right-and-left:

Right%2Bspeaker.jpg


And the larger studio-monitors often were built to allow reversing of the "handed-ness" or to allow vertical and horizontal placement, while all with the bi-radial horns were left/right.

page04.jpg


And maybe it's a function of size where the larger the speaker the more important the imaging of the tweeter and mids. For instance, the JBL L1 and L3 come asymmetrical but not left-and-right, while the L5 was symmetrical and the L7 (with side-firing woofers) had the upper three-way portion asymmetrical as a left-and-right pair.

3956kik_27.jpeg


JBL_L7-004.jpg


Judging from results I've found in placement issues, reversing handed pairs depending upon distance of separation to improve imaging, it's important but perhaps not critical in a home environment in all cases. But then you have to wonder, "Why not?" which brings up the issue of cost and inventory. Though the L1 was only sold in one box as a "pair" even though right and left were identical. :dunno:
 
With the exception of line arrays and planars/stats, it doesn't seem like many truly TOTL speakers are mirror imaged.
 
I find that mirror-imaged speakers are a modern thing, as far as i can see speakers up to the early 70s usually weren't mirror imaged, even the state-of-the-art ones.

I use non-mirror imaged speakers and can't complain on the stereo presentation.
 
My IMF's are mirror imaged:

imfrspmmkivorig9101396.jpg


I think in a design like this it makes a lot of sense. The bass woofer needs to be higher up on the front baffle because of the transmission line, so putting the tweeters and midrange units above it is out of the question, and so would putting them beneath the bass woofer. So, mirror imaging in this case makes a lot of sense, but at the same time I really feel it makes quite a difference. The image is more focused I find than non mirror imaged speakers.
 
I find that mirror-imaged speakers are a modern thing, as far as i can see speakers up to the early 70s usually weren't mirror imaged, even the state-of-the-art ones.

That's the way I looked at it. I can't name any mirror-imaged anything prior to the '70's (The NS1000's are always the first ones that pop into my head, whenever those were introduced, but the voicing isn't for me).

My W60's are 2-ways with an offset cone-tweeter (a big, fat one), and they're one of the most-coherent, seamless, natural-sounding speakers I've ever heard, but I've never heard a mirror-imaged pair of W60's ('cause they never made any), so it's hard to get any idea of which works better, in theory OR practice. And the W60E's are 3-ways that aren't mirror-imaged (Last night I was too-tired to type "mirror-imaged", so I abbrev. it :D ). Both speakers sound best on their sides anyway. I just get the feeling that mirror-imaging is not really-necessary in order to build a great-sounding speaker. But a lot of people favor m.i.'d designs (Gettin' tired again), so maybe there really is something to it. I honestly-don't know WHAT the story is, so that's why I brought it up.
 
Last edited:
That's the way I looked at it. I can't name any mirror-imaged anything prior to the '70's (The NS1000's are always the first ones that pop into my head, whenever those were introduced, but the voicing isn't for me).

My W60's are 2-ways with an offset cone-tweeter (a big, fat one), and they're one of the most-coherent, seamless, natural-sounding speakers I've ever heard, but I've never heard a mirror-imaged pair of W60's ('cause they never made any), so it's hard to get any idea of which works better, in theory OR practice. And the W60E's are 3-ways that aren't mirror-imaged (Last night I was too-tired to type "mirror-imaged", so I abbrev. it :D ). Both speakers sound best on their sides anyway. I just get the feeling that mirror-imaging is not really-necessary in order to build a great-sounding speaker. But a lot of people favor m.i.'d designs (Gettin' tired again), so maybe there really is something to it. I honestly-don't know WHAT the story is, so that's why I brought it up.

I'm sure it's just my OCD, but it matters to me. It just looks better and if it looks better, it sounds better. :)
 
That's the way I looked at it. I can't name any mirror-imaged anything prior to the '70's (The NS1000's are always the first ones that pop into my head, whenever those were introduced, but the voicing isn't for me).

My W60's are 2-ways with an offset cone-tweeter (a big, fat one), and they're one of the most-coherent, seamless, natural-sounding speakers I've ever heard, but I've never heard a mirror-imaged pair of W60's ('cause they never made any), so it's hard to get any idea of which works better, in theory OR practice. And the W60E's are 3-ways that aren't mirror-imaged (Last night I was too-tired to type "mirror-imaged", so I abbrev. it :D ). Both speakers sound best on their sides anyway. I just get the feeling that mirror-imaging is not really-necessary in order to build a great-sounding speaker. But a lot of people favor m.i.'d designs (Gettin' tired again), so maybe there really is something to it. I honestly-don't know WHAT the story is, so that's why I brought it up.

There's a chance I'll be able to find out what mirror imaged W60's sound like. I had a pair of mismatched W60's which were a mirror image of each other, and I gave the empty cabinets to my friend who is going to put his W60 drivers into them. They'll likely be the only mirror imaged pair of W60's on the planet. :)
 
IMHO it (mirror imaged drivers) is probably better as you have more accurate symmetry of the sound. If you can hear it or not is the question and I believe critical listeners can. Also believe the mid and tweeter should be stacked and not horizontal for proper imaging. These things are little but must impart a sound just like some manufacturers go to great lengths to build time aligned drivers in a speaker system. Takes more work and the gains might be small but I do believe there are gains.

Call me crazy but next time I setup my W90's I am going to flip them on their sides and see what mirror imaged vertical stacked mids and tweets setup would sound like.
 
Most of my speakers have the drivers lined up down the middle of the cabinet.....

attachment.php


Heh, good ol' Klipsch. The original version of the Cornwall had the MR and HF drivers correctly oriented with their long axes vertical. The model shown above (as well as the ones I had and the ones they're making today) have them oriented horizontally, which gives maximal vertical dispersion and restricts horizontal dispersion. oops.
 
I find that mirror-imaged speakers are a modern thing, as far as i can see speakers up to the early 70s usually weren't mirror imaged, even the state-of-the-art ones.

I've had JBL C37 030s with 15-inch D130 woofers since the '50s. Of course they were originally intended for mono use so one might argue why the mirror-image unless JBL was simply prescient! Again, it's obviously more important in larger speakers for proper presentation of the soundstage.

attachment.php
 
There's a chance I'll be able to find out what mirror imaged W60's sound like. I had a pair of mismatched W60's which were a mirror image of each other, and I gave the empty cabinets to my friend who is going to put his W60 drivers into them. They'll likely be the only mirror imaged pair of W60's on the planet. :)

Nice... I love that. I wonder if it will make a difference. They certainly do just fine WITHOUT the mirror-imaging, but with it, who knows? I love the sound of that tweeter. The drivers from that era sound so-good. I think the 12" woofer in the W60 is running full-range (Sounds like it).
 
I Vote Mirrored (Almost) Everytime!

It sounds pretty obvious to me when I turn on my L166's that they are both Lefts (or Rights) compared to my 4412A's. It's been months since I used the L166's because of that. Well, they are getting used, as stands for the 4412A's!:D

(I'd love to build a set of mirrored boxes for the L166's.)

On the other hand my L110's don't bother me at all, but then they are a vertical design, with the mid and tweet above the woofer, unlike the L166's that are a horizontal design, with the mid and tweet stacked beside the woofer.

The small offset of the non-mirrored vertical design seems to bother me less since I can find the center of the stereo image with only a small tilt of the head, or a shift in the chair. The upper bass does not ever get disconnected from the mids with the L110's the way the L166's sometimes do.
 
My stance on it is that mirror-imaging is desirable, and probably more of a factor when the listener is closer to the speakers. It's a more recent thing due to the heightened interest in imaging/soundstage reproduction in more modern times.

I mirror imaged a pair of Rectilinear Highboys (easily done since the front baffle is screwed on) and definitely noticed an improvement in imaging. I listen about 8' back from them, and they have a fairly large baffle area, so that's a factor.

Are there any modern high end speakers that *aren't* mirror imaged?
 
Back
Top Bottom