@ivan_nosnibor ... We don’t as a rule tolerate vowel sounds in box designs, in fact makers regularly go to great lengths to tout that they’ve removed them with careful attention to the cabinets, don’t they? So why are so many makers of horn speakers so seemingly silent on the subject of audible horn resonances - especially as it relates to horn material? This has confounded me as well, and yet, perhaps the obvious answer involves failing to direct proper attention towards and financially invest sufficiently into making great horns (one hopes there’s actual knowledge there to be aware of these implications, but the care needed for this to translate into the product itself appears to be in minor demand). As an example JBL has long touted their "Sonoglass" horn material, but going by my similar-ish impressions of several of their models featuring Sonoglass horns it seems the general sonic imprinting generated here (that of a grey-ish and rather "splashy" character, as some rightly puts it) could stem from the horn material used. Sonoglass is by all accounts cheaper, lighter, and easier to manufacture than a, say, machined (and thick-walled) hardwood horn, all factors that weigh in heavily in cost considerations; let’s not fool ourselves into thinking JBL has, in essence, other incentives to use this material, and that anything from hereon is simply "damage control." As a general rule I believe horns are much more sensitive, so to speak, with regard to their implementation, manufacture and need of care to work really well compared to direct radiating speakers, but these are demands that doesn’t sit well in today’s manufacturing market, for obvious reasons (sad they are). As such I suspect really well-sounding horns (all-horns in particular) may be a relative boutique business, certainly compared to the mass market of speakers in general, but I’ll be among the first to acknowledge their outspoken qualities when done right. |
@kosst_amojan The sensation I've always gotten, even from the best horns I've ever heard, is the same sensation I get standing right in front of a trumpet or sax horn. My dad and brother played trumpet. I played sax and electric bass.
In my world that could as well be a compliment to horn speakers, and your experience in playing the saxophone only makes you the better judge for drawing this comparison. I'm quite sure what you're intentionally referring to here is an aspect that to your ears follows horn speakers regardless of the music being played back - i.e.: one that mimics the "shouty" and present sound of a real sax or trumpet - but my takeaway from this (and which I believe you may be at least subconsciously influenced by as well) is the significance of spontaneously comparing speakers to live instruments, and all that could entail. Think about it, and to reiterate; you're comparing live instruments to speakers, horns not least, and this also calls out shared traits such as tonality/timbre, dynamics, uninhibited presence (a sense of ease, you may say), etc. While your intentional takeaway is for this to be negatively fused and support your stance, I'm conversely seeing you being dismayed by a sound that emulates a live acoustic ditto, for the reason mainly being that any comparison made here will be grounded in more than what you're consciously aware of. Speculative and total B.S.? Quite possibly, but it's a potential "the plot thickens" example of how many audiophiles may be less interested in or even repels live acoustic sound (as reproduced by a stereo) than creating their own (and by a whole community supported) hifi-sound. |
@inna
' Shouting contest thickens ', no doubt. He is not against live music or its approximation, he is against bad 'live music' shouting at him.
Phusis, I suggest you leave the man alone, let him 'play sax' any way he wants to and just listen without commenting. I would also say that you yourself do not tolerate the same things.
I was actually being much in earnest with my comment to poster kosst_amojan, but perhaps that's the issue. Apology extended to kosst for crossing the line.
Anyway, who would want these ’big vaginas’ that are almost , if ever, impossible to make sound coherent, more or less uncolored and not spitting out sounds in your face ? Sax and trumpet played live in front of you sound really terrible. Even Miles’s trumpet, I suppose.
That's where I can't relate to your findings, and am tempted to refer to my earlier post to kosst on at least some of my reasons why. But, we've been there already, I guess, and will simply have to agree to disagree. |
@mward Does the hearing ability of the individual make any difference in the opinion of horns? It seems like they provide more directional energy thus providing a better experience for those who have lost a little top end or detail in their hearing. I have never owned horns, but the giant horns at audio shows always intrigue me and I would really like to hear them. While I’m surprised this hasn’t been suggested (or even more overtly insinuated) more often by those in particular who couldn’t care less about the sound of horn speakers, be they hybrids or all-horns, I’d link the love of horn sound to sheer taste and perhaps not least a more conscious and seasoned approach into the reproduction of sound. Horn speakers, certainly all-horns, are in the clear minority compared to the vastness of the direct radiating alternatives, and generally take more effort to get to sound well - both in regards to the implementation with ones remaining setup, as well as the development and final execution of the horns themselves. Most so-called horn speakers though are really hybrids (and I can’t for the life of me fathom why this distinction isn’t carved out more clearly in the discussion of "horn" speakers), and so many may be predominantly referring to the challenging aspects of their reproduction here that commonly comes down to the lack of integration between the horn(s) and direct radiating units. Conversely all-horns can represent a different set of challenges compared to hybrids, that may likely require of the listener to make an even more radical decision based on several factors. The complexity of all this, and all-horns in particular being rather far between, requires a far more selective and, to my mind, seasoned approach in putting together such a system. When some people here refer to their less than favorable impressions of horn sound I’m often brought back to the realization of the above as a sad reminder that many mayn’t have heard a true, carefully developed, assembled and implemented all-horn system. When done right, and I admit this may be something of a rarity, such a system brings you close to a musical event just happening before you, uninhibited and naturally; no talk or thought of "hifi," but simply music in a very pure and emotional form. Lately I’ve been rather disheartened listening to some of the bigger brands horn hybrid solutions that seem to be neither here nor there in their sound. Certainly impressive in some regards, but I’m afraid all to easily (and quite understandably) fueling the thoughts in some as poor representatives of "horn" sound. It’s an industry, alright, and one where "going the distance" in such realms of speaker principle/design is the less sought way. |
@kosst_amojan You’re making a bunch of unequivocal statements there that I can go out and prove wrong right now with the cold, hard evidence of measurements. I glossed over a variety of horn measurements just now. None of them have dispersion as even as my Focals, much less something like a Magica S5 Mk. II. Being anything less than outright experts on the matter I’m guessing most of us here are really just blundering novices, and so are easy prey when we try and read up on these complicated affairs more or less sporadically as a theoretical means to back up an argument. What we should really go by in any final instance regarding sound is that of actual listening experience to account for, in this case, the imaging capabilities we’re after, or as they say: the proof is in the pudding. As things often develop though meanings become muddled as the source of reference has a tendency to be slightly altered over time, but occasionally with severe effect. For, what it really says is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," and this makes quite a difference to support my claim: we can’t come by our objective just by reading the recipe (i.e.: measurements) to know of pudding and its actual taste; we to have to eat it (i.e.: listen) to truly know what we’re dealing with sonically. Horns CAN image well, but do they generally? Not in my experience. I’ve never heard anything image as flat and 2 dimensionally as horns. I’ll allow for a better optimized horn to image well though.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but dispersion tends to dictate the quality of imaging to some significant extent. (and now I’m the one to be theoretical) Controlled dispersion, or the nature of directivity of horns typically involves the acoustics of the environment to a lesser degree compared to direct radiating speakers, and so in theory you have at least a different, and likely more controllable means (like, at window to a source) to assess the nature of a recording. The more dispersive nature of direct radiating speakers opens up a can of worms in a different direction, so to speak, involving the acoustic environment more highly and so being more dependent on it, but can yield excellent though different results into imaging. Both of these characteristics of dispersive nature are viable, different ways to achieve great imaging, but personally I prefer the typically denser, less carved out and sphere-like imaging style of quality all-horn speakers. From my chair they emulate the live acoustic presentation more closely, and simply sound more natural. As I’ve stated earlier my own all-horn speakers image really well, and don’t cater in any way to the narrow-baffle school. As Kevin Fiske says it, just as an example: As a rule I can’t be bothered with all that nonsense about soundstage depth and placement – it’s musicality and tonality I want, not a sonic hologram – but the Ucellos simply won’t be denied; a hologram is what they throw, and it demands attention. Sit right in the narrow sweet spot and they project performers with a chiselled-from-granite confidence that is so mesmerising that I temporarily forgot what I’d come there for. https://www.dagogo.com/simon-mears-audio-ucello-3-way-horn-loudspeaker-review/3/ I’ve thought it to be common knowledge that narrow baffles and smaller drivers yield wide dispersion and resultant impressive imaging. To my mind this is a marketing ploy. I’m not saying this segment of speakers don’t have the capacity to potentially image well, but it’s hardly a prerequisite to come to fruition - per the above. If anything the narrow baffle design is an industry paradigm with great inertia, and as implemented in the listening room rarely offers solace in regards to the space they take up, requiring mostly to be placed well into the room away from walls. So much for WAF-factor.. The bottom line is that until I hear a horn that sounds like a point-source I’m not going to like them. Actual sources of sound tend to behave much more like point sources than large, focused, radiating areas tainted with the coloration of an acoustic transformer’s resonance and shape. It’s kind of like amplifiers with coupling transformers. Some folks like them, some think it’s just another contrivance between them and their music. Whatever you like I’m not going to argue, but it’s how we may go on to rationalize and conclude (and not least reduce) on our findings that I see potentially problematic. "Actual (point-)sources of sound" are so whether their origin is direct radiating units or horns, but I think I see where you’re heading at. The need for "point-source" sound to my mind and ears would dispel with the plural and equate striving for ultimate coherency as if originating from a single unit per channel. As such I find my own horn speakers to excel, being that the "large, focused radiating area" - as you describe it - gives the sensation almost of a "mono-bubble," but with stereo information in it (and perhaps this is your issue?). The "mono-bubble" to my mind compares successfully to a live, holistic event, because while instruments play to the left there’s no division of the space into left and right or other; the medium that carries the sound is indeed one large space, and it centers the experience as one of wholeness. Lastly, I don’t see quality horns (as the acoustic transformer) "tainted with coloration," but some may conclude they are marred by coloration simply by virtue of giving an overall different presentation compared to direct radiating speakers. And of course, your overall experience may simply have been one of listening to colored, incoherent horn (i.e.: hybrid?) speakers, and we sure know they do exist as well. |
@unsound In answer to the original question:
Perhaps because there are some trolls who seem to try and use these threads as bait to trap those who don"t share their love of horns: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/why-not-horns?highlight=horns
Your first reply to that thread was: I absolutely loathe horns! Not exactly an inviting outset for further conversation on the subject, but nonetheless a clear statement on your stance. I don’t know whether the OP of linked thread (or others there) ever came to ask you this in earnest, but why, if you were to elaborate a bit, do you resent the sound of horns? I’m simply curious. Is it horn-hybrids in particular, or all-horns equally - perhaps even more? Are there aspects of horn sound that triggers your resentment more than others? Ever heard horn speakers (hybrids, all-horns?) that appealed to you more than to lead to the thought of simply hating on them? You claim to provide an answer to @johnk, but still this hasn't happened. Why don't we start here? |
@unsound
Phusis, As you can see; some of the more recent posts offer confirmation of what suggested earlier. With all due and sincerest respect I think it best that I exit.
Thanks for your reply. Still, I'm sincerely interested in being offered a more detailed approach on your dislike of horn speakers, as I'm sure others (certainly the OP) are as well. I'm not trying to convert you as I'm not on a mission here, but find it inspiring to learn of the particular aspects and frame of reference (i.e.: experience) that leads some people to turn their backs on horny sound, so to speak - in all its varying forms (though I'm some will find they're all of the same, homogeneous evil). Feel free to chime in. |
@unsound Phusis, I respectfully suggest you read the thread I previously hyper-linked. I did read the thread back then with its some 1000 replies or 20 pages, but many of the details herein are amiss in my mind, including whether poster @macrojack ever got to address you on the matter I inquired on above, as well as your elaborate replies. I thought it easier or more practical for all involved in this thread to have you make a rundown of sorts on your views on horns, but I can understand why you wouldn’t want to repeat (and reduce) yourself in this effort - on a type of speaker you loath, no less. I’ve dug up some of your replies from the old thread in question (I hope that’s OK?), where I’ve found them to be able to stand on their own, though some of them (which I’ve put in parenthesis) may be dependable to some degree on the specific post-context for a deeper understanding: Midrange purity of horns? Ha! You can’t be serious.
--
(... I thought it was obvious that I was questioning the midrange purity of horns. Horns are about as different as omnis as can possibly be. Based upon your love of omnis, (which I do appreciate), I can’t help but feel that horns would be an anathema to you. I find horns to be the most colored of all the different speakers. I will say that they do do dynamics and loudness as well or better than just about all other speakers (though the Wilson’s can give them a run). If one were to listen to nothing but big band music, I could understand one choosing horns, but despite literaly hundreds of demos, including some high touted and expensive rigs, I find horns to be a bad joke.)
--
... I don’t like horns because to my sensibilities the are honky, screechy, shouty, have a cupped coloration, are too big, can be so sensitive that they amplify every minutia of noise and distortion, are ugly, require a ridiculous amount of of space, get in the way of themselves in such a manner that time aligning them is next to impossible without the added expense of digital manipulation, image poorly, and due to the the exra needed labor to manufacture, the huge size, unusual shape and extra weight cost more than competing designs. IMHO, all told, horns offer an ugly sound for a very high price.
(I offer my apologies for wandering off topic and mentioning other brands of speakers that don’t offer horns. In my defense it was in response to other contributors that brought up the fact that current technology allows horns to now be time and phase coherent, something that was previously next to impossible to do. I applaud the effort. Another poster suggested that only one other very different speaker technology was capable of that. The inference was that horns are no worse than most in that regard. I thought it appropriate to point out that various other speaker designs offer that capability. Some of us find that important.)
--
I couldn’t possibly remember them all, there didn’t seem to be any reason to. I’ve heard just about all the Klipschs, some JBL’s, some Altecs, most of the Avante Gardes, the KARS, etc.,etc.. The absolute worst and perhaps funniest were being demonstrated at a show, were horns that used used actual tuba bells. I still shake my head when I think of those.
--
(Macrojack, I think you make a good point. I think electrical amplification is preferable. As I posted earlier, I suspect that the current trend in horn speakers, is due to the current trend in low powered amplifiers, not to any inherent superiority of horns. I will grant you that horns almost always play louder, and are usually superior in dynamic contrasts. To my ears those benefits are far out weighted by their compromises. If mechanical amplification is all that good, why aren’t Victrolas used much anymore?)
--
... horns have have historically had some of the biggest companies spending the most money trying to develop them. I don’t see why you think they are capable of lower distortion. Yes, I think horns are more archaic. There’s a reason there are so many more cones and domes, they make more sense. Even panels and omnis make more sense, at least to me. Speaker designers no longer need to compromise their products due to the limited availability of high powered amplifiers. Other speaker designs are capable of filling residential sound rooms with enough volume without the need for additional mechanical volume enhancers. Horns have been well understood for decades. Perhaps there might be advancements due to CAD, improved drivers and digital cross-overs, but those types of advancements will be probably bear more and sweeter fruit for other designs. Truth be told, many if not most of the advancements that might be available in horn development for home use, will probably never see the light of day, because they probably aren’t worth the investment due to market considerations. What ever future horn development there might be, will probably be geared to commercial venue applications in which high fidelity might not be the highest priority.
--
... The very concept of a horn suggests to me a distortion creator. I’m not completely satisfied with audio reproduction as it currently exists. I just think other design considerations might hold much more promise, such as the German Physiks carbon fibre DDD. Well, those are some of your replies going to page 4 (of 20), and there’s a lot more in there. I’ve omitted posts of yours with more theoretical detailing (also due to their heavy context), not that they mayn't be important (on their own), but I’m somehow skeptical of the accuracy and translatability of theory in support of listening impressions. I’ll refrain from any comment on your views this moment, as the hour is late here (01:30am local time), but I’ll get back. Perhaps others will be "inspired" by some of your quoted views here in the meantime, and please, folks, while avoiding a flaming war. |
@soundsrealaudio I like horns, except for the fact that they sound shouty, forward, bright, beamy. The older style wood Klp type speakers sound boarning, slow, heavy and us resolving. I do like them however, I am no hater. That’s classical "generalized BS," as stated by poster @dev , wrapped in candy paper. You might as well have written, or it essentially says: "I hate horns, but I do like them." And now a bunch of people are flying off their couches, pointing their fingers, and telling us we’re overly defensive of horn speakers? Come on, going by your description as quoted above I can only deduce you’ve never heard a good horn speaker, be it hybrid or all-horn, and just assembled the "best of horn-bashing terms" in a bundle and delivered it handily. With "older style wood Klp type speakers," are you referring to Klipsch? And with "older style" (i.e.: Heritage series?) - do you mean the all-horns (they’re certainly included)? And you equate those speakers with " boarning (boring?), slow, heavy and us resolving"? I’m sorry to put this bluntly, but that’s simply a load of b*llocks. Compared to an all-horn Klipsch (i.e.: La Scala, Belle, K-horn), be they up to 50-70 years old, most anything contemporary non-horn will sound sluggish, slow, heavy and boring. The older Klipsch horns could ring like bells in the mids and highs, and if not paired with quality tube amps (and instead with SS amps of the time then) could be a trying and unpleasant listen, I’m sure, but the aforementioned traits stand the test of time no matter what, and still by a winning mile compared to most of the direct radiating speakers of today. And, when you combine those traits with the newer horn profiles of today, better (more sturdy) horn materials, better cross-overs, even better drivers for the midrange and tweeter and an overall better construction quality (not that the original Klipsch’s were bad as such) - such as seen with Simon Mears Audio, Volti Audio and others - you have yourself a blisteringly good sonic package. I can only assume though telling you this will be all in vain. |
@kosst_amojan The old Klipsch stuff is exactly why people have the opinions they do today about horns and I think denying that is simply intellectually dishonest. I hope the intent with my reply above to poster @soundsrealaudio was absolutely clear. As you point out the older Klipsch horns are particularly "memorable" for their sonic behavior, so much indeed as to be used continuously as a case in a contemporary debate for the proposed failings of horn speakers. Surely there’s an anachronism at play here, right? My gripe with the aim at the older Klipsch stuff by named poster were the exact areas pointed out by him; not some others for which they’re so disliked - depending though on the context. I’m sure I’ll get crucified for pointing this out, but there isn’t even consensus in the horn camp about what good horns and bad horns are. If you read over this thread you see some saying horn hybrids suck, but others love them. Some say the vintage ones are good. Others say good horns require advanced engineering and exceptional materials. And at some point somebody has said some horn is great so many times here practically every horn ever made has been named. I’ll bet I could take this crowd and put them in a room and see debates about just horns become as heated as horns vs dynamic drivers. No arguing here, I believe you are right in pointing this out, but as you can see the diversity of opinion and actual representation (of horn speakers) in such a discussion hardly justifies calling all horn/-hybrids under the same banner as in "all horns suck," just as well as claiming that "all horns are great" would seem dubious. I don’t see a consensus in this thread where a differentiated approach to horn sound is argued, but rather that a one-sided bashing is severely, and rightfully opposed. I have also seen proponents (i.e.: makers) of horns go on to claim that only their specific approach to horns is what produces the right sound, but you have to wonder whether this isn’t truly and solely in the interest of their own business, rather than attempting an objective take on the potential of a variety of viable horn approaches (as a marketing ploy it’s certainly easier to claim the proficiency of a single approach rather than several). Navigating in all this dispute even, which is also a condition among other speakers principles, shouldn’t detract from the fact that there are people liking horn speakers for "sound" reasons, one way or the other, and using, say, appeal to the masses arguments won’t carve in stone tablets what’s inherently right or (typically accused) wrong with horn sound. You have to ask yourself the difference of context for people to make their claims; what’s the true observation here going by the same premise or set of conditions, apart from what’s merely taste? Hardly a realistic outlook, and as such much of the source for the wild debate. It’s a complicated matter indeed, but one that with effort(!) is still manageable to (hopefully) be a little wiser about. |
@atmasphere ... a plus is they [i.e.: horns] can play a lot louder ...
Indeed, and by a wide margin, but importantly it’s also how this ability (not least as a product of much higher sensitivity) translates into a sense of effortlessness not only at elevated SPL’s, but at more "sane" playback levels as well. There seems not to be much awareness or even conscious appreciation of this crucial trait in sound reproduction, ease, which is a shame given how much say it has into setting the music free as a musical event "just happening" in front of you. Lastly, and at the opposite end of the SPL scale, horns very often excel with their sense of aliveness and "ignition" (also an overlooked trait) at lower volumes, which really gives them an advantage over the whole spectrum of playback level in this regard. |
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. Most haven’t really heard horn speakers at all, let alone very good horn speakers. Those that have have heard hybrids mostly, and though hybrid solutions can sound wonderful they are, in their less dedicated iterations, commonly plagued by continuity problems between the midrange horn and the direct radiating unit(s) for the lower frequencies, not to speak of other inherent and potential issues that can mare any kind of speaker principle. If you fail the sound of a hybrid solution that incorporates a horn be aware that you’re addressing a combination, but a combination of what? Not only a horn, suffice it to say.
All-horn speakers aren’t necessarily devoid of problems either, but more often than not I find all-horn iterations to be more dedicated in their approach and less apologetic, in a sense, of their origin and type of speaker. Going all-horn in other words I find typically embraces what horn speakers truly are qua horns, with all that implies in regards to size, system requirements and overall implementation; you go the horn route you damn well better go all the way and make it dedicated (which very often simply means going a different way to unlearn much of what one has been accustomed to over time), to really be able to get a bearing on their true worth and potential.
Even then such a dedicated setup won’t appeal to everyone, but how is that indicative of anything? I gather at least 98% of audiophiles out there use direct radiating solutions (be they dynamic coil-diaphragm drivers, electrostatic, ribbon, "radial strahler" or whatever that aren’t loading an acoustic impedance transformer, i.e.: a horn) - which, whether you want this or not, very generally has a distinctive sonic imprinting (and set of limitations) in itself - with a minority of those using hybrid solutions involving horns, and very often just by virtue of a difference to what one is used to a very capable set of all-horn speakers can be deemed "thumbs-down" just by failing to conform to your preferred type of "cuisine." Some hearing the dynamic capabilities of all-horn speakers even go so far as to stir the notion of "exaggerated dynamics," and that pretty much hits the nail on the head with regard to the importance of context, and how things can get "distorted" here..
For the sake simplicity, if we maintain ~98% of all audiophiles to use direct radiating speakers, would that reflect a consensus into what has the biggest sonic potential, not least compared to a live acoustic reference? Now let this question seep for a while before you go vicious on the keyboard. I’ll cut to the chase however with my take on an answer to this by saying: no. Is this a way then to disqualify or deflate much if not most of the vitriol against "horn" speakers? In a way, yes, because in most cases we aren’t really addressing horn speakers qua horns, but instead hybrids that aren’t really this nor that.
If we want to address horn speakers that truly are, let’s address them as such and not some watered-down entity that sits between to two chairs, and then go out and listen to some bloody all-horn speakers to know what they can be. Whether conical or curved, old or new, I’d advice to rid oneself of prejudice and expectation, even habit, and let them have their shot, so to speak.
In essence: the controversy surrounding "horns," as I see it, has more to do with misinformation, confusion of definition, convenience and habitual bias than any actual assessment of a pair of true horn speakers. I don’t mean to blast those who do not prefer them, but would rather be without theory-laden and reductive arguments that seeks to ridicule them as a whole. I that regard certainly, let’s not beat the bushes..
|
@kosst_amojan --
Siegfried Linkwitz is the guy out there making foolishness out of all the "narrow dispersion is good" silliness. Maybe it's good in a PA, but not a living room. This crowd here deliberately avoids and ignores anything that disagrees with their OPINIONS. That's the source of this controversy.
You're trying to make factual a supposedly overriding sonic flaw with horn speakers with reference to their dispersive nature of directivity - because you heard all or some of them and suddenly finds it a compelling conclusion to deliver? Or, because it's a convenient (albeit irrelevant) theoretical stance that requires little on your part? Why is narrow dispersion a bad thing with speakers in domestic environments? Edge diffraction - does it occur with all horns, and to what extend does it really matter going by actual auditioning? Does any sought theoretical explanation correlate with your actual listening experience in this regard, or rather: how would it? Any other theory-laden straw man you care to pull from your magic hat? There was a time when you indulged - to a limited extend, one might add - in this discussion from an outset of actual LISTENING experience (the only thing that matters, right?), or to give it a chance with a range of or certain horn speakers, which in fact always comes down to OPINION. So please, don't try and direct this to where the proponents of horn sound avoid the arguments of anyone in disagreement, but rather see it as a reaction to any want of equating horn sound as a whole with a factually based flaw - one based on theory, no less. This is becoming trite. Move on. |
@johnk -- Open your mind and ears and give a horn system a unbiased extended listen.. I think most never do so before they comment negatively and rely on hearsay and bias to form opinion.
+1 |
… Most horn systems are physically large, and like a lot of other large speakers, they deliver a "big" sound. The sound seems to fill up a large volume of space and envelop the listener. I like this quality a lot. When one listens to tiny speakers, even when they play quite loudly, one can sense that the sound is coming from a small source and it does not seem to have realistic scale.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Being ’enveloped’ (a very fitting term here) by sound the way large horns can do while providing proper-ish scale is what really sets them apart from most others speakers, I find. Another aspect that is inherently linked to this sensation is that of effortlessness; it de-stresses the sound in a way that is both relaxing and more believable. Smaller, direct radiating speakers can sound "large" in a different, spatial way, but they don’t load the listening space in the same authoritative, solid and room-lock kind of way. |
I’ll agree with most of the above, and most of that is exactly why I dislike horns. I’ve never attended an acoustic performance that sounded anything like what I’ve heard through a horn system.
I don’t know the horns you’re referring to here, but like any speaker (principle) a given iteration could be less representative of live, acoustic sound, just like another could, conversely, be more favorable. What’s more surprising to me is reading this: A quartet doesn’t sound room filling or enveloping. It doesn’t have startling dynamics. It doesn’t sound huge.
My first inclination is thinking you’re willfully obstinate here, because it goes quite contrary to my own impressions. No "to each their own" here, but more like: really? The scale and imaging I find in the live performances I’ve heard is much more like the dynamic speakers I’ve heard than any horn.
Why I’d have to reiterate my prior question about which horn speakers you’ve heard, or which live concerts forms the basis for your statement. On second thought I’m wondering whether you’re mostly referring to the spatial aspect of the sound, and that this may be where your preference lies with speakers that aren’t horns, if it’s even a valid distinction between them. People may have different "filters" in regards to what they’re listening for at a live, acoustic concert (or any auditioning event for that matter), that could lead to a variety of different descriptions about the sonic culprits each individual is hearing. I’m sure I’ll be jumped on because I’ve never experienced a live acoustic performance that’s sounded anything like what horns do. I’ve never heard any violin, clarinet, or kettle drum really sound huge or enveloping in any venue.
I’m more confounded than aggravated by your stance, and the part regarding "huge sound" needs some explanation: big horn speakers sounding "big" to me is about having proper scale and emulating a realistic sonic size, rather than sounding "huge" per se. Good horn sound is also about proper, uninhibited presence. Once at a classical concert I attended (can’t remember which, but it was rather large scale, symphonic), I was thinking more elaborately about the problem of remembering how a live concert sounds, and how to recall that in front of the stereo at home for comparisons sake. It then occurred to me, at the classical concert, to close my eyes and in a way turn things on its head; I vividly imagined I was sitting in front of my stereo in that very moment, as a simple mind trick, and that turned out to be quite revelatory to me being that I suddenly realized what a live classical concert sounded like - in front of the stereo, no less! To me at least "bringing the home stereo environment to the live concert" is much more effective than taking a live sonic memory with you home. That said not with the intention of being lecturing, but simply a mere anecdote on how I’m trying to cope with live, acoustic sound as an ideal in a sense for what to strive for in reproduced form. |
@kosst --
Going by your experience and the venues in which you’ve predominantly(?) heard "horn" speakers (again, most of them have likely been hybrids; not that this is necessarily a bad thing sonically, but it waters down the model of definition here), and being that this is mostly the pro-arena (i.e.: cinema speakers which uses mostly horn hybrids are usually not the worst representatives of "horn" sound, I find, but bear in mind they’re sometimes driven upwards of their limits), I’d say you may be in for a pleasant surprise with a pair of well-implemented, quality all-horn or horn hybrid speakers in a domestic environment. "honky, distorted sound" is nothing at all like what a pair of quality horn speakers will bring to the day, certainly not least when played at more moderate levels in a home, but if a sound that deviates from many if not most direct radiating smaller speakers by virtue of simply offering up a larger, more effortless, present and enveloping presentation, and that these traits are for some reason not to your liking, then I guess our case here must finally come to rest. However, I’m thinking you may be mixing up sonically detrimental artifacts from your overall pro-arena horn sound experience - where many aspects "come into play" to negatively affect the sound quality - with what are truly assets in quality horn sound reproduction in carefully implemented home setups. As for JBL, I’ve come to find their current 44-range, K2’s and Everest iterations to be overpriced, and I can tell you there are indeed much better (all-)horn speakers out there, and for less money - certainly going by my inkling for good sound.
I’m hoping you’ll some day be treated with a good demo of horn speakers in a home setting (let us know if an audition at poster @mrdecibel will eventually be arranged, and what you’ll come to find of it). I’d be glad to demo my own setup for you, but I reside in Europe (Scandinavia) and may not be the most obvious candidate.
|
... If mid bass and bass are proper horns they yield some of the best mid bass and bass availble but as I mentioned above its were product gets compromised DIY types are free to build proper sized but they are not easily availble maybe this is part of the issue hardly anyone has heard or owned full range all horn loaded systems and they take knowledge and sometimes real physical work to set up. And face it most just want to easily buy just open box and plug in. But with many things in life sometimes whats easy and convenient is not whats best.
The size of an all-horn system that extends down 20-30Hz range, or even lower, is not trivial, certainly not with dual subs or more. DIY is usually the approach to seek here as there are relatively few pre-assembled solutions to be had, and the ones that are typically counts pro subs tuned higher (around 35-45Hz, perhaps) for more pronounced midbass impact. Danley Sound Labs on the other hand, a pro reinforcement manufacturer, offer viable horn sub alternatives for domestic use, some of which extends down 20Hz and lower. The very few "hifi" options there are of horn subs are really outrageously priced and mostly statement products (what’s expensive here tends to simply be luxury finish, added to more complex product assembly), and this narrows down the appeal to the über-wealthy that are hardly representative of audiophiles in general. So, DIY or used Vintage is the route to go (if not Danley), and this often requires some elaborate research to get a bearing on the iterations that suit one’s needs and possible practical limitations the best. It’s an interesting journey, however, and there are DIY-communities around (like Avsforum, Bill Fitz Maurice forum, Klipsch ditto and others) that are very helpful to aid one’s quest here. My own tapped horn subs extends to 20Hz, and it’s a different bass compared to the direct radiator subs I’ve heard - indeed, I’ve never heard bass of this quality before. Horn bass like this doesn’t have what I regard as a degree of thickening, smear and slightly massive feel of some if not most DR subs, and the sheer presence, smoothness, ease and informative nature of TH(/FLH) subs is rather unique. Horn bass somehow sounds less like "bass" and more like an enveloping, differentiated downwards extension (with a livelier upper band as well), and it can give the initial impression that some of the more heavy-handed or even ponderous weight and "pulsating" nature of DR’s is a disadvantage with movies in particular. You quickly realize though, or so I find, that the differentiation of horn bass opens it up with better dynamics to boot, and it makes for a more whole, coherent overall experience. You might think that boxes this big (in my case 20 cubic feet per horn) would overwhelm the experience (and of course you could make them if dialed too hot) as a sonic bass entity per se, but quite to the contrary they blend in more effectively; they’re simply easier to integrate with all-horn mains, I find, with the proviso that the size of the horns themselves can be a challenge to make acoustically invisible in one’s listening room, unless space is sufficient of even abundant. In any case I’m still baffled to see "horn" speaker manufacturers mostly resort to DR subs to augment the horns in the frequency range above, seeing how it usually diminishes the coherency, sheer quality and dynamics of the sound. As horn proponents I'd urge to let size be size, and physics have their say; are we audiophiles or not? :) |
Greg Timbers (of JBL) on the evolution of loudspeakers, and how you really can’t fool physics nor the importance of efficiency:
How has the sound of speakers changed over the years? Many yearn for the speakers of the past over those of today… what has changed? Distortion, materials, focus on sound characteristics? - Speakers have generally become smoother, more 3-dimensional and much smaller. This means that they are less dynamic on the whole and rather toy like compared to good stuff from the 60s and 70s. Unlike electronics, miniaturization is not a good thing with loudspeakers. There is no substitute for size and horsepower. Nothing much has changed with the laws of physics in the last 100 years so what it takes to make dynamic life-like sound is unchanged. There have been some advances in magnet materials and a bunch of progress in adhesives but not much else. The cost of a 70s system in today’s economy would be considered unaffordable and the system would be deemed unnecessarily huge. The large highly efficient systems of old came at a time when 15 – 30 watts of power was the norm. Today’s stuff would choke on those amplifiers. Now that power is cheap, size and efficiency has been thrown out the window because you can always apply more power. Unfortunately, more power does not make up for lack of efficiency. Today’s speakers range between 0.1% to maybe 0.5% in efficiency. (On a good day) 60s and 70s stuff was more like 1% to 10%. With most of the losses gong to heat, turning up the power on a small system with small voice coils and poor heat management is definitely not equivalent to a large high efficient speaker. It is true that the response of many of the old systems was a bit ragged and generally less attention was put in the crossover networks because simplicity generally means higher through-put. However, the big Altec’s, JBL’s, Klipsch’s and Tannoys of the day would still fair well today with a little modernization of the enclosures and crossovers. Today’s multi-channel home theater setups let a bunch of small toy loudspeakers and a sub or two sound pretty big and impressive to the average Joe. I think speakers have mostly become a commodity and small size and price are what counts the most now. The few high-end brands left are struggling for market share in this age of ear buds.
https://positive-feedback.com/interviews/greg-timbers-jbl/ |
