Why not horns?

Mapman, what makes it a "credible source"?

"he's entitled to his opinion"

Yes, opinions are opinions but for any somewhat credible source to indicate that $1000 low end speakers from one line can match $21000 lower end models from another and higher end models selling for only a few thousand more outperform the $21000 speakers using a similar technology in every way is an eye opener that at least has to make one take notice.

Macrojack, that link seems have started with regard to a driver, not horns in particular, though it did seem to drift there, at least in part to you.
A few audiophiles are unaware of the performance limitations locked up in this technology.

Mapman, those horn loaded German Physiks are at the lower end of the line for German Physiks. Their top tier products don't use horns. As for the reviewer, I have no idea who he is, but he's entitled to his opinion.

http://www.soundadviceblog.com/sound-systems/ces-2009-21000pair-german-physiks-unicorn-speaker-system/

I found this article that mentions both older and newer OHM Walsh designs compared to the German Physiks. The reviewer indicates that the $22000 German Physiks was no better than the $1000 OHMs. Go figure! They must have screwed up the horn part somehow! Horns are hard to do right, you know!

Here's a thread from last year that might shed some light on the subject. Please note the same few people chiming in then as now in behalf of horns. That indicates to me the need for a broader base of knowledge on the subject.Too few audiophiles are aware of the performance potential locked up in this technology.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1238177483&openfrom&17&4

OK, back on topic, German Physiks has a model that attempts to achieve full range with the DDD driver by horn loading it called the Unicorn.

Has anybody ever heard these? I always found a horn loaded Walsh driver to be a quite unique concept.

Mapman, the original Ohms Walsh driver was not a one way speaker, there were different segments. Though it might not have used an electrical cross-over, there were indeed mechanical cross-overs. Still a brilliant idea, that I think might has been improved upon by the German Physiks DDD, which appears to be a single driver. I think we're getting off topic now.

"Another thing that makes the Ohm speakers unique (then and now) is that they are almost a 1-way speaker. The CLS driver handles frequencies from the bass through about 10kHz, at which time they (finally) hand off to a (metal) dome tweeter. In doing so, they remain completely free of all known deleterious effects of crossovers usually located in the all-important midrange. Coherence is the natural by-product of one driver doing most of the talking - or singing as it were. So are phase coherence and time alignment."

This quote from a six moons review of one of the OHM Walsh designs pretty much states the case for the OHM CLS driver achieving a high degree of coherency in that a single driver handles all but the uppermost frequencies. I think this is an established fact regarding the OHM CLSs in that it has been reported in many reviews over the years and never brought into question or challenged at least in any reputable publication I know of.

Also, Macrojack, John Dunlavy was known for claiming that his later Dunlavy Audio Labs speakers were superior to his earlier Duntech designs precisely because the "new" (at the time) MLSSA system gave him the opportunity to measure far more precisely and implement his theories to a greater degree.
This was late '93, early '94.

Anyway, back to horns!!! (didnt want to hijack this thread, haha.)

Macrojack,
Those TC-50s are notorious for showing up in any discussion of time coherence. They've become practically an iconic item in the discussion.
Because they used a first order filter on the mid/woofer driver and had that distinctive slanted baffle it is often assumed that they were time coherent.
Stereophile measured the speaker before they obtained the MLSSA system so some of the measurements related to time were not available.
However, it has since been shown that they are not time coherent. It is estimated that they sounded so damn good because the primary driver handling the midrange was using a first order filter and therefor had a very nice impulse response, which the old stereophile measurements DO show.

Cheers!

"Again, I'm not the one making the claims"

No, but you are questioning them. All vendors make claims. If you have questions, you should ask and get the answers.

I believe the claims to be true based on what I know of the design and what I hear. But that does not prove anything especially to a skeptic now does it?

I wonder if John Bau gave this matter any thought when he created the Spica TC-50? When was that, like 1982?

Again, I'm not the one making the claims.

"Perhaps some evidence to support those claims might be appropriate? "

Perhaps.

The OHMs seem to work and sound as claimed as best I can tell. I see no evidence to indicate false advertising or other less than honest business practices.

Also I am sure most OHM customers don't care about technical details. Listening is all the proof that really matters.

Again, if you have questions regarding the technology, best to address them to the man who knows the answers, John Strohbeen. I'm always interested to hear what John says. I find it almost always understated but accurate.

Unsound, ALL time coherent designers think/thought this. Vandersteen, Thiel, Johnson, etc.
It is the single measurement that most distinctly shows the output signal as it relates to time. And timing was the paramount issue for all of these guys.

Prdprez, John Dunlavy also thought the step response was the most important measurement.

Exactly Herman! What you've stated is the crux of the argument FOR time coherence. What I stated is the over simplified reasoning given by designers who use steep filters.
They point to "phase coherence" but the only thing they are measuring is sine waves.

As far as "alignment" versus "coherent" go, well, maybe just semantics. Thats fine. I'll go just one step further using a different explanation from another designer and then let it be. Because to each their own.
Anyway. This is how Pat McGinty basically explained the difference in his mind.
Take two drivers, a tweeter and a midrange and you mount them on a flat baffle. Connect the positive leads together and the negative leads together. Take a 9V battery and tap the leads against the battery. The microphone will see two distinct upward spikes. (assuming you touched positive to positive, etc.) Then you start to slant the baffle backwards an increment and repeat the battery test. The result is that the spikes will converge a little bit because the acoustic center of the tweeter physically leads the midrange and, assuming the tweeter is on top, the more you slant it backwards the more the tweeters acoustic center moves backwards towards the acoustic center of the midrange. Perpendicular to the horizon is the frame of reference here.
Anyway, at some point the microphone will see one convergent spike. This is what they consider the physical time alignment of the two speakers. And this was basically the first step of the design process used by Meadowlark, once they decided on the drivers they were going to use.

So at this point the drivers acoustic centers are aligned at the precise point in space that the microphone sees them as one.
So if you now apply a good and appropriate first order filter to the drivers you should end up with a fairly accurate step response. This is what they consider time coherent because it is the only way that all frequencies arrive at the microphone (or ear) at exactly the same time. And, actually, Meadowlark's were pretty good at this.
But, if you applied a fourth order filter as was the case with the Hales Transcendence Five speaker that I referenced. (And also once owned) you end up with a step response like what you see in the Stereophile article. If you bypassed the crossover in those Hales and set up a microphone at a normal listening level at a normal listening distance and applied the 9V battery test (Note: you aren't trying to pass DC through the drivers, only create a "tick" response by quickly touching the leads) you would see a single spike from all the "ticks" arriving at the same time.
But you pass music through the steep crossover on the way to those same drivers and what happens is that, because of the steep filter, you see the tweeter lead the mid, and the mid lead the woofer. In this case the acoustic centers of each driver are time "aligned" but the speaker is not time "coherent".

Anyway, as I said, these are the distinctions that Time Coherent designers make. And, like Pat McGinty always said, "All you really need to do is look at the step resonse because if that isnt right then nothing else matters." And, for better or worse, these were the decisions and distinctions these guys made. The fact that there are so few who make speakers like this is a very loud statement as to the importance the industry as a whole grants these principles.

Cheers!!

Po-Tay-To = Po-Tah-To

Let's call the whole thing off.

The difference is that some frequencies started before others. The delayed ones are a full cycle behind. They are still phase coherent but not time coherent.

It's not that simple. What you describe can only apply to steady state sine waves. Music is a complex wave with many frequencies starting and stopping and varying in amplitude. Different frequencies get shifted different amounts as they get rolled off so they don't line up like the original. They are not phase coherent.

I still say time alignment = time coherent. I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

.

Mapaman, I'm not the one making the claims. Ohm's web site makes some claims using some audio buzz words, but, they don't seem to be used correctly. Perhaps some evidence to support those claims might be appropriate?

Macrojack, YES, that is the precise way to describe it. It is 360degrees out of phase. But if you take a snapshot in time and look at the waveform (sine waves show this best, obviously) it LOOKS like it is aligned because all of the peaks and valleys matchup.
And herein is where the marketing BS starts to really get out of control. Well, in one manner anyway.

I'm still trying to find the place on the web that helped me the most in understanding how first order filters result in zero phase shift. Haven't found it yet..........

Different / Better example........
Herman, here is a different example of a speaker that is "time aligned" but with a high order crossover. (Linkwitz/Riley I believe.)

All of the drivers are in the same polarity as well. It's easier to see the delay that the crossover imposes. But I think (dont hold me to this) it IS phase aligned.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/699hales/index4.html

If you are a full wavelength behind, wouldn't that make you 360 degrees out of phase?

It would also seem logical that "out of phase" signals, regardless of cause, are less of an issue for longer wavelengths than for higher frequency discrepancies. In my case, there is no crossover of any type or description, real or imagined, above 300 hz. At the crossover point I have a wavelength of 45 inches. I correct for the 16 inches of front to rear positioning between my drivers by utilizing a half meter of time delay in my DBX. I'm not sure the difference would be very audible though.

Different / Better example........
Herman, here is a different example of a speaker that is "time aligned" but with a high order crossover. (Linkwitz/Riley I believe.)

All of the drivers are in the same polarity as well. It's easier to see the delay that the crossover imposes. But I think (dont hold me to this) it IS phase aligned.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/699hales/index4.html

Herman, there certainly has been much debate over the merits of time coherency.
Just to clarify one point first. The way they describe it, time "coherent" demands time "alignment". But the reverse is not true.

You're point about phase is certainly correct. But I think there is also a distinction with the "when" of phase. For instance, it's either the 2nd order or 4th order filter (I can't remember which) that is phase coherent in the crossover region. Which is to say, all the peaks and valley's line up. The difference is that some frequencies started before others. The delayed ones are a full cycle behind. They are still phase coherent but not time coherent.

The easiest way I found to grasp it was to note that TIME coherent was at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. Indeed, most people, when refereing to this type of design, say "Time AND phase coherent". But it's redundant to say that since time coherent demands phase coherent. It demands both time alignment and phase alignment. These other two could be achieved individually by means of physical placement or filter makeup. But both, on their own, was only part of the story. Anyway, thats the best way I know to describe it.
Also, I think phase alignment and coherent ARE the same thing. But I'll have to think about that a little more to be sure. No, I think its true. anyway..........

First order filters do have phase shifting but the filter circuit as a whole compensates. The current lag in an inductor is the same degree (hopefully) as the voltage lag in a capacitor. But, I'm going to have to think about that some more before I try to go any further. I want to make sure I don't mistate anything.

The one measurement that is the arbiter of all this is the acoustical step resonse. Two speakers that easily show this is Wilson and Dunlavy. Both are time "aligned".
Wilson: http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/920/index6.html
Dunlavy: http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/162/index10.html

Looking at the step responses. Though, be careful when reading what JA has to say. I've noticed that over the years he throws all the descriptions around without much measure of consistency.

The short of it is this. The only speaker design that shows a step response (and therefor the most accuracy in the time domain) that mimics the input is a "time coherent" design. Ala Dunlavy, Vandersteen, Meadowlark, etc etc. They are the only ones that approach the right triangle form.

The merits of this? Well, like I said, Hotly debated.

I gotta run. More later.
Cheers!

"Mapman, I'm not sure that Ohm's current non-bending wave non-Walsh drivers qualify."

I guess you'd have to take that up with John Strohbeen to know for sure.

Mapman, I'm not sure that Ohm's current non-bending wave non-Walsh drivers qualify.

Prez, I hear what you are saying but I think the manufacturers are using terminology to confuse the layman in an attempt to carve out a unique slot in the marketplace. In other words, marketing BS. A change in arrival time is a change in phase no matter how it is done. They are synonymous. If you read Thiels papers they admit as much.

Either the different frequencies arrive at the ear with the same timing relationship they had when they were put on the recording or they do not. If not it could be that the drivers aren't aligned, That a digital or electronic delay was employed, or there is a phase shift through some reactive device like a crossover.

If they want to distinguish phase shifts caused by crossovers as phase coherency since they are frequency dependent and those caused by driver alignment as time coherency since they are not frequency dependent I'm on board with that, but time alignment and time coherency are the same thing.

By eliminating all reactive components after my amps (no crossover what so ever) and implementing the crossovers digitally before the amps I should only have phase shifts caused by the reactance in the drivers and hopefully the bulk of that is outside the band of frequencies they will be fed.. Each band can also be digitally shifted in time so they should be close to being time and phase coherent to use Thiel's terminology. The purists cringe when you talk about digital processing but so far so good.

One point of clarification, Even first order filters cause phase shift as you approach the cutoff frequency. Thiel claims that they have achieved equal but opposite shifts from the drivers above and below the cutoff so they cancel.

The phase shift is kept low by using very gradual (6 dB/octave) roll-off slopes which produce a phase lag of 45° for the low frequency driver and a phase lead of 45° for the high frequency driver at the crossover point. Because the phase shift of each driver is much less than 90° and is equal and opposite, their outputs combine to produce a system output with no phase shift and perfect transient response.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. If one driver produces a sound shifted in time so it occurs slightly earlier than those in the passband and another produces the same sound slightly later how can that add up to no time change?

.

Cdc - I'm not well schooled in the matters you brought up just now but my sense is that you are demonstrating that an Aveo gets decidedly better mpg. than a Corvette. Of course, you are right but the parameters qualify the argument.

I recall you mentioning earlier that you listen at 65 db. Probably the areas where you find your single driver to excel are dependent on keeping the SPLs down. My average listening level is more like 85 db (still not very loud) and I suspect your single driver might keep up at that level in a small enough room. Mr.decibel would not get much of a bang from that approach, however, because he says he listens at upwards of 100 db., though I can't imagine how.

So, while specifications are very useful, even essential, they are dependent on circumstances and conditions that don't always appear on the stat sheet.

I'm pretty tempted by the logic and testimonials I read about with single drivers but I can't see them as a realistic replacement for my horns.

Cool! Thanks Mapman.
Ima check that out.

Even single driver speakers are not perfectly time and phase coherent. But close enough** to trick us into thinking they are.

** Subject to debate.

"Anyway, thats neither here nor there. Probably not the best choice of words to indicate that the idea of time coherency by design is exceedingly rare. To the best of my knowledge, only Vandersteen and Thiel on a consistent basis anymore."

Also OHM Walsh.

Anyone care to show distortion for horn speakers? Here they are for cone drivers:
Click on "Harmonic Distortion" button for Seas W16NX001

-50dB below the fundamental frequency... not too shabby.

I can see horns being lower distortion because the driver is higher efficiency so not being driven so hard for a given volume level but worse because of the horn induced reflections.

I've been a Time Coherent "fanboy" ever since I first encountered and sold Dunlavy speakers about 15 years ago. And I'm just as passionate about that design as you guys are with horns. But, having a lot of experience with Avantgarde as well, it has always been a curiosity what would happen if these two principles were combined.

Here is a story about a friend of a friend who is attempting to do just that.
http://www.stereotimes.com/jimlangham.shtml

Mr. Langham lived for a long time with the mighty Dunlavy SC6 as his reference. Then he heard these Magicos and began the quest of combining the best of both worlds. The article doesn't mention this part of it. I only know because I know his friend who told me about it.
It might be an interesting article for all you horn guys though!
Cheers!

Thank you for added information Herman. I appreciate it.

I suppose I was using the looser definitions of "unique" as in "distinctly characteristic" or "unusual". (Meriam-Webster goes into a drawn out discussion over the battle of useage on this word. Some scholars thinking it should be used in an absolute sense, others giving it broader application)
Anyway, thats neither here nor there. Probably not the best choice of words to indicate that the idea of time coherency by design is exceedingly rare. To the best of my knowledge, only Vandersteen and Thiel on a consistent basis anymore.

My understanding of the differences between time alignment and time coherence comes mostly from those who care about such distinctions. (John Dunlavy, Pat McGinty, Richard Vandersteen, Roy Johnson, etc. Ah well, John Atkinson too)
According to them, time "alignment" is the physical placement of the drivers with the attempt aligning the leading edge of an impulse. Designs with slanted and concave baffles are attempting this. Wilson Audio, the Focal Utopia line, Avalon, etc. are good examples of this.
The distinction between these designs and those such as Vandersteen and Thiel are in the minimum phase filters. Only minimum phase filters prevent a timing delay within the crossover. So, according to them, time "coherency" is when all frequencies arrive at the same time and in the same phase. Since all filters of a 2nd order or higher delay the signal to some degree, only a minimum filter combined with physical alignment achieves coherency.
Things get a little grey when someone like Hansen comes along. Hansen uses minimum phase filters and physical time alignment but inverts the polarity of (If I remember correctly) the midrange drivers. Thus his speakers are time "coincident". Ie, all frequencies arrive at the same time but some will be out of phase.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share this primer. I doubt I did the concept full justice. So at this point, I would suggest reading the Green Mountain Audio site for more precise info. Roy goes into serious detail. Far more than any of the others did. And it's interesting reading to boot!

I'm just starting to understand the realities of varying digital filters and their "orders". But from what I understand so far, even higher order digital filters have timing delays. But, admittedly, I'm still learning about these bad boys. For now I'm only comfortable with analog filters.

But thats why I was so intrigued by what you (Herman) have done! If your digital filters do preserve the time domain then I'll bet that IS one helluva system!
Cheers!

Prez, you just said "I never said that Thiel was the only time coherent speaker out there"

but in an earlier post you said "A Thiel is time coherent, which makes it unique in this regard."

How can it be unique to Thiel if others do it?

And time alignment is not the same as time coherent.

OK, I read Thiel's description of time coherence, it looks the same as every description of time alignment I've read. I'm willing to be educated. What is the difference?

I have Duo Omegas on top. It is a first order crossover on the tweeter, a single cap in series with the driver.. The mid horn has no passive components. Details on their web site.

My woofer has no passive crossover, it is hooked directly to it's amp just like the mid horn is to it's amp. They are no order, no crossover.

Digital EQ/crossover can be non phase shifting

.

Hello Herman ,

What brand xover are you using , can it do variable slope as well ?

Weseixas: "Which maggies are we discussing?"

Duke: I probably should have picked one model and stuck to it, which I didn't do.

Weseixas: "A speaker shoot out would be interesting!"

Duke: If a "shoot-out" could be arranged that was satisfactory to both, I'd put my $4k bipolar up against the Maggie 3.6. Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like to explore further.

Weseixas: "I also cannot agree that a horn speaker will sound like a planer."

Duke: I'm not expecting you to agree without an ears-on; just hoping to show enough evidence that you'll keep your mind open to the possibility.

Weseixas: [to Macrojack]"I'm sure Duke is proud to have... you for a customer!"

Duke: I wish!! But no, Macrojack isn't a customer of mine, and now that he has a pair of Bill Woods' speakers it is extremely unlikely that he ever will be. I think he's done. Macrojack is passionate, and so are you. If you two had met anywhere other than on the internet, I bet you'd focus on what you have in common rather than where you disagree, and very quickly become friends.

Weisaxas: "Duke, Ralph, I have enjoyed the discourse and wish you both the best in such a tough business...."

Duke: Thank you sir, and I wish you the best in such a tough hobby!

Herman,
I reread your most recent post. Good information. Thanks.
I'm curious. How exactly did you go about implementing a digital crossover without any phase shifts or time issues?

Ohhh,

In case you missed it Macroturd ..

You are pissing on your own thread , I'm sure Duke is proud to have such an ignoramous as you for a customer! with your vast wallet and big ears your listening room must appear to have a pr of horns on either end ...

Well I'm sure it's now your milkey tme ! Many Happies......

MacroTurd,

I'm sorry but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about your idiotic and abrasive rhetoric .

I guess you feel that Duke and Ralph won something ... LOL!
Please enjoy your distortionless speaker (your quote) Professor and get well soon...

Regards,

O. K. wiseass, you've alluded repeatedly to your 30 years of experience designing and building loudspeakers. It seems to be the justification for your opinions and the reason that we should feel subject to your authority. While more than a dozen of us have testified as to actual experience we have in owning and using our horns, you feel that your theories which you value so highly because of your thirty years of experience, thirty years of experience, thirty years of experience is superior to any personal testimonials any of us can issue.
Think about that. Doesn't it make you feel kinda foolish?

Before you bowl us over with more unsubstantiated nonsense about your vast thirty years of experience, try providing a resume. Duke and Ralph have very good credentials and a desire to remain impartial. I find them to be helpful. You come across meanwhile as a grandiose, self inflated, naysayer.

Herman, believe me, I have no desire or intention of getting into another worthless debate with you.

But you do force me to defend myself.
First, I never said that Thiel was the only time coherent speaker out there. Having owned Meadowlark as well as multiple pairs of Dunlavy I can safely say that time coherence is not something new to me. My assertion was simply that the exact speaker in question (Thiel) WAS time coherent and that "most" horns are not because "most horns" that I have encountered do not use first order crossovers.
Clearly, I do not know what YOUR speakers use. But when I look at the pictures of your system I appears to me that the upper horns are the Avantgarde Duo. If this is wrong please share. Yesterday I took apart a pair of Duo horns to see what was inside. On the (stock) pair that I looked at there was certainly more than a single capacitor going to the tweeter. I then measured the speaker and found I was correct in assuming that the Duo was not time coherent. The impulse response and step response clearly show that it is NOT.
THIS is why I said that (quote) "unless you changed the crossovers" neither are yours. I ALSO started off by asking what you meant by "time aligned". This, in other words, was the perfect opportunity for you to explain that indeed YOUR speakers use first order filters.
If indeed they do then they very well may be time coherent.

I am perfectly willing to accept this. But up to this point you have not indicated this is the case with your speakers. And time alignment is not the same as time coherent.

So, as I said. Please indulge the curious here (not only myself. I happen to know that Unsound is also a fan of time coherence).
Please go into more detail on YOUR speakers.
If you have a first order filter on tweeter. Great. What about the midrange and woofer? All three need to have minimum filters for the speaker to be truly time coherent. I am sure you know this. And I ask because I am truly curious. If your speakers use first order from top to bottom then you are only the second person I have come across to implement something that I have been exceedingly curious about for a very long time. Ie. horns+first order.

I am also very curious to know what woofers you are using. If your speakers did start life as an Avantgarde Duo, did you incorporate the stock woofer into your horn?

Thanks.

Herman, I applaud your efforts, I don't believe I have heard a horn system that makes similar claims. It would appear as though you have a rather unique custom speaker system. A speaker system that would be unique to other horns systems, and perhaps even an anathema to some other horn enthusiasts. A speaker system that would not readily be available to the typical consumer. I have concerns that the horns themselves would get in the way of themselves in providing a waveform that would actually be time and phase coherent at the listening position. Still, it's refreshing to see the effort being made. Bravo.

A Thiel is time coherent, which makes it unique in this regard.

Prez, what Thiel calls Time Coherence is time alignment, it is certainly not unique to Thiel. Google "time coherent speakers" and you will find many who make that claim including NSM, Green Mountain, Vandersteen, Meadowlark, and others including mine. I do not care to debate you on this, you are as wrong about this as you were about the last issue.

My physical crossover consists of a single capacitor in line with the tweeter. It is physically aligned with the mids and electronically aligned with the woofer through an electronic delay. All other crossover functions are done digitally with no phase shifts or timing issues. The next step is to get rid of that single cap and triamp completely eliminating any passive components between my amps and drivers.

You can question my methods but my speakers are most definitely time coherent.

.

Why can't we all accept that 'we like what we like'. Many of us have been around the block and have much experience in listening to many different kinds of systems. There are those that have not. I have never said that everyone needs to go out a buy a pair of Lascalas. Only that I enjoy them and feel they do what I want them to do for the price and for the room. I will not bash planars or box speakers because many are very good, as well as, different strokes for different folks. I have left so many forums because this bashing continues......I do not want to leave this one, but honestly....I am sure I will be missed !

Duke, Ralph,

I have enjoyed the discourse and wish you both the best in such a tough business....

It's Audio .. nothing will be unanimous! no Indy 500 checkered flag! Nothing but a bunch of Nutters dedicating their cause to an imaginary goal and just like England , we can't score! No Cup! it's all about the journey.....


Enjoy ! ...............

Hello Ralph,

Yes Duke did comment and clarify on what he is doing in regards to his speakers and they are not a typical monopole horn system, his being a bipolar horn speaker, i do agree this could be a better presentation of a standard horn config and as technology marches on, i can see horn speakers getting better , but better than what? another horn , absolutely! The best available to us absolutely not! others are marching forward too.

I also cannot agree that a horn speaker will sound like a planer, 30 + yrs experience designing and selling speakers tells me not so, the radiating pattern large surface area and lower transient distortion vs a single driver over the same range are typical standouts.

But i do reserve the right to be wrong here, but that would entail hearing one of these magic Horns..... right ?

Don't feel this is all Horn bashing there are bad planers 2, Recall me saying 90% of the speakers on the market are bad , some really bad ! This is across the board affecting some topologies more than others, and i have heard bad electrostatic speaker on many occasions , as recently as a few months ago ....

I will continue to listen and enjoy the music, there are many multi panel planer systems capable of reproducing the best of a recording, not shy for bass and lacking nothing to a horn speaker for power not to mention multi panel dynamic dipole systems that are way ahead of any Horn system i have ever heard and i could accept that even with my contacts and exposure at the highest level of the game, that i may have never heard a good horn system...

I will have to accept your's and Duke's word for it, as you mine that they will not approach the sound of a well built planer system....? IMO ..

Regards,

"The better the technologies get the more they sound the same and that is simply because the better any technology gets, the more it sounds like real music."

I can agree with that!

And yes, I have heard horns that conform to this assertion as well!