Why not horns?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Kiddman, I don't recall ever reading copies of the Absolute Kiddman or of Kiddmanfile. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about the use of a similar descriptive language before Holt or HP did. So what? The point is that it was they that took the leap and made the investment to found their magazines and introduce me and countless others to it. Isn't that alone deserving of credit? You seem hell bent on not giving them any credit. I am truly curious as to why that is. Perhaps a clue lies in your hint that you are in the industry. BTW, no one has said anything like:

****To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words.****

****gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?****

HP revered the great engineers like Layton and Wilkinson and gave them their due many times over in his reviews of their recordings as well as discussing their techniques.

It seems obvious to me that there is something going on here beyond a simple wish to set the record straight. I for one would be interested in knowing what that is.

Ah, history is so easy to swing to your position when you are doing the reporting.

Harry claimed he pioneered the use of many words as related to audio and they certainly were not all true.

"High end" is the most ridiculous one.

As for "soundstage", I have used, and heard others use, words like "placement", "positioning", "3d" before we ever read HP or Holt. Many of us identified the lack of 3 dimensionality of CD before HP ever reported on a CD player.

To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words is ludicrous. Before HP or Holt ever took pen to paper stereo was long since out there....gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?

All the greats that MADE it happen, who knew what they were putting out long before HP came on the scene, are shortchanged by the revisionist history that says HP taught everyone about such matters as imaging, depth, etcetera.

HP and many reviewers are great at taking credit for what they are critiquing, as if they were the cause of the advances. That's just not reality.

Mapman, I remember there was an Ohm model that got good reviews back in the early 80's in Stereophile and maybe TAS too. I can't remember the model, but I want to say it was about a $750.00 speaker at the time. I still have all my old copies in storage. One day I'll try to dig them up.

I've got every single TAS from about issue 2 or 3 through around 1997 or so and when I was a kid, I memorized them cover to cover. Regarding horns, my recollection was (and I could be remembering wrong) that HP kind of dismissing them, but at the same time, every once in awhile, he'd unexpectedly say a nice thing about a trait of Klipschorns. I seem to remember thinking that he'd occasionaly contradict himself on them.

Given his influence, still sounds like horn designs were largely ignored by HP back in his day, and that may be one (not the only reason) that horn speakers do not get as much attention today (or over the years since their heyday) as they might deserve.

On the other hand, over the years, I have heard a lot more poor or mediocre sounding horn based systems than really good ones. Only in more recent years again it seems have a large variety of vendors seemed to endeavor hard to get the design right and also make them affordable and in a package whose size has appeal for more as well.

So the comment earlier that HP did a disservice to horns somehow seems to ring true to me, even if the error was merely one of omission, in that he was in search of TAS apparently so cost, size etc. should not have been a limit.

Did he ever review any Walsh style speakers set up well?

If not then I'll pin that disservice on the poor guy as well. :^)

Ralph, way wrong. There were great horns when Harry hated them.....Tannoys have been great for a long time, various JBLs were, horns were all over in recording studios sounding great.

Kiddman, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I happen to agree there were great horns when hp made that statement and one of my early customers was making Hartsfield reproductions which sounded great at the audio shows in the late 80s and early 90s. I was running Altecs with dual 15" woofers back in the 1970s... Anyway my point was with my last post that hp would certainly not say that today.

As far as contributions- hp created most of the vernacular we audiophiles use to describe the sound of our stereos- 'soundstage', the use of color descriptions to describe tonality ('bright', 'dark', etc.). He was one of the very first to describe the sound of equipment based on listening. Stereo Review and other magazines around at the time simply did not do that. Nowadays we take that sort of thing for granted. So his contributions should not be ignored even if you don't agree with his reviews. He had a serious influence on high end audio.

Really? I don't think so; my heroes make music and sound not write about them. Here's what I do know: I can't remember a time that I bought a recording that he recommended, and then, when judging the sound of the recording on my system not being able to verify what he described. Operative word here is MUSIC. I am not aware of anyone else being so articulate and accurate (aargh!) in the way that he wrote about recorded music; and the passion with which he did so. That is good enough for me. Additionally, I can't think of a component that he spoke highly of and which I then owned (not many), or had extensive experience with, that I disagreed with his assessment of. The man has great ears.

Frogman, you are suffering from a bit of hero worship and unfortunately don't really know the real scenarios that played out. Neither do you know the sound there over those years, obviously.

dc10audio is all horns!

Funny, because I transitioned from a pair of Crosby Quads (which I still have) to my horn system back in 2006 or so, largely because I wanted the best of both worlds- the dynamics and vividness of the 'big system' together with the open, unboxed quality of the Quad (though i still think, at least in the midrange, the 57 is better than the 63, even as modified). I don't remember HP overtly bashing horns, perhaps he did. Or was it a sin of omission?

Perhaps your reality, not mine. I think your comment "The systems always could play loud, and usually did, could go deep in the bass and with a lot of volume, and threw big images. But to get those traits they often veered quite a bit away from truth in tonality." is a gross mis characterization of reality. As you may (or not, apparently) recall his reference systems were broken into categories: large, medium and small. While it is true that his no.1 reference speaker system was the IRS he championed many smaller ones like the Crosby Quads (and who can argue with the "truth in tonality" of those), smaller Thiels, Proacs and Sequerras to name just a couple. But, more importantly, I think you miss the point of the bigger picture. HP was TAS, and the adherence to strict standards of reviewing (flaws and all) and variety of opinion expressed by his chosen reviewers (and subsequent rebuttals) was something that was unparalleled. Sure he was a gear head; so what? That in no way detracts from his loftier contributions. He had a tremendous amount of influence and it is true that he (with a negative review) could cause great harm to a start-up, but on balance his positive contribution to the health of the industry was huge.

This is not bashing, just a dose of reality. HP wrote about remaining true to the music, but a lot of his equipment did not reflect that. He's as much of a gear head as anyone, and the gear took precedent many times, as did politics. And anyone in the industry in his hayday knew that well.

The systems always could play loud, and usually did, could go deep in the bass and with a lot of volume, and threw big images. But to get those traits they often veered quite a bit away from truth in tonality.

Readers loved the dream of his equipment and sound, but reality was often not as good as the verbal dream he conjured in readers' heads.

His great gift, truly, was writing in a very provocative way. Nobody could touch that in his prime, and his is still closely chimped in that regard, especially by one print writer in particular.

Harry could have been a great writer in the wine industry, camera industry (especially about Leicas), or many other subjective industries for which he had a love.

But one thing should really be clear: he was far more of a columnist and editorialist than unbiased reviewer.

Part of the bias was an extremely strong anti-horn sentiment, which is how this diversion about writers started. Many folks who would have loved compression drivers coupled with horns missed out on them, and the joy they could have had by listening to some of the great ones, due to reading how they were not true high end products in the opinions of biased opinion shapers in the high end digests.

As usual, Almarg comes to the rescue with his indisputable reasonableness; in this case, helping to turn the tide of the usual reviewer bashing which is partly what I like to call simple reviewer envy (all that great gear!).

Perhaps the bashers are younger than I and some of the other supporters and are not familiar with the TAS of its heyday; and I will concede that the TAS (and HP's contributions) of the last several years was not on the same level. IMO, the contribution of TAS and HP in particular has done as much (in a positive way) for the health of the industry as just about anyone else including the great equipment designers. His relentless adherence to a standard influenced these great designers to continually improve their designs. No other reviewer that I can think of was as adamant about the concept of the gear always being in the service of the music. Read some of those back issues and you will learn not only about the concept of faithfulness to the sound of live acoustic instruments, but also (via the infamous "surveys") everything from the great concert halls around the world to the great pipe organs of the world; not to mention an incredible (for an audio mag) number of discussions about music theory and pedagogy, and the "Super Lists" of great recordings. Additionally, he did more to create a vocabulary for discussing audio matters than anyone else that I can think of. I think the bashers are taking a whole lot for granted and not giving credit where credit is due.

I read HP, JG Holt and the others, starting ca. 1972 or so. It was fun to read about expensive, esoteric gear at the time a/k/a 'audio porn,' but with hindsight, the lasting value of their contributions was, I think, what to listen for- the so-called 'subjective school' of audio. (I also enjoyed Richard Heyser in Audio Magazine, who was far more engineering grounded).
I doubt that any of this reading influenced what I bought at the time, but as my pocketbook allowed, I was able to listen to, and buy, gear that reproduced the recordings with somewhat more 'life.' (At the time, it was an ARC SP 3 -a-1, which was a revelation to me, compared to other preamps, circa 1974, and a pair of 'old' Quads, a/k/a '57's'). Today, when I read these magazines, I do so largely for entertainment. I like Fremer for keeping the torch lit on vinyl, and a few other reviewers (Roy Gregory when he was at HiFi+).
I had occasion to read an old copy of TAS recently and it was a far more ambitious publication 20 plus years ago.
The intra-web has certainly changed things, to allow users to compare listening experiences and share information (as well as provide a huge inventory of old vinyl from across the globe).

Kiddman,
You use live acoustic instruments as your template and I happily do the same and this approach has served me very effectively in choosing audio components. You do need to be familiar with real instrument sound in order to determine how and to what degree components deviate from this standard. HP did recognize and strongly advocate this concept and I'll give him cconsiderable credit for making this an important criteria. I enjoyed TAS quite a bit during my introduction in the late 1980s and this continued for about a 10 year period. I admired his efforts but didn't view him or anyone else as an all knowing infallible guru. I also believed that HP truly loves and respects music just as I do.
Charles,

I had never heard of Stereophile, TAS, J. Peter goofball, or any of the high end when I went stereo shopping after college. I told the salesperson "I want to hear jazz, classical, pop, but jazz and classical instruments have to sound real". She (yes, she) asked if I ever heard a violin. I said "of course" and she played a string quartet album. Then jazz.

Point is, I wanted to hear music and knew what it sounded like, all without some rag telling me just what to listen for, how to listen, and what albums to listen to.

When I found TAS (which was inevitable) it did not mean a thing to me. The notion of individuals blessing or not blessing equipment based solely on their tastes in their rooms with their listening biases struck me as something that might be entertaining to read but not to take very seriously.

Point is, great equipment existed before any of those cult mags, plenty of folks used the simply logic that good speakers should make an insturment sound like it does in person, and they CERTAINLY did not "found" the industry. SME existed way before them. How about Peter Walker's original Quads? How about the BBC monitor work? All based on good research as well as listening. AR loudspeakers and turntable. We could go on and on. It is completely self-reporting that has HP and others in the press claiming they "founded" high end. Hell, HP even claims he invented the term "high end" - and not just as it applies to audio. That bit of self-reporting is also false.

I appreciate HP's wit, love of music, love of audio, and he certainly had very strong influence in some of the directions it went after he and others in the high end press became powerful, But any thoughts that high end audio would not have flourished without him and his high end reviewing contemporaries is totally false.

I read TAS religiously from the late 1970's until around the time the world wide web emerged in the mid-1990's. I also read pretty much all of the other major audio-related publications of the time, and a number of the minor ones, representing pretty much all of the points on the spectrum of audiophile ideologies. I found that I could glean useful information from all of them.

As a technically oriented person I certainly had issues with a lot of what I read in TAS, especially when the writers hypothesized technical explanations for their sonic perceptions. However, based on my listening experiences during that period and those of my audiophile friends, I don't think it can be denied that the listening impressions reported by HP and many of his writers tended to be more consistently spot on than those in any other contemporaneous publication. Albeit with matters of degree perhaps being somewhat exaggerated at times.

Concerning Harry's considerable power and influence, it seems to me that ultimately its most significant effect was promulgation of his fundamental underlying philosophy, the use of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real performing space as the ultimate reference. And promulgation of that philosophy was sorely needed at the time, and all to the good, IMO.

If some folks followed his recommendations blindly, and if he had great influence (which he did), that is not his fault. My perception has been that the net result of that influence during the roughly 20 year period in question was more beneficial to the evolution of quality audio reproduction than that of any other audio reviewer or journalist.

And btw, I've found Parker's wine ratings and books to be useful as well.

Regards,
-- Al

The man had great power, folks followed him blindly like many follow Fremer blindly today for analog stuff, or how they followed Parker and his ridiculous wine ratings system. When one guy, not a do-er, but a reviewer, gains too much influence it can really muck up an industry.

Strawman argument?

I'm glad I did not know who he was until now.

Nothing against him personally, but one one human can represent truth and reality for all.

Plus I never found the Absolute Sound to be that interesting or useful. I never connected with it whenever I picked one up and gave a read.

Ralph, way wrong. There were great horns when Harry hated them.....Tannoys have been great for a long time, various JBLs were, horns were all over in recording studios sounding great.

And Harry would still say today that they are bad. Lack of correctness never stopped Harry from being religious about his audio beliefs.

Macrojack, you are so right.

Me so horny

Harry who???? :^)

Funny, being casually interested in horn speakers for some time, I have been casually intrigued by this thread for some time also without actually taking the time to read it until today when I looked at the some of the posts in this last page. I then read:

****Harry Pearson has done a greater disservice to high end audio than anyone else I can think of. His faulty proclamations, pretentious stance, and cronyism misdirected about 2 decades worth of audio growth. The internet came to the rescue when we finally started talking amongst ourselves thereby learning the myth in his message.****

Man, talk about living on a different audio planet from mine! I am still intrigued by horns (a little), but one thing is certain: I am looking (listening) for different things in audio than the author of that comment. Perhaps that is a part of the answer to the OP's original question.

Harry Pearson has done a greater disservice to high end audio than anyone else I can think of. His faulty proclamations, pretentious stance, and cronyism misdirected about 2 decades worth of audio growth. The internet came to the rescue when we finally started talking amongst ourselves thereby learning the myth in his message. Stereophile was nearly as bad but not nearly as effective.

Those of you who have not spent significant time with a quality horn system know not of what you speak. Conventional horn drivers and panel efforts just can't manage the realism provided by well-engineered horns. If you are inexperienced, find a way to change that. I bought mine from The Acoustic Horn Company. Friends have Gedlee and I have heard EdgarHorns in the past that were quite impressive. There are numerous choices and Ralph (Atmasphere) has what I believe to be one of the best, Classic Audio Reproductions.

If you would like to hear mine, I'm in 81521. Perhaps some other owners will extend a similar invite. Seems like the best way to spread the word and debunk the myths about horns.

If they were not "high end" then they would be pretty much extinct by now, at least for home use.

Obviously that is not the case and they still thrive in pro applications where efficiency is in high demand.

I remember once Harry Pearson (back in the 80s) commenting that horns weren't 'high end'. That sure has changed- no way he would say that now.

I don't own horn speakers but I do like them quite a lot when they're properly implemented. At CES last month I heard a multitude of rooms with very expensive and highly raved about speakers. One of the very best sounding rooms I heard in terms of realistic and natural sound was the Cessaro horn driven by the Electra Fidelity 300b SET. Very alive and involving presentation. Many rooms even with high power amplifiers driving relatively inefficient speakers had a duller, less vibrant and flat 2 dimensional sound in comparison. The difference was pretty striking in some cases. A good quality horn can sound excellent.

Charles,

"Because the USA press killed them for the US market over 30 years ago and most audiophiles are naive enough to believe what they read."

The large systems needed for full range high efficiency horns and space increasingly being at a premium for many probably had a lot to do with it. Not to mention all the other inconveniences and potential additional expenses for many dealing with large and heavy household items.

Why not horns? Because the USA press killed them for the US market over 30 years ago and most audiophiles are naive enough to believe what they read. In the Far East they never gave up on horns and I can assure you, it's not because they are deaf. Far from it, they never took several horrible wrong turns that the USA audio market did, following the magazine founders, and then the sycophant reviewers they hired, like they were gods.

The new JBL Studio 530 monitors are EXCELLENT!

Horns make me horny

Csontos, Any updates on your application with the JBL 4345 system. If they actually were able to and had also succeeded to"rip your head off" I will expect no response.

I have 3 Acoustat TNT200 and an Acoustat TNT120. All just rebuilt by Roy Esposito of Sounds Like New. As I've stated before, 'I don wanna buy a tube amp'. So I will be using a 4 way Marchand cross-over. I have all the drivers and a line on a reputable cab builder. I'm hoping to have them set up by late summer. Actually, I have a Dynaco ST-70 with an upgrade/mod kit that's been sitting around for a few years. It came with a cd installation manual but when I finally decided to tackle it this past weekend, I discovered my recently acquired MacBook Air doesn't have a cd port. What the heck?! So much for paying attention at the Apple Store.

Csontos, JBL 4345's is a very nice system. I have never heard a pair, tho would certainly like to. (I have grown accustomed to my head, tho),
You have a nice sized room. What amplification are you planning?

I'm in the process of building a pair of fully active, altered JBL 4345. I'm subbing in 2206 12" midrange and 2390 horn assembly. Ian Kackenzie on the Lansing Heritage site gave me the recipe. I have a 16X30 room for them so I think they'll still be able to rip my head off! It will be my first experience with JBL. Hope I survive.

I like the looks of the new JBL Studio 530 monitors. Would like to hear them.

The above reference to Art Dudley's article on sucky bass is a valuable post referencing one of the great articles that I have read on the state of speakers as well as the psychology of audiophiles and their speaker choices (that has led to some truly overrated and overpriced speakers nevertheless sell.

Does anyone happen to have any experience with JBL 4550 speaker systems? I do find a few owner/user pictures of their rigs featuring such on the web (images) and they only direct to sites in Japanese or Chinese.

Horns are natures amplifier.

A horn loudspeaker done right is hard to beat on many levels some of there attributes being: better dispersion than non-horns, 5dB increase in bass, can be used to increase a driver set efficiency, look cool.

"05-22-10: Shadorne
The very best horn designs run at about 3% THD when played loud and this will distortion is audible and in treble."

Now where did that come from? The best horns are a lot lower than that figure. Please document where "the best horns" are this high in distortion.

There is a unique horn speaker being built iup in Maine that sounds unlike any other horn (or speaker) that I have heard. I have never desired any type of horn, the sound wasn't anything I could live with, and the esthetics were too big and ugly. But, these have opened my eyes to possibilities I never dreamed.

http://www.voltiaudio.com/

05-15-11: Macrojack
...

So feel free to sing the praises of your big beautiful speakers if that's your wish. I've been doing so for a couple of years now without any infestation -- just a few insults and a little derision and name calling -- things I learned to ignore back in second grade.

Perhaps I'm not fully qualified to start praising my OSWG waveguide-based speakers being this is a horn thread(overlapping and such), but in light of a not insignificant percentage of other posts that seem to veer off quite differently, or should one say inappropriately on this topic, I gather I'm not too far off trying to support the overall subject matter of this thread.

A Compression driver fitted in front of a 12" waveguide and a 12" bass/mid unit has opened up the soundscape in my livingroom to a substantial degree. My current speaker iteration of this will soon(this coming weekend) be replaced by a new version, going from a Beyma 12BR70 and BMS 4524 to the Beyma 12B100/R and B&C DE500 + different crossover - using a similar fiberglass waveguide and incorporated enclosure(with different port-tuning). Crossover frequency will move from 1.5kHz down to 800Hz in the new iteration(a note on bandwidth: 800Hz to 18-20kHz by one single unit - with power respons and constant directivity fairly in place - has major benefits, and moves the crossover point out of the most critical frequency region). We're not sitting at typical horn-level efficiency here, but a measured 93dB is still a relatively high number in the general hifi-domain.

In short modern compression drivers in front of well-made waveguides or horns add many advantages over more conventional, direct radiating "hifi" dome-tweeters - advantages to some and not to others, I suppose, but to me the current state of waveguides/horns and compression drivers -- as may have earlier/older and perhaps more select models -- definately merits sound reproduction of extremely high quality that doesn't take second seat to the direct radiating, lower efficiency alternatives - on the contrary; faithfulness to tone and timbre is truer, the sense of effortlessness is lightyears ahead - indeed so pronounced to help the music feel freed and natural, the ability to handle complex music material almost nonchalantly adds insight, macro and micro dynamics in spades, excellent transient abilities, a marked sense of energy coherence and body/physicality, scale, etc. - all of which stands in the service of a more faithful reproduction of live, acoustical music.

In the latest Stereophile issue, April 2013, Art Dudley in his article 'How I learned to stop worrying and love sucky bass' brings some very relevant observations on the state of bass quality in loudspeakers over the last decades. Apart from acknowledging having lived with bad bass quality for some while he in turn goes on trying to identify the nature of "true bass" and how this to his ears is most faithfully reproduced in loudspeakers. My reason for pointing this out is being in agreement with him on larger, low excursion bass/mid units, 12" and up, being far better in reproducing natural bass than smaller, high excursion units - the latter of which have come to dominate most of the hifi-arena.

It would follow, to my ears at least, that speaking of horn- or waveguide-based speakers(via compression drivers or similar units) carries the virtues not only of this singular field, complex and diverse it may be, but as well the added benefits of the larger bass/mid drivers that very often goes along with this type of mid to high frequency reproduction. That makes, or at least could make horn and/or waveguide speakers all the more interesting, adding to the relevance of this thread.

Gotta love Altecs!

I heard these at 2010 Capital Audiofest and the setup with them was one of the better ones there. I lot of people stayed and listened a long time not wanting to leave, including me. Not a bad deal.

Cathedral Horns

Check this out:

http://www.oswaldsmillaudio.com/Products/imperia.html

I have a horn system - AV Trios- after having had many rather expensive dynamic and planar speakers. Here are some things I have noted. These comments are only specific to the Trios but conceivably they could apply to other similiar horn designs.
1. They work splendidly with relatively inexpensive electronics. I drive the Trios with a four watt integrated amplifier made by Sophia Electric. The sound field generated with this combination is large and densely textured. I love this amplifier.
2. Cabling is not nearly as critical as it is with less efficient speakers and the higher power amps required to drive them. I loathe paying a grand (or two) for 1 meter ICs. I am not saying that cabling is not important, the Trios are exquisitely revealing but just that the lesser grade cables still sound reasonably good.
3. Room interactions seem much less critical with my horns. In fact I have pushed the horn array (3 horns) right up against the back wall and it does not seem to affect the wave launch density or imaging structure. This does not apply to the side walls or to the bass drivers however. Some adjustment is required as expected.
4.Wave launch characteristics are similiar to planar drivers in that sound field is very big. I have had friends criticize the Trios for making images larger than life. This is probably a fair criticism and is admittedly a departure from the live experience but I like the effect even if it is artificial. It makes it easier to "see" into the music.
5.Overall cost of ownership is lower due to more favorable resale value and less expensive associated electronics and cables.
6. Lastly the micro and macro dynamics of horns are generally better. This becomes more noticeable when you go back to conventional dynamic speakers after having lived with a good horn system. Some folks say they "shout" but I have only noticed that when they are overdriven or played too loud. LL

You know, if people would purchase a horn speaker I am willing to bet a substantial sum that they wouldn't be seeking to constantly try another, and another speaker system. I wish people would learn about the basics of why a horn integrates into a room so well as opposed to repeatedly trying to use cone drivers directly coupled into a room. Then, by doing that and hearing them they would disabuse themselves of the itch to constantly try another cone system.

We watched True Grit at my house last night. No cone or planar will ever deliver gun shots like my horns did. We checked each other for blood.

Hxt1 - Thanks for noticing.

If you are considering a change and would like suggestions about a move to horns, this thread would be an excellent place to seek advice and/or suggestions.

You can also learn a lot by joining this forum:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/

and asking questions.

Ultimately, I got enormous help and advice from Bill Woods. He has owned, worked with, tested and built just about everything available in speakers in his professional past. When he reached retirement age, he left the corporate world and started designing and building horn systems. Today he calls himself The Acoustic Horn Company and operates out of a small shop behind his house in Hastings, Ontario. He doesn't sell a lot of his own product directly to the public but his AH!300 horn is used in several of the finest loudspeakers available today. With it you would have the basis for a world class system. Check out his website: http://www.acoustichorn.com/

You can find pictures of many systems, including mine, in the Testimonials section.

On Audio Circle you can find extensive info about Earl Geddes and his speakers. He is very popular with the DIY crowd there.

And post your room and your system here. Perhaps there is a strategy you haven't considered concerning upgrade sequence. It is also possible that some of us might have spare parts we can offer you.

Pete Seeger said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee so I guess you want to keep that in mind as the advice pours in, but you never know what good might come of this gambit. Stick your neck out.

Macro, sounds like you've got a heck of a system there!!!
I'm considering swapping my f166's for something more.... esoteric.. alnico?
field coils?
Who knows.
Onward and upward!