Why not horns?

"I completely understand the difference in parallel and bridged.
I completely understand that parallel amplifiers cannot double the power output. I remain confused that you insist they do." -Herman

Then why did you assume bridge when I said parallel? And why did you need me to make the distinction? Whatever, its neither here nor there.
Laying in bed last night it dawned on me that every time you (herman) refer to "power" you are actually speaking of of "gain". Basic Watts versus dBW. Suddenly it became clear why you were so adamant that a basshorn didn't need 250W of power.
Well obviously it doesn't "need" that much GAIN. And because it has a built in volume control it is unlikely that it will ever USE that much gain. Never the less, being that the driver is NOT a resistor but has a complex impedance curve, the designers probably found a 250W amp useful.

As I said before, you're going to have to talk to BAT directly if you want any more explanation on their specs.
But your perspective makes better sense to me now thinking in terms of GAIN rather than total available power and why you aren't seeing what I've been trying to say here.
A horn may only need a small amount of gain but no speaker is a pure resistor and very likely will benefit from increased power in terms of current.

BTW, I offered no apology. Taking it truly is smug.

"Sorry, a complete load of crap.
Are you serious? You add up a bunch of errors and the total error is less than any individual error?"

Yes, absolutely serious. And it beguiles me as to why you don't get it.
I didn't use the term "errors" but since you do, in this sense "error" would be any deviation from FLAT. Maybe I should have said "frequency response" instead of transfer function.
But this doesn't change my assertion. Which, by the way, is provable with actual measurements.

In simplified terms, take two drivers with the same frequency range but whose precise deviation from flat response within that range are slightly different. If you add them to the same signal but reduce the gain to each by half (3dB) you end up with the same gain but the deviations from flat frequency will tend to average themselves out as the outputs from the two will combine.

This is a simple case of adding and then dividing by two. How is that not averaging? Aside from the fact that it can be consistently shown with direct measurements.

Until you can prove me wrong instead of just throwing insults you have no high ground.

Herman I have 2 bass horns about. The massive one with 4-18in and and a large front loaded design. The 4-18 is 106db 1 watt 4 ohm min has a 16 ft path. My front loader is closer to the size of your front horn. But since hybrid in design its a improvement over exponential front horns for bass, can produce lower output with less colorations or distortions its more compact suffers less from time alignment issues and can be just as efficient. The front radiation on the 4-18in is not producing most of the output since its run below 50hz. Most output comes from bl horn. Which is tuned at 50hz. The front loaded bass horn 94db 6 ohm and produces 18hz with much pressure. I use SETs but also powerful amplifiers. If amplifiers designed proper has low noise if loudspeaker impedance match's than why only limited oneself to small power. There is no one way or the highway here. Many ways to skin the audio [or horn] goose.

"As you you've established clearly that you have no use for horns, pray tell, what use have we of you? Why are you presenting yourself so emphatically in an arena where you have no interest nor expertise?" - Macrojack

See, now this seems smug to me. But it's probably just a case of lost in translation.
My original foray into this thread was the simple answer to the question "Why not horns?" To which my response was the equally simple, because they SOUND like horns. It was not my intention to go beyond that yet somehow I got drawn in.
And since I joined this thread it turns out that the only "horn" that didnt sound like a horn wasn't even a horn over a significant area of its frequency range.

I AM curious. AND I do have experience with horns. I am NOT resistant to horn theory. But so far my only assertion against is that horns sound like horns. And so far the only place I've presented myself so emphatically was either
a) about amplifier power, etc.
b) the fact that multiple drivers can approach the same sensitivity as a single large horn. Properly implemented, this is true. As I've tried to convey with a real world example.
c) that at least one of the examples of a "horn with a smooth sound" wasn't even a full horn after all.

So, really, you probably have no USE of me. Even so. How does that restrict my presence? And, most importantly, how does educating myself on horn theory change any of the above three?
For the record, I will most likely still go and read what you have suggested because I am infinitely curious. My only problem was with the idea that we seemingly had to stop all interaction in this thread until I went to read your suggested material.
Again, perhaps intentions were lost in translation.

Horns are great-My current speaker set up is Klipsch Lascalas, cabinets modified to reduce box resonance and coloration, as are the horns as well modified to reduce the same. I also added 50 lbs to each box by building bases for additional mass and to raise them to a better listening height. I use a pair of powered subs from 50 hz on down. I have owned many speakers in my time, and have felt that each system/room had great characterists, with some flaws. I have also listened to many systems beyond that. I listen at 100 db often, and peaks go beyond that. I have found a system that brings me closer to the musical event at my respected price range, and I do not look back. I choose to not use tubes(unlike many tube users), because I have found neutral ss gear I can listen to for hours on end. My system has great rhythm, beat and tempo, which to me is most important in creating the reality thing. Spatial imaging is excellent with the speakers disappearing much of the time. Dynamic range is awesome. This is the difference between the soft and loud passages of music, relative to the systems noise floor, which is QUIET. As the recording gets better, so does the system. Listening to Patricia Barber and recordings of this nature are 2nd to none. A recording such as Jethro Tull's Aqualung is not as dynamic or wide range, but I hear the bands coherence in playing together, which is what I listen for before anything else. My system does this wonderfully, as well as all those other "audiophile " things. I believe everyone should get a listen to a properly designed horn system and a room that can handle them. Thank you for reading my rant.....Dan