It may be the case that some of the characteristic horn coloration and "shout" has to do with crossover/amp compatibility, but, clearly, some of it has to do with characteristics of horn reproduction itself. I have heard big changes in sound from use of different damping material on the exterior and interior of the horn itself. Also, the same driver used on different types of horns can deliver completely different sound.
I also suspect that, to some extent, it is the midrange peak of typical horns that, to some extent, creates the impression of great dynamics and liveliness. Those horn systems where such peaks are tamed and tonal balance is actually quite decent also tend to sound a bit less lively. |
I too love the extraordinary dynamic quality of good horn systems, particularly when such systems are played at low volume levels. But, MOST do have issues with a peaky tonal balance and the tendency to "shout." But, the rare examples of good horn systems is quite magical.
I spent this past Friday evening listening to a system that uses a Western Electric 555 driver mounted on a HUGE Western Electric 15A horn (5'x 5' mouth). Putting a speaker system like this in your living room is like standing two Smart Cars up on their bumpers. The twin woofers in each of the horn-loaded woofer cabinets looked tiny, though I was told they were 18" woofers. This was an unbelievably realistic sounding system, particularly when played not too loud (it actually cannot be played very loud because the 555 driver is being played full range, with no crossover on it at all). I have listened to this system a lot before, but, on this night a Tungar tube power supply was energizing the fieldcoil 555 drivers and the system sounded much better being run this way than with a solid state power supply.
I have a much more modest system, with just a horn-based midrange. The woofers are modern paper cone 12" drivers (two per channel) in an onken bass reflex cabinet, the tweeters are modern Fostex bullet tweeters. The midrange, which is the heart of this system is ancient (probably late 1930s). They are Western Electric 713b drivers feeding Western 12025 metal horns that are mounted on top of the woofer cabinet in free air. The tweeters are likewise mounted with no baffle just under the midrange horns. I like the sound very much, particularly at lower volumes, though this system does not have the shear majestry of the 15A horn-based system. |
Vu has a "club" located offsite from the store. The club includes three separate listening rooms, plus an area where they do construction projects. The 15A is in the main listening room which is something like 20' x 25'. It is in the "club" because a purchaser of the system had it installed in his listening room for a single afternoon (after the wife saw it, it was no longer welcome). |
Kiddman,
I have heard a LOT of different horn-based speakers. NONE were entirely free of some unnatural tonal coloration. But, that is the case with ALL other forms of speakers I've heard. I live with a horn-based system because, balancing all strengths and weaknesses, I prize what good horn systems can do. My horn-based midrange is very good, in terms of tonal quality and a lack of midrange peak or "shout" when played at lower volume, but, it does develop that quality to some extent when pushed a bit loud. Again, not perfect, but, on balance VERY good.
Perhaps you can enlighten us on what are some of the better designed drivers/horn combinations?
By the way, it is not only horn-based systems that can deliver amazing dynamics and presence that creates an almost "live" performance. I have heard that with both modern and antique fieldcoil drivers in non-horn systems too. |
Yes, horns are very low in distortion because of the very small excursion required to produce a lot of sound. But, there is no way of getting around the effects of reflection/interference within the throat and flaring sides of the horn, as well as the effects of the horn itself being energized and resonating. It is not simply a matter of treating these things as "bad" and trying to minimize the effect; the "art" is in making these effects work to produce the kind of sound one wants. If it were simply a matter of reducing these effects, such as preventing the horn itself from resonating, proper design would be easier. But, I have heard various attempts to heavily dampen certain horns that were completely disappointing. These things have to be "tuned" -- meaning resonance and coloration have to be made to work in harmony with the sound one is trying to achieve, just trying to minimize resonance does not work.
Yes, I was speculating that, perhaps, some of the perceived dynamics is a product of peaky frequency response. That is not to say that horns have to be peaky to sound dynamic--all good horn systems sound more dynamic than most other types of systems. This was just my observation that some of the more musically balanced and least colored systems that I've heard, such as a well set up Edgarhorn system, were also on the dynamically tamer side of the horn family. The most dynamic and lively systems I've heard were actually not horn systems but systems with full-range drivers on open baffles, and these have WILDLY skewed and peaky frequency responses--hence, part of my reason for suspecting that tonal balance is involved.
I agree that the better horn systems are, unfortunately, huge in size. The best that I've heard generally had extremely long throats and very large openings. This allows the midrange horn to operate down to quite a low frequency (the bulk of the music will be produced by a single driver, which minimizes the impact of the crossover on the sound). I wish I had the room for such a system. The other "problem" with horn systems is the difficulty in blending any woofer with a horn midrange. Most woofer/loading schemes either don't quite sound like they are matching the clarity and "speed" of the midrange, or they don't actually go very deep if they do seem agile enough. I personally prefer more agile and less extension, but, there is some sacrifice involved.
But, even though most of the "best" I heard were huge in size, some smaller systems do remarkably well. Old examples include Western Electric 753 systems, some "newer" systems include the Tannoy Westminster (yes, it is "small" by horn standards." |
A lot of great observations and comments in this thread. I know it might seem that there are some fundamental differences in opinions expressed, but, I pretty much agree with everything said--differences being probably more a matter of degree or how one expresses what is observed, and matters of taste.
Charles1dad and Audiokinesis and others have mentioned the importance of good crossover design in both horn and direct radiator systems. I agree that this is a big issue. I think that is one of the strengths of horn-based systems when done right. Horn midrange drivers can cover a fairly wide band of frequencies so that the crossover points can be away from the 1,000 to 3,000 hz range where the ear is particularly sensitive to problems of speaker integration.
Isochronism, you asked about active crossovers. I have heard various horn and non-horn systems with active crossovers. I generally like active crossovers when properly implemented--the music sounds very clear, clean and more dynamic, even when high volume and additional power is NOT an issue. The "problem" is that those who have undertaken this approach have told me about how hard it actually is to get things right and the added complexity creates a lot of headaches (particularly when tube-based crossovers and amps are involved). The most impressive example of the difference between active and passive crossover that I heard involved the Active Advent speaker that the company put out; it was supposedly the same speaker as the conventional Large Advent, but with an active crossover and built in amplification. It in no respects sounded like an Advent to me--this thing had LIFE.
Audiokinesis, you mention "waveguide" horns. Do you mean systems where the horn is primarily acting as a means to control dispersion and where "loading" of the diaphragm with a column of air is not a primary part of the design? Also, the Classic Audio Reproduction speakers that you liked, were they the reproductions, like the Hartsfield, or the contemporary design like the T-3? I personally like both lines, perhaps more so the contemporary line.
Wharf, I have no idea if the Avantgarde Duo represents a "flawed" horn design with a lot of bandaids or if it is a correctly engineered horn design by whatever standards one could apply to make such a judgment. I do know that it is a hard system to setup (getting bass to balance correctly is extremely difficult). I also heard a certain "one note" quality to the bass even when it was properly set up. But, all those issues aside, that system can really deliver musical enjoyment. I also noticed that the Duo is quite amplifier friendly and sounded great with a fairly wide range of amplifiers I heard it with. You should, if you get the chance, hear it with an OTL amp--that is a lot of fun. |
Kiddman,
I have heard everything on your list, with the exception of the Magico horn, and I agree that these are well designed systems. But, entirely free of tonal coloration? No, they all have their characteristic sound. With the Classic Audio gear, I like both the reproduction gear and their modern fieldcoil designs. I think that we disagree more in terms of degree than anything else.
It is also, to some extent a matter of taste. While I really like the speakers mentioned, I have my own particular preference, which is for a bit warmer sound and less of a hard edge to the initial attack of the note than speakers like the Everest and most of the TAD drivers. You are correct that these speakers do not have the characteristic horn-type colorations (honky, or upper midrange peak, or shouty quality), but, they do have their own characteristic sound, like all speakers. I have not heard these in my own system, but, I know I could easily live with any of them and could probably tune the system to better fit my own preference.
I do think you have made a very good point that there are horn systems with quite a different set of characteristics than what is considered the weakness of horn systems. To say that "proper" horn systems "sound sweet, smooth yet detailed and dynamic" is something we agree on. The difference we have is on a matter of degree and what constitutes the best balance of various characteristics. That is where the "art" comes into play--good engineering gets one most of the way, but, tuning a system, even if that means deviating from supposed technically correct approach, is important for that last measure.
I will probably never have a chance to hear the Magico horns. If you have personal experience with them, I would welcome a brief description of their sound, particularly, how they differ from the sound of Magico's conventional dynamic speakers (a sound I particularly hate--very dry and brittle sounding). |
I love the sound of the EdgarHorn system. The designer managed to minimize the usual horn colorations while preserving most of the immediacy and dynamics of great horn systems. It is unfortunate that there are so few of these systems out there, particularly on the Eastern side of the US, so relatively few people have had the opportunity to hear a really good, modern, horn design. |
