How come Horn + woofer designs are not more popular?


A couple guys on my audio discord really love the JBL synthesis 4367 and feel that all traditional 3 way tower speakers suck because they have poor bass response and are generally shy sounding. What I wonder is how come the majority of speaker makes do floor standers that are 3 way as oppose to the Horn +woofer design of JBL?

Is there any downsides to the horn + woofer design? Can a horn convey microdetail as well as a Be tweeter like say from magic A or S line? They claim 3 way floor standers are just trendy. But is there anything more to it then that?
smodtactical
My highly modified Klipschorns have an uncanny sense of the breath of life about them. This sense  mostly emanates from the incredible micro dynamics I've not yet experienced from dynamic drivers. Add high levels of detail, and transparency and you get a highly involving experience.


I do think horns can be somewhat problematic with timbre and soundstaging. Hard panned images tend to attach themselves to wide horns, narrow baffle compression driver speakers tend to disappear to a greater extent.  Timbre issues have been resolved by my Klipschorn mods, SET amplification, room treatments and just recently added lithium ion batteries to power my entire front end.

I've found that getting satisfactory sound from horns has required a major investment of time and funds. There have been a number of times when I began to doubt I would ever love the Klipschorns, but after a year and a half of optimization its highly doubtful I'll ever go back to compression driver speakers.
I am very happy to hear the K owners come on here and talk about their wonderful systems. Yes, I feel they are still amazing, especially with the updates, modifications and tweaks shared by the Klipsch community. But a question for gw _smith. What are you referring to when you say " large mid horn " ? and " that's an 8 inch bass horn wrapped up in a very small space " ? I am a 50 year Klipsch Heritage veteran ( not an employee ), and I am not understanding either of these statements. Would you please, care to explain ? If you would like to private message me, that would be fine as well. Enjoy ! MrD.
The answer to this thread's question surely must be that it's a matter of taste and preference. I have to confess to a certain prejudice against horns in general. I'm a sound engineer, and having mixed a hundreds of concerts, the sound of horns has never appealed to me. Guess it's that "shoutiness" and edginess that even the best PA horns exhibit that turns me off. I like my sound a little warmer and more image-realistic than what I've perceived from horn-based systems, I guess. I listen to Magneplanars at home, and every time I sit down in front of them, I can sense an internal, inaudible "ahhhhh". They just suit my taste.

A couple years back, I had the fortunate opportunity to take part in a double-blind mono test between a Revel Salon2 (very high-end, 6-way, traditional dome-tweeter design) and JBL M2 ("master reference" horn-based 2-way design) speaker. Both were free-standing behind a room-spanning scrim, and both were slid into place to exactly the same listening position alternately, as 10 samples of different kinds of music played via a high-end front end and amps. It was visually impossible to tell which was in place at any point, and levels were carefully matched. Both speakers are Harmon products voiced by Harmon.
Needless to say, both speakers sounded good, but there was a distinct difference in their character that gave away the M2s every time. There was about a dozen of us doing the listening, and we recorded our speaker preference for each sound sample. Post analysis showed that I preferred the Revel on every sample, and to my ears during the test, it was obvious which speaker was which. I just couldn't warm to that up-front, in-your-face shoutiness of what is admittedly maybe one of the best and accurate horns designs of all time. (The M2 is a lauded studio monitor speaker.) For what it's worth, only a couple of folks out of the dozen of us preferred the M2s on most of the samples.

What the test told me was not that one speaker design was better than the other, but that they were definitely distinctly different. Most folks preferred the domed tweeters over the horn in that test. That's a pretty small sample size, but it could be indicative of a much larger population's preferences. Maybe it answers the question that is the title of this thread. Maybe horns aren't more popular, simply because other types of high frequency transducers suit more folks' tastes a little better.

BTW, if you want an exhaustive thread of over 1700 posts on that blind test, it's on AVSForum here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2907816-speaker-shootout-two-most-accurate-well-reviewed-...
The testing was monitored and mentored by no less than Dr. Floyd Toole. A big shout out to John Schuermann and his crew for setting it all up and wrangling it all through the test. It was an altogether fantastic experience for these ol' ears.



Horns, properly selected for the application and room, sound great.  The ones I like, however, are too big for my room.  I can get them to fit, but I only have one room in my house that I can use for whatever I want, and I do other things in there besides listen to music.  I play guitar and piano, have friends over to jam, watch TV, and have a home studio for my full time job as a graphic designer/Illustrator.  If I had another room at my disposal, and it was big enough, I might go back to my KB-WOs.

Pbrain wrote: "A couple years back, I had the fortunate opportunity to take part in a double-blind mono test between a Revel Salon2 (very high-end, 6-way, traditional dome-tweeter design) and JBL M2 ("master reference" horn-based 2-way design) speaker."

I recall reading about that test on another forum.  Very interesting!

This was a "mono" test, I hadn't caught that detail before... single speaker vs single speaker?  If so, I assume the speaker being evaluated was at one end of the room, a little ways in front of the wall, and in front of what would be the midpoint of that wall.  Is this correct?

"Post analysis showed that I preferred the Revel on every sample, and to my ears during the test, it was obvious which speaker was which. I just couldn't warm to that up-front, in-your-face shoutiness of what is admittedly maybe one of the best and accurate horns designs of all time."

I assume there was no audible "horn coloration" from the M2, just a more "in your face shoutiness" to the presentation, at least in comparison to the Revel.  Is that correct?  

You see, I suspect two significant differences between the M2 and Revel were in play, in addition to (and in part arising from) their obvious physical difference (horn vs cones & domes).

First, according to the measurements I've seen, the Revels have a more "continuously and gently downward-sloping" in-room response, while the M-2's sort of "plateau" off-axis from 1 kHz to 10 kHz, which would give it a more "forward" or "in your face" presentation. 

Second, again according to the measurements I've seen (and implied by their respective configurations), the Revels have a wider radiation pattern, which, while not quite as uniform as the M2s, is still very good.   This results in more spectrally-correct late-onset reverberant energy, which is beneficial to timbre and a sense of depth (less "in your face-ness") and immersion.  In general, a well-energized, spectrally-correct reverberant field tends to sound rich and relaxing. 

Now I wasn't there of course, so this is just supposition on my part - but does any of this seem consistent with what you heard?

Duke