JohnK, perhaps you should read the posts preceding mine to see where that 120 dB was referenced from. Furthermore, perhaps you should read the title of this thread before lashing out. While your at it, perhaps we can implore you yet again to come clean and admit the fact that you make and sell horns. Who has the most bias here? Once again, the zealots make it personal.
What does one purchase after owning horns?
I have owned Avantgarde Uno's and sold them because of the lack of bass to horn integration. I loved the dynamics, the midrange and highs. Now faced with a new speaker purchase, I demo speakers and they sound lifeless and contrived. The drama and beauty of live music and even the sound of percussion insturments like a piano are not at all convincing. I have an $8k budget for speakers give or take a thousand. My room is 13'X26' firing down the length. Any good ideas will be appreciated. My music prefrences are jazz/jazz vocalist.
375 responses Add your response
And Unsound I'm sure a thiel 3.5 is so much better than a classic audio reproduction field coil horn system. My pair of 3.5 sure wasn't. And Who on earth listens to horns in there home at 120db? That comment just shows your unjustified bias against horns you have no experience with them just lots of bias and venom. You and Weseixas are just trolls with no experience with any of what you post on a true definition of troll. One who enters threads just to annoys others never offers anything of use doesn't have any knowledge about subject of thread. Thats both of you and you know it. |
Says the guy who doesn't list his own system. The zealots always make it personal. I'll bend this time, at 89 dB 1/W/m with a 4 Ohm nominal/minimum impedance, the 3.5's fed 500 Watts per channel into 4 Ohms, from a distance of just over 9', placed in a roughly 3378' (3) room, seem to satisfactorily provide loudness cues without too much concern for compression, thank you very much. |
Atmasphere, Even if my system could play cleanly at 120 dB(it can't), unless I got a much bigger listening space, I doubt that I would want to. There's a sense of scale that I seek within the confines of my listening room. I'll grant you horns can play louder than most any other loudspeakers, but they're a one trick pony, IMHO, sounding completely obnoxious in every other regard. |
Unsound, with respect to Even without things like vented baskets, and ferrofluid cooling, dynamic tweeters are typically capable of providing more than enough volume for typical rooms. IMO the issue is one of how relaxed the sound is. Its been my experience that the system should lack the quality of 'being loud' and instead should seem to not sound very loud, even when (by most audiophile standards) it is. It is a fact that electronic reproducers tend to add artificial loudness cues to the sound, making it hard to sit in the room when peaks are hitting 100db. But an orchestra can hit 120 db peaks so it seems to me that if a system is able to do that without stress or strain (IOW it is **relaxed**) at such volumes, then we would be far more likely to play the system at higher volumes. One of the first things I noticed upon installing a horn system (Classic Audio Loudspeakers) was the simple fact that without any particular intention, we tended to play the system at much higher sound pressures than we had done with the previous dynamic speaker, **even though we had the power to play the dynamic speaker at higher volumes**. This simple fact of the matter was the horns didn't **sound** loud, even though they were in fact playing louder. This is why I make such a big deal about loudness cues. Making sure they are not distorted by the playback system IMO/IME separates the wheat from the chaff. |
Isochronism, You're right of course. Being a dillitante is part of the audiophile sickness, one that I certainly have. I really did have to design my own speakers, to have something that I didn't grow tired of. The issue is now, I didn't make them 'no holds barred', cost NO object. The closest were the one off LSA10's. Those remain, one of the very best speakers I've heard...topped only in certain ways, by VERY expensive designs. They weren't cheap, would have had to sell for $50K at least, and that was based on plate aluminum/cnc cutting for that plate aluminum at an aerospace company. So, yeah, it's a blessing AND a curse to hear and quantify to an exacting level, but I love music so much, I try to just slide into the music and not critique. Good listening, Larry |
Macrojack, one hears about high frequency hearing loss in males, but I have never seen any convincing documentation of this. I have had audiologists tell me that many have sagging frequency responses between 1000 Hz and 5000 Hz. I can just get a hint of 16k Hz. Nevertheless, I think that tweeters are a central part of what makes a quality speaker. The diamond tweeter on the Tidal Contriva Discera SEs is one of its strong points. |
This tweeter discussion is largely atopical since half of us can't hear beyond 10 Khz. The mid range is where our discussion should be centered because that is where most of our material comes from. In my experience, nothing else produces quite the same caliber of mid as my horns. Other designs seem like toys by comparison. |
There is little reason to acknowledge it. That horns can produce sounds that can fill a stadium better than typical domes is irrelevant for most of us. Those volume levels aren't needed and for the sake of our hearing not desirable. Even without things like vented baskets, and ferrofluid cooling, dynamic tweeters are typically capable of providing more than enough volume for typical rooms. Typical dynamic tweeters have proven themselves to be remarkably reliable, and even more so, with extra power available to them. |
Atmasphere you said{250 watts to produce the same output}. Not true you forget the -6-7db of thermo compression that the dynamic would experience. So its not possible for a dome thats not horn loaded to equal output of a horn tweeter.It will melt the voice coil glue. Also most domes are .65% efficient many horns are 6-7% so with a dynamic dome you have 99% of power waisted as heat. Thermo compression is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that dynamic owners do not acknowledge. |
In three weeks the Lone Star Audio Fest is happening in Dallas, Texas. Here's a link: http://lonestaraudiofest.com/ What this has to do with horns is, historically a disproportionate number of rooms at LSAF exhibit horn designs. We also have direct radiators, electrostats, dynamic dipoles, and probably others that I can't think of right now. The show was founded by Wayne Parham of PiSpeakers, and past exhibitors include Classic Audio Reproductions, Bill Woods, and Earl Geddes. Duke |
Weseixas, here is my comment: Regular dome tweeters don't handle very much power (2 watts is common). I am not saying that 'a dome tweeter cant[sic] handle more'. To misquote me here and then knock down the resulting argument is a logical fallacy called a Strawman. see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html The idea of a logical fallacy is that it appears logical but is in fact false. There are of course many tweeters than handle more than 2 watts, but 2 watts is indeed quite common. There are horn tweeters than can handle 25 watts; given that they are about 10db more efficient than many dome tweeters, said dome tweeter would have to handle 250 watts do produce the same output. Do you know of any that do that? I don't; but if they are out there they are pretty unusual. |
"Seriously, I've GOT to hear some horns, just to revisit...Duke, if you ever want to have a Beta Test Site...send me a pair...I'll write a Harry Pearson quality, prosaic piece and be honest to a fault." Thanks for your offer, Larry. Shipping costs make it impractical... I'd probably be looking at ballpark 700 bucks round trip. Duke |
Larry, If I get what you are saying, you have even more reason to check out horns. Regular dome tweeters don't handle very much power (2 watts is common). Most horn tweeters handle about the same power, but are *also* lot more efficient, effectively making them able to handle a lot more material than any dome tweeter ever could. |
Atmasphere, I told this story one other time, but some haven't read it...so please bear with me. Jim Thiel, (yes, I'm summoning him again) one time showed me how he used to plot the frequency response of his prototypes, early on, before all the sophistocation of measurement stuff, (or maybe before THIEL had the resources to afford it, again maybe). He'd play one tone (reference, at say 440Hz)at three levels, soft, medium and loud. Then he would play another frequency, at those same reference levels, say 80, 85, 89 db and ask which level the newest tone was being played at. So, say I heard 440Hz at 85db, then I might hear 12Khz at 80 or maybe 89db, or obviously, even the same 85db. With the human hearing curve being what it is, we obviously perceive mid's at a greater volume, so the test is tough for almost everyone. At first blush, this may sound easy, but it is really confusing to most people. I say, most, because of the 20 examples of this, I got them all right--he'd not had anyone do this before. So, I suppose that this innate 'gift' (curse maybe) of mine, being able to hear these relationships easily, makes me more sensitive to tonal balance variance, hence the comments about tonal balance up a few posts ago. Seriously, I've GOT to hear some horns, just to revisit...Duke, if you ever want to have a Beta Test Site...send me a pair...I'll write a Harry Pearson quality, prosaic piece and be honest to a fault. Dynamics are fun--but missing in most loudspeakers, that's a fact. Good listening, Larry |
Larry, I too like a nice flat frequency response. I'm not happy with it if I hear deviations or rolloffs at the extremes. So my system is a hybrid- horns on top and bass reflex woofers on the bottom. One thing about perceived frequency response though, that ought to be considered: The human ear perceives distortion as frequency response variation. This is why two amps can measure flat on the bench but tonally sound very different. |
Pointless indeed, Drubin. It basically just comes down to asking which religion is best. World news reports are a good indicator of what sort of answers that discussion can yield. Around here you can be crucified for disparaging tubes or liking horns or knocking Diana Krall. In other places you might be stoned. (Not that kind of stoned) So what's the answer? Stop talking about it altogether? That would make for a very ho hum fo rum. Wouldn't it? |
Mrdecibel, Yes--I was talking about the delusions we ALL SHARE in trying to believe that our systems sound like 'live' music. My point was, I like a flat frequency response and can't accept THAT as a flaw, and that horn lovers love the dynamic transfer and can't accept dynamic squashing as an issue... "We all compromise, humm, pat our feet and try and pretend that it sounds live at home--sometimes deluding ourselves into that 'Wow, I'm really there moment.' " Yeah, I was really commenting on how all of us have different focus points. Me, flat frequency response is a must, imaging and soundstage also a must...dynamic transfer, while important isn't a deal breaker--but I completely understand those who find it unforgivable. Good listening, Larry |
What an interesting thread this is, I have followed this one from the beginning. Some excellent points have been brought up, mapmans last post is spot on IMO. As for my speakers I own a pair of Gedlee Abbey 12A speakers that use a waveguide along with a 12 inch woofer, I also employ the multi sub (4) approach that Dr Geddes advocates. Best sound I have ever had in my room. Dan |
Duke - As far as I can tell, "conical horn" is the nicest thing Bill can say about a system. He says the AH300 is the best he knows how to make. Apparently he sees your "waveguides" in a similar light. That should make your head swell a bit. I tried to call Bill the master of horn design once but he laughed it off and said that would be Danley. Why no mention of Tom Danley in these horn threads? Don't you guys know about him? |
"Duke's speaker is not an Horn .... Waveguide !!!!!!!" A waveguide is a type of horn, characterized by constant directivity, minimum-wavefront-disturbance curvatures, and a lack of vanes or diffractive shapes or features to modify directivity. Some of my models use what I would definitely call a "waveguide", and others use a device that has many (but not all) of the characteristics of a pure waveguide, so I call it a "waveguide-style horn". Macrojack's conical horns, designed by Bill Woods, are probably what I'd call "waveguide-style horns". Others may use different terminology and/or draw their lines of demarcation in a different place. For example, Bill Woods called my waveguide a "conical horn". Duke |
Swampwalker, I have had the same experience with a piano, but I have had another live music experience. At CES many years ago when it was in Chicago, I went out to dinner at Bergoffs with a wire manufacturer, an electronic manufacturer, a reviewer, and me. They had a live group going from table to table. When they were nearby, I suggested that the bass was boomy with lots of overhang. The others looked at me in amazement, but one said "yes it does." We then got around to saying why that might be, with the general agreement that the room and instrument were probably responsible. I would also note that few live performances are unamplified, the group in Bergoffs had no amplification. Finally, I would say "as yet" we cannot give the illusion of live, but there is no question for me that we have greatly improved the illusion in most systems in the last twenty years. Horns may be the exception. We haven't surpassed the Klipsch horns or the WE horns. I heard a two tube WE 205 amp driving a single Altec concentric horn system long ago at a VSAT conference and heard what I had never heard before or since. Why did I not buy it? Because there was only one, and I didn't expect that I would ever find another. The dealer wrote later to say he had found a second but was going to keep both for his system. Why he wrote to tell me this, I haven't a clue, but it ruined my day. |
I suppose we are all deluded if we think our stereo sounds like anything other than what it is, a recreation of other people's musical creations in our homes in a manner that meets our needs and wants. Mapman says the secret word(s) and wins $50.00!!! Sorry Groucho, wherever you are. If it is not to bring us a more "lifelike" presentation, why do we do it ? The only delusion is when you think it is as good as live music, which it could never be Mrdecibel- your use of quotes around "lifelike" speaks volumes. S'phile ran a column/editorial on this subject a year or 2 ago, ruminating on why it is that even from a distance, anyone w a passion for music can tell the difference between music actually being performed and music being reproduced. I have no idea why, but I know through experience that it is true. My wife and I drove up to a friend's backyard dinner party a few years ago and heard electric jazz guitar as soon as we got out of the car, on the street out front. I immediately said to my wife "cool, they have a live musician". My wife could not understand how I could tell, and I couldn't articulate it to her or to you, but I was 100% positive that it was not reproduced music. Obviously no imaging, or soundstaging, but there was not a question in my mind that it was not a recording, even though he was playing a hollow body electric guitar through a small amplifier at modest volume. What we hear at home is, at best, a "lifelike" simulation of a performance. The Audiogon community (for the most part) does not listen to wave radios (except for a few sinners...you know who you are!) because the equipment we use, as you said "bring(s) us a more "lifelike" presentation"IMO, this doesn't denigrate the hobby or our passion; it just puts it into perspective. |
This is all so interesting. I know many people who love music as much as myself, but many of them own a Bose wave radio or something similar to that. And when music plays, they can get up and dance and enjoy it for what it is. We (Audiogon members)on the other hand spend some major dollars on equipment and room set up, to hear these same recordings. If it is not to bring us a more "lifelike" presentation, why do we do it ? The only delusion is when you think it is as good as live music, which it could never be(I started another threat about this recently, but it died very quickly with only a handful of respondents). There are more Audiogon members who strive for great imaging and soundstaging, and if one feels that an artist has just appeared several feet in front to them, slightly left, that does not make them delusional. The Audiogon community is trying to extract any realism from our recordings. So I ask you all, why not simply own a Bose wave radio or something of that nature ? |
I suppose we are all deluded if we think our stereo sounds like anything other than what it is, a recreation of other people's musical creations in our homes in a manner that meets our needs and wants. That's about all one can expect. If one expects anything more than that, then they are delusional, but nobody can prove them wrong either, so I suppose it really doesn't matter what fantasies one pursues as long as they enjoy it and do not hurt anyone in the process. |
Reading the responses of 'horn lovers' as well as the technical side from Duke, makes me realize, or at least form an opinion of the tastes of some of those Horn Lovers. They share the common love of live music and unlike others, aren't really willing to forgive the lack of dynamic transfer that exists in virtually all, (even horns, but to a lesser degree) loudspeakers. We all compromise, humm, pat our feet and try and pretend that it sounds live at home--sometimes deluding ourselves into that 'Wow, I'm really there moment.' When I was railing about the horrible Wilson Audio frequency sweeps a while back, I kept shaking my head at the lack of indignation of others, at the poor showing on the test bench that Wilson's almost always exhibit. (That ought to really piss some folks off, sorry). But, all I was really doing was stating MY THRESHOLD of disbelief, which goes immediately to the tonal balance of loudspeakers. I personally can forgive the lack of dynamics, frankly, really loud bothers my ears, I overload easily, to the point of leaving a really expensive Phoebe Snow concert, sitting in the lobby to listen. BUT, then if the tonal balance is off, I cringe, and stupidly thought everyone else would be up in arms too. Horn lovers on the other hand 'can't accept' lack of dynamics. Blonde versus Brunette, versus redhead, (where are all the women hiding in Louisville, sorry.) Preferences...why didn't I realize that 'til now? Good listening Larry |
Its use calls for a fairly complex crossover so it doesn't appeal to many purists, but if the designer does his job well, neither you nor your amplifier would ever guess that the crossover is complex. You did your job well. At least from what I can hear. Of course I sit much further away now than last time you dropped by, but I've thought more than once about going back to that extreme near field set-up. There was something about it that just clicked. |
