What does one purchase after owning horns?

Being this is a horn thread of sorts, has anyone noticed in the virtual reality system section of Audiogon, the system/room of Cuong Pham. Talk about a horn......Wow....

Could you point us to examples of manufacturers or models that are well suited to a low damping factor amp (as a proud Atma-sphere S-30 owner I am quite interseted in your suggestions).

I've heard Ralph's amps sounding great with Classic Audio speakers (John Wolfe), on a few occasions. Oh my god, and they're horns too. I guess I need some Q-tips or a hearing aid, or else I'm just going to speaker hell (surrounded by horns of course).

Seriously - a fine combination with great synergy.

Jax2....Easy does it fella.....lol

The effect on a bass system of a low damping factor amplifier is the same as raising the electrical Q of the woofer. If the bass system is designed in anticipation of this higher electrical Q, then the result is proper bass response. If not, then "muddy bass" will likely result. So the fact that muddy bass is the result in some instances DOES NOT MEAN that such will be the case where the system is designed to work well with that type of amp.

Or to put it another way that may be more consistent with audiophile terminology, speaker/amplifier matching is important. And not just in the bass region - the interaction of the amplifier with the speaker's impedance curve has implications across the spectrum. But that's another topic for another thread.

Pryso, I did not mean to imply that a good horn system has a small sweet spot when set up properly. In fact, I believe that a good horn system is capable of having an exceptionally wide sweet spot if it's designed with that intention.

To try and put this damping factor in context for this thread, I had a very high damping factor amp (<1000) and popped in an SET with very low damping factor on the AG.

On the AG Trio, like most AGs, which use active subs driven at speaker level or line level, the damping effect was quite obvious. I could not say one was terrible and the other glorious, but I could say that for some types of music one could work better than the other.

The high damping factor made extremely tight low bass which had an air around it and gave an impressive listen, especially with electronic music.

But I must say when an SET with little or no damping factor was put in it had another effect. Yes the bass was less controlled, but the extra texture and ease of listening more than made up for the loss in grip. If listening to more acoustic music the low damping factor was quite desirable.

I couldnt say the bass was just muddy as it had a much more natural texture the high damping factor amps could not really do. Maybe some of this could be put down to the quality/capability of the amps. But all the amps I tried were up there!

The effects of a simple amp like a 45 tubed SET on speakers with this kind of sensitivity should not be underestimated. For all the talk of trying this speaker or that, it is one of the great freedoms of horns like these. Something which seems to be lost on most people. Very few can really enter this world without too many drawbacks with power.

As I explained before, if bass integration was the issue, then move up the AG range. You loved the AG you had apart from the integration of the sub. Besides why not add room correction to control any other possible bass issues?

There is an AG Duo here on the Gon for 8k. You will be done then.

Here is some info on horns. Non-linear distortion in the compression chamber rises with output as well as with higher frequency and is exacerbated by long horns with less flare. Distortion can be as high as 20% or more in 2nd and 3rd order harmonics.

The non-linear characteristics may explain some of the challenges of integrating horns with a conventional (linear) sub woofer. As the level of the music changes from high to low SPL there will be a sweetspot where the balance is good. However, outside this range the balance may be off by a little.

This is simply for information JBL

The OP might consider horn designs with a much wider flare (or simply a waveguide) and accept a lower efficiency design (less compression). These type designs are more likely to integrate better with the bass over a broader range of operating SPL levels (less changes in tonal balance).

I would expect lower damping for the low end to be more sonically synergistic with horns and compression drivers than perhaps most others. I suspect it helps to loosen things up a bit overall and contribute towards lessening any edge in the sound that might be present otherwise.

Electronic music is often where the difference between a properly and under damped system can be clearly determined. Its perhaps where I hear the single biggest difference since moving to the small yet muscular still highly damped Bel Canto ref1000ms. Well recorded electronic music is totally controlled and visceral even at high volumes (at least with my OHMs) and truly hits you in the gut as it is designed to do without any mushiness, boom or other soft or looseness.

Shadorne you do not mention SPL level for conventional design distort much when near max SPL. Far more than a horn loaded design. I think maybe your looking for anything you can thats - about horn designs without understanding. A horn tweeter solves the distortion at higher levels as does not running loudspeaker into max SPL and using proper horn length flare. So horns are producing less distortion than conventional designs at most any SPL level. But if I knew little about horns or loudspeakers I would see the 20-30% distortion and run for the hills. So if you used proper horn flare and length didn't run at max SPL used a tweeters means no 20-30% distortion. Many conventional loudspeaker designs are producing 9-10% in low bass all the time no mater SPL. This is not a issue for horn loaded bass.

The primary benefit of horns is efficiency. They are also cool looking (but lets put that aside for now and just focus on function, not form).

The primary drawback is that doing full range horns well is difficult and expensive.

In the end I think its six or one half dozen of another.

You can get excellent sound and dynamics with or without horns, although the electronics required are likely to differ greatly.

Two totally different means to an end with different advantages and disadvantages, not just with the design of the speakers but the system as a whole.

Question: "What does one purchase after owning horns?"

Answer: Either better horns or other high efficiency speakers or most likely a completely different system end to end.

I have dropped this link many times:
[ur]http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html[/url]

It has to do with two different design, test and measurement techniques, both of which are alive and well in high end audio.

Weseixas subscribes to the Voltage paradigm which I subscribe to the Power paradigm. This gives us plenty of lively debate. I use the word 'paradigm' on account of the fact that quite often an individual who subscribes to a certain paradigm will have the opinion that anything outside that platform of thought is inherently 'wrong'. That's pretty much the definition of paradigm...

Anyway, several points. First, I did not make this stuff up. The Power paradigm existed before I was born (1956 for those keeping track) and, much like the tubes that are often at the heart of its tenets, failed to be displaced by the newer wave of transistors and constant-voltage theory that followed.

IOW it is quite possible to have bass that is not at all muddy, even with an amp that has a sizable output impedance. All you have to do is design a speaker that anticipates that, and Duke has mentioned one technique already. Now its a simple fact that all horns from the old days use these same design rules. When you try to use an amp that has constant-voltage characteristics on such a speaker, the crossover will not work correctly!! So the result is that the horn may well be subjected to frequencies it was not designed to reproduce. A lot of horns 'honk' when this happens.

IOW, horns got a bad rap on account of the fact that most of the old ones were not designed to work with transistors (in a nutshell).

Now the converse occurs when you use an amplifier with a high output impedance on a speaker that uses the Voltage rules in its design. For example, the woofer may well be seeing frequencies that the designer was trying to prevent it from seeing- perhaps an octave or two higher than it was supposed to go. This can cause the woofer to sound 'muddy'.

The bottom line here is that someone disparaging horns, amps with high impedance outputs, or planars and amps with very low outputs, **without taking these differences in design rules into account** is selling themselves short.

Now I am not an expert on the Avantgardes, but I can tell you that at least in the case of the Trio, it is one of the few horn speakers in high end that is designed to work with transistors or constant-voltage amplifiers. Consequently the task of finding a tube amp that sounds right on them is a big challenge. I suspect this is part of the reason why there are often blend problems when you try to use tubes on this speaker. So I have this advice: If you like tubes and you want a horn speaker, stay away from Avantgardes. It you already have an Avantgarde are you are trying to use tubes with it, now you know why its been so hard to find something that makes the drivers/woofers blend properly.

I find damping characteristics audible with all kinds of music, with all kinds of speaker/amp combos. How and why it all works, I will leave that to others here, who go beyond having just ears, such as myself.

Atmasphere,
I am glad there are people like you in the world. Clear and to the point.

Mrdecibel, I suppose this all could be boiled down to damping characteristics. How you would have to view it is like this:

1) some speakers like lots of damping and others don't.
2) Some amps have lots of damping and others don't.
3) Don't mix the two or the combination will not sound right.

Its my opinion that our ears are the most valuable things that we have as audiophiles, and that our ears are the most important thing in audio (I guarantee we would not be playing with audio gear if we had no ears). To that extent it is also my opinion that the more we design our equipment to obey the rules that our ears are using the more our equipment will sound like real music.

It is this latter point where things get dicey. In a nutshell, if you were to guess, what are some of the more important human hearing rules? Duke has pointed at some of them, and I'm on record saying that how we perceive the volume or sound pressure of a sound is the most important hearing rule. If the equipment violates this rule the resulting sound will not be perceived as real no matter how good the system handles everything else.

Dr. Herbert Melcher, and Nobel Prize laureate neuro-chemical scientist, has documented that if the system violates certain fundamental hearing rules, there is a tipping point where the processing in the brain moves from the limbic system to the cerebral cortex- the difference between emotional and intellectual response. He has some pretty hard numbers on this- essentially documenting the subjective experience. I am hoping he continues this research!

So, based on Ralph's comment, "if you already have an Avantgarde and you are trying to use tubes with it, now you know why its been so hard to find something that makes the drivers/woofers blend properly", if Renmeister had used something like one of Nelson Pass's First Watt amps while he still owned his Unos, perhaps this entire post would never have existed. ;-)

PS, I note that Avantgarde has now introduced their own SS amp to match with their speakers.

Atmasphere, I appreciate your response. And yes, the ears are what we use to determine the sound we like. I always found that inefficient speakers (I owned many and am familiar with many)required an amp with greater damping, and in my experience, this has led to ss. And I believe the point Mapman made about the efficiency of a horn being a benefit,is valid. However, some of your previous explanations is just beyond me, even though I am somewhat educated. As far as hearing rules, I have not paid much attention to what has been written. But I have always listened with peaks at around 100db, which is a reason I own horns. They show the difference between the "soft" in music and the "loud". All with a small amp. I am aware of the danger to exposing oneself to loud sounds. I am not concerned.

Just an add on. I have always placed dynamic range as the most important virtue of any system. However, prat is very very close in importance to me . I need to follow the "playing" of the musicians. There is tonal coherence and agility coherence. By improperly matching damping characteristics between amp and speaker, you can ruin prat.

Ralph, Can you elaborate on exactly WHY the Avantgarde speakers are "meant for" SS amps? And is there an SS amp-type which would work similarly to a tube amp (or at least in a way such that the speaker would think that it was looking at a tube amp)?

I ask because I recently tried SS amps (zero NFB, Class A) on my horns and found myself enjoying the combination. I have not spent enough time since the earthquake here listening critically to get a handle on them yet and my ultimate goal is to bi-amp, but so far so good.

Mapman wrote: "The primary benefit of horns is efficiency."

No doubt I'm in the minority here, but my primary reason for using horns (waveguides being a type of horn) is radiation pattern control.

radiation pattern control lack of distortion and efficiency

"lack of distortion"

That's a tough case to make in reality I think.

I'll buy radiation pattern control as a another unique attribute of potential benefit.

Shadorne you do not mention SPL level for conventional design distort much when near max SPL.

John - yes that is true. I was just passing on info on horns. In conventional designs if you need higher SPL and need good linearity then big and beefy drivers with pro voice coils and magnets are the ticket. In the case of horns however there is a fundamental difference because the non-linearity comes from non-linear air compression in the chamber - so it is an inherent issue that can change the way the sound is compressed as a function of SPL and frequency. As I mentioned, I think it is clear from the JBL paper - these problems are more significant in very high efficiency horns (greater compression) and long horns with narrow flare. AG horns are both efficient and have a long narrow flare - so it may help the OP achieve better bass integration to consider other less "aggressive" horn designs with wider flare and lower efficiency.

Just a thought....every design has its pros and cons and the OP has clearly stated why horns sound so good (the pros).

Shadorne, Klipsch uses the "non aggressive" horn type you mention. However, because of the horn type AG uses, I find the seated distance between them and the listener needs to be greater,ime. However I have "heard" this rule be broken in many cases. I have heard many Lascalas (and Khorns for that matter)in which the owners have changed out the mid horn(to Altecs mostly)and I have not liked it as much as the original. I felt it threw the balance and coherence off. Other things as well. All of these horn designs were available to PWK, but I think he made excellent choices for his models. I know it is a matter of personal taste.

T_bone, In the case of Avantgardes, all you have to do is look at what sort of amplifier the designer is using (that is the case with most speakers). He uses a low power transistor amplifier, which explains the 'crossover' of the Trio (its all caps- no chokes, so the impedance of the speaker drops as frequency increases since the lower frequency drivers are not rolled out of the circuit).

It is for this reason that despite the efficiency of the speaker, quite often larger tubes amps are preferred, so they won't sound rolled off. Our Croatian dealer sold a number of MA-1s to Avantgarde Trio owners for this reason- you don't need 140 watts with that speaker! IME the smaller Avantgardes are less problematic in this regard.

****

With regards to distortion in horns, to be kept low the design of the horn is quite critical. FWIW, the guy that did the JBL horns also designed the horns and drivers for TAD. The TAD horn has a problem with spiky response right near the cutoff frequency on their driver. Classic Audio Loudspeakers ran into this problem and had a new horn designed by Bruce Edgar that does not have any issue with this at all.

IMO the fact that horn-loaded drivers don't have to move much to make a lot of sound helps keep their distortion down. If set up right they can be as low or lower distortion than anything out there. If set up wrong the distortion can skyrocket. As in all fields, the application of generalizations is fraught with difficulties!

Klipsch uses non-aggressive horns? Huh? Only the humble Forte uses a tractrix flare. IME (I have owned K-horns and LaScala) these speakers have far more audible horn coloration than the AGs.

Conical mid horns with proper (thick, non-resonant) construction and the bit of necessary EQ have virtually no horn coloration - none.

But there's still a substantial downside - no mid horn can go lower than a couple hundred cycles at the very best and so you are always going to have an xover in a pretty critical region. Not that it can't be made perhaps close to inaudible, or at least non-objectionable. But this and other trade-offs will always remain.

" As in all fields, the application of generalizations is fraught with difficulties!"

Amen, brother!

"IMO the fact that horn-loaded drivers don't have to move much to make a lot of sound helps keep their distortion down."

Mass and inertia are certainly big considerations when designing any high performance speaker, no doubt.

The bending wave theory of sound propagation associated with Walsh style drivers is another design approach that I think solves much of the problem in a very unique and innovative manner.

Of course the radiation pattern of a Walsh driver is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from horns or waveguides.

Its cool that there are so many different ways to tackle the same problem!

Paulfolbrect, I was referring to the width/length of the horn/throat. I admit that the construction can be better. When you had the Khorns/Lascalas did you do any damping to the mid horn (and cabinets). Every pair I was ever involved with, after damping, eliminated most of what you speak of. As a sidebar : Speaking of damping, I find most tubes have colorations and distortions until you dampen them. But please lets leave this topic to another thread. Regards...

Atmasphere,
am I right in saying that due to this impedance curve on the trio they designed the CDC? I was under the impression this made it tube friendly

Magico Q3,Q5 Much better.

Chadeffect, it does appear the newer Trio has a higher impedance. Their website does not have a lot of technical data, but it seems pretty sure that 3 of the 4 passive crossover components must be caps. If a choke is added to the bass horn, the overall impedance would not be such a hard load for tube amps as the earlier Trios. Overall it would appear that the speaker is nominally an 8 ohm load.

Check out Tom Danley's Jericho horn playing on youtube.

No, I did not tweak my Klipsches. I know they can be made better. Thought they were great on some music but could be almost painful at other times.

In some ways the humble Forte really was the favorite.

regarding distortions of horns I remember a very old stereophile review of the original duo's from '97.
martin collums measured THD at 110 db! the midhorn had only around 0,1% THD and the tweeter 0,3%. I doubt even a speaker like wilson's alexandria could compete with that.
of course the build in sub had much higher distortions at that level.
believe many planars would get fried when attempting to measure their distortions at that level!

martin collums measured THD at 110 db! the midhorn had only around 0,1% THD and the tweeter 0,3%. I doubt even a speaker like wilson's alexandria could compete with that.

That is exceptional compared to most conventional speakers. It suggests they got the horn design well optimized. Is there a link to the article?

"martin collums measured THD at 110 db"

For those kinds of volumes, except perhaps in the case of smaller rooms, good horns in particular, like Avantgarde should shine and be a safe choice.

Again, the advantage is efficiency and the ability to GO LOUD as a result IF DONE WELL.

Of course there are many forms of distortion. THD is just the most common standard measure applied.

I should measure how loud I listen. I think it is pretty loud sometimes but does not ever approach 110db, so that might be overkill.

I think it was measured at 1 m distance, at a typical distance of 3 meters the volume would be down by a few db so the measurement was not that unrealistic. Guess he had to crank the volume up that much to get any thd to measure.
IMHO horns even played at peaks of 90 db only (which even a decent planar can reach) sound more dynamic than other speakers. they just seem to be able to follow the volume swings of dynamic music more correctly. one reason might be that because of their inherent efficiency the voice coil never sees large currents and heats up.

My usual listening daytime level on the AG Trio at around 4.5m, peaks around 90db. Effortless with 1.5 watts. My Apogees at that level were great too, but with 1,000 watt/channel amps and dual active subs...

The Apogees even with the wonderful new Graz ribbons and SOTA cross overs could not do that weight and 3d presentation. Sorry to repeat myself, but the Trio is like the best planar on steroids. A logical progression if you love that planar presentation with the Duo not far behind. The separation and impression the sound is coming along way in front of the speaker is marked.

I personally cant go back, even though I had magical listening sessions with Magnepans, Apogees etc... Avantgarde have something right and should not be thought of horns sonically.

I am sounding like an advert but I have yet to hear better across the board. Which is why the answer to the post is better horns... I wish I could say something small, interesting and cheap. I guess what you spend on the speaker is saved on the amps!

"the Trio is like the best planar on steroids"

Funny, but I have heard some planar users that switched to OHM Walsh speakers (like myself) use that same analogy.

Having heard all kinds of speakers over the years, including some really good modern horns, I am convinced that a pair of big, expensive high efficiency horns like AG or similar are the only ones that could tempt me to change, if I could afford them and had the right room.

I would never be tempted to go with anything more than a small and easily maintained tube amp and would not want to rule out SS.

I learned a few more things about Avantgarde here that will keep them on my list of potentially coveted audio gear down the road I would say!

Ime THD does not correlate well with subjective preference. Imo THD is not the right yardstick to be measuring with; a horn or amp or whatever can have excellent THD numbers and still sound pretty bad, or have bad THD numbers and still sound excellent. I'm not horn-bashing here; I'm THD-bashing.

Better yardsticks have been proposed, but the industry has ignored them.

Rest in pieces.

Recently saw one of my first projects, from almost 30 years ago, sitting busted and scavenged in the back of a theatre. Almost nothing left except the outer boxes and framework. 8' tall, 4' wide and 4' deep of seashell-like curved and laminated "folded" horns. Built on site. Was told, "Shame that their hidden". Maybe I should've made them to fit through the door. Each with dual 15's and dual mids. Thought I was stealing at 1500 bucks each. Forgive my moment of nostalgia.

I'm not so sure there is anywhere to go after owning horns but I've often thought that buying a small church or movie theater might be a good idea WHILE owning them.

I can tell that my horns would like more space.

Did you ever see pictures of gurus on top of mountains with folded legs, fingers meshed, half-closed eyelids and an expression of utter serenity? The way it is usually portrayed is that he is being sought out by the young person who climbs the mountain to ask "oh guru, oh guru, I have climbed this mountain to come to ask you what is the secret to life!"

The answer is obviously, as any self-respecting mountaintop guru will tell you, "Horns".

If the young person had asked for the "Ultimate Answer to Life and Everything", he would have gotten a different number, but he didn't so he got the lesser answer - "horns". But in my book, if you have gotten to horns you can be considered to have led a pretty successful life. Only years (7.5 million of them?) of mountain-top guruing get you to the next level.

So I guess we settled this. Money and space permitting, nothing can really compete with the best horns.

A bigger room may be the best answer yet....

Hardly! I've found some of the most expensive horn systems to be amongst the worst offenders. Space might require horns, but thankfully most people here don't need to fill an auditorium or a stadium.

God, I love this forum.

IMO horns can also be enjoyed in medium sized rooms like 25 m2

Horns can work well in smaller rooms too, if you take care to carefully match the amp and speakers. I have used Belles in a room 10 x 12.5, and also Altec Lansing Model 14s in the same room. Works great, and may require less in the way of room treatments then conventional speakers.

Renmeister, I just noticed this thread. I have been at audio for 40 plus years. I repeatedly tried horns beginning with Klipsch corner horns, then electrostats, then dynamic drivers, then electrostats, then horns, including the Duos and Trios, then dynamic drivers, then partial horns the Acapella LaCompanellas, and now back to dynamic drivers. By my count I have owned 24 different speakers.

You will never hear horn dynamics or speed out of anything else, especially if they use compression drivers. I once almost went to a five way GoTo compression driver system. But you will always have integration problems with horns. Instruments will change positions depending on where they are in frequency.

I became convinced that there was no best speaker; that all were compromises somewhere; that only a point source driver, capable of really quick peaks across the frequency range from 20 Hz to probably 100k Hz, and with efficiency of over 100 would really suffice. Fat chance of that ever being possible.

Perhaps I have given up, but I am back to dynamic drivers in the Tidal speakers. I really don't think there is a better compromise, but if you find one, please tell us about it.

"But you will always have integration problems with horns. Instruments will change positions depending on where they are in frequency."

Maybe not in big rooms where distance to the speakers can make even a horn approximate a point source more.

In smaller or even typical rooms, I would probably have some concerns because I also believe point sources to be the optimal configuration for a speaker from a spatial integration perspective.

So purchasing a bigger room after horns is looking like a better and better idea all the time now!

"only a point source driver, capable of really quick peaks across the frequency range from 20 Hz to probably 100k Hz, and with efficiency of over 100 would really suffice."

That's why I'm still waiting for the world's first ever field coil based walsh driver design because that could take traditionally inefficient Walsh drivers to an even greater level.

It will also likely cost a fortune and potentially be difficult to maintain properly though, otherwise someone would have probably done it by now.

Oh well....