Why not horns?

Mapman, the original Walsh Drivers had 2 such mechanical cross-overs. I suspect that there was some cross-over in the lower than the extreme upper frequencies as well. The DDD doesn't have any such mechanical cross-overs.

I suspect that GP's Unicorn was an exercise in trying to make a full range single driver speaker system. As appealing as that concept might be, success in that quest has been allusive for all that have dared to try. The idea of a horn loaded omni directional driver would appear to be an oxymoron.

Mapman, the DDD appears to be full range till it reaches well into the bass region. After that the DDD driver would need to be augmented with a woofer/sub-woofer for full range classification. Those lower frequencies have less apparent directional ques, and probably maintain the illusion of omni directional presentation well. Keeping the cross-over away from alternate drivers at higher frequencies where our ears are most sensitive and usually are have the narrowest directivity would seem to be preferable. Again the DDD doesn't have the mechanical cross-overs that the original Walsh driver had. Of course the catch is; they're pretty darn expensive.

Macrojack, perhaps you should consider Newton's third law: basically, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you tempered your posts in such a manner as to edit your biases e.g."...single distortionless driver.." "...seems like a no brainer...""..."...exposes the high end for the rip off it is..." etc.,etc., from appearing as absolutes, perhaps the discussion would appear less like a personal crusade and more like an intellectual forum. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't voice your subjective opinions, but when you do so, I suggest you frame them as such. I think you'd find that even the subjective discussion would be more objective, and you might feel less personally invested this discussion.

Mapman, I won't argue the point of how the GP Unicorn works, but as long as the sound is emitting from a source, I suspect once could attach (a) horn(s) to it, if that's what they wanted to do. Though it would seem to be a contradiction of philosophies in this case.

I'm afraid I do get it.:-)

Lets just say that I'm reserving my enthusiasm, after all it's another PA system.

Macrojack, same old story indeed. You offered the paper to support your position, but, you object when others use the same offered paper to support a different position. Never mind that those of us that have found horns unsatisfactory, would not be impressed by "experts" in horn design. You suggest that we seek info from a reliable source. I suppose that means we shouldn't consider you a reliable source. Since you don't have any personal experience with the product your promoting, our "self congratulatory guess" is no worse than yours.

You buy stuff without auditioning, but suggest we shouldn't go off half cocked and buy something without investigation. We should keep our opinions in our imaginations, but you should the have right to post your opinions on this forum.

You suggest that we search for the opinions of strangers to find out if their experiences may(?)contradict the specs that you provided(?), for a product your promoting and many of us wouldn't otherwise be interested in. I did bother to open up and read the information you provided. On some level, I really have don't care to purse these speakers much more. Why should I? Decades of experience has suggested to me that pursing these designs are not likely to bear any fruit, and the information you provided doesn't seem to offer anything to change that. What I was trying to do, was offer my take on the same information, albeit different. Yes, by offering a balanced perspective, I was trying to be helpful.

Macrojack, sorry, didn't see that one.

I don't believe I dissed them, as far as I'm concerned they just don't appear to me to be worth much further investigation. ...And you promoted them, though you've never heard them, as a public service?
Perhaps you've forgotten the title of your own thread?

Macrojack, there you go again. You use a small sample example to decry an entire industry. I don't suppose you'd say that for example the Vandersteen 2's are a rip off? Temperance my man. Ironically enough, part of my objection to horns are what I perceive to be their total poor cost to performance ratio.

Unless I hear something that completely changes my mind, the only place that I think I might consider horns, are out side on my deck for background music.

JohnK, I'm not sure I do :-).

Mapman, what pledge?

Some might say bigger than life.

JohnK, IME horns seem to have imaging issues, both in regard to specificity and scale.
I do agree, that mini-monitors though capable of good imaging, more often than not are guilty of degrading audio reproduction. On the other hand they offer the opportunity to offer music in spaces that might not other wise be able to accomodate wider range speakers. This might be especially true for those interested in surround sound/home theatre.

Mrdecibel, Sorry for the confusion. That reference was a joke aimed at the title of that thread. It was not aimed at you, and I hope you can accept my apologies for unintentionally offending you.

Macrojack, your post could have been interpreted either way, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully. If I knew that wasn't the point you were making, I wouldn't have made such a response.
I expressed my experience with horn imaging, and least one other person agreed with it. I do respect the other opinions. Something you don't seem capable of. With regard to the matter at hand, I posted with regard to my experiences, not my wrong assumptions. Perhaps it's you making the wrong assumptions despite proof to the contrary. How dare you assume I don't what I'm talking about? I continue offer the alternate perspective to your ongoing infomercial. How quickly you've forgotten Newton's third law.

FWIW:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/500728-monitors-used-classical-music-studios.html

Gawdbless, I'm sorry, but, I don't understand the question.

Learsfool, the golden age of classical recordings may have used many horns, but that was because other speakers of the time weren't viable due to amplification constraints and the yet to be developed alternatives.

Gawdbless, I philosophically disagree with you, as I don't believe it's reasonable to expect speakers to "enhance music". If a speaker accurately portrays a recording for better or worse, I think it very fair to blame the recording in some instances. If one needs to tamper with a recording to make it palatable, I think there are better devices with much more specific controls available to those that feel the need for such things, than speakers. One good example of a recording that that can sound a bit hard is Miles Davis' "Sketches of Spain".

Macrojack, thank you for the introductions. Though I think these respected Audiogoner's are quite capable of introducing themselves. In fact, Atmasphere and Duke have already introduced themsleves many times over the years, JohnK hasn't been quite so upfront, but after awhile his threads do reveal his background.

As JohnK's products are custom made ones, comparing his speakers to other designs or even to other horns is like comparing apples to Pitahya/Dragons.

On this very thread Atmasphere has said that some of the worst sounding speakers he's heard were horns, and he is still dubious when confronted with new ones. While Atmasphere has always been forthright in his posts, we can't dismiss the fact that horns are particularly compatible with his products.

Duke has on this very thread posted that horns have common characteristic coloration's that some seem to be more sensitive to than others. Duke has also championed the virtues of speaker designs other than horns.

I have had many discussions over the years here with both Atmasphere and Duke, sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, but, they are always polite and respectful. JohnK and I have had more limited discussions, but I don't believe they were ever disagreeable.

Are we to take the word of a stumbling audio schlub who declares in absolutes that he has discovered "the best midrange sound reproduction currently available" from horns without any hint of balanced reporting on a thread that begins with; "Why not horns?". This a public forum and those that disagree with your slanted opinion aren't on our way out. Those that appreciate the true concept of a forum, needn't thank us for staying in.

Another member (Mapman) cross referenced another thread that seemed relevant to this one. When I went to that thread I posted something with the caveat that I was "just kidding". Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in regard to the reference. Mrdecibel assumed it was aimed at him, and he cross referenced his objection here. I offered apologies if I unintentional offended him on both threads, and by e-mail. Mrdecibel accepted and appreciated my offering of an apology, and replied that he was still leaving this thread because he wasn't enjoying it. Now if you had actually read the follow ups, you would have known what ever slights that were felt were unintended and apologies were offered. The word that seemed to cause such hurt is apparently not in everyone's vocabulary, so I'll offer a definition here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron
You can now understand now harm was intended. In that you have made many absolute claims with little to support them, one can only ask who is being pompous? If you were aware of the out lined previous chronology of events and the meaning of the words used, one can only ask who indeed is aiming for good will and forward progress?

Perhaps we should really get back to: "Why not horns?". If you just want to have a circle jerk with some other horn enthusiasts, you should use a different thread, and please title it in such a manner to give warning to the rest of use who don't care to participate.

If you don't want to hear from those who don't care for horns, you shouldn't title your thread; "Why not horns?" Of course if you really wanted to consider "costs and other objections" you would welcome the objections.

I really don't appreciate you inviting people to e-mail me.
Grandstanding? You started this. Once again, you seem to have forgotten Newton's third law.

Moderator of this thread? Pompous, grandstanding? Ha!
Being just another audio schlub is good enough credentials for you, but you require something more commercial for everyone else? I'm confident that those contributors whose credentials you've espoused would have the diplomacy to not to criticize manufacturers of alternate designs, and by the same token I would expect those manufactures of alternate designs to exercise the same professional courtesy. While professionals that identify themsleves as such, are very much welcome here, this forum is by and large made up of consumers and hobbyists, and in the end that's probably for the best. If you truly want to illumination, you wouldn't promulgate such a slanted perspective, which only casts a shadow on alternate points of view.

The tone of this thread could improve dramatically if you could keep on topic and not make such judgemental personal attacks.

Atmasphere, thanks. Not to belabour the point, but, I don't think "Sketches" is harsh, but it does sound as though the mike is right in front of the bell of the trumpet, hence hard. Truth be told my speakers are not too forgiving of such things. Interestingly enough, I consider the Threshold to excel in reproducing horns. Perhaps, it didn't transfer to digital disk too well? A bit of odd sound staging with this recording, deep and narrow. All in all, a bit unique, if not down right weird. Love the music though.

Gawdbless, I'm sorry, but I don't know what "pom" means. As for a speaker that can play every possible nuance of every instrument and vocals to die for (a bit over the top, wouldn't you say), well if a speaker is truly capable of such detail it will also demonstrate the warts on a recording. I've yet to hear a boom box capable of either. The Thiels certainly don't gloss over the subtleties. As for the financial advice and shopping help, I'll manage on my own, thank you very much.

I think we might be having a linguistic challenge. I don't consider hardness and harshness to be synonymous. For the record I have not complained about harshness from my system. On rare occasion I detect a bit of hardness. I am confident that this is recording dependent.

The better a system the less likely it will exaggerate problems in the recordings, but, unless one manipulates the recording play back, the flaws won't be hidden either. If the flaws are minimal one can easily overlook them if the balance of the recording satisfies.

Mapman, ironically, I think "modern"loudness wars" recordings" are designed towards the low end of audio playback.

Was that a post or an advertisement?

Dan_ed, it might helpful if you put a user-name to those quotes.

I learned a few things: some horn enthusiasts are interested in time coherence, some horn enthusiasts will use digital manipulation, some horn enthusiasts use high powered ss amps, many if not most of the horn enthusiasts on this thread use either custom or modified horns. While I'm not surprised that that would happen, I'm a bit surprised that it showed up in what I would imagine to be a small sampling.

Dan_ed, I'm sorry, but, once again I'm not sure who you're refering to. The the post I made re: the things I learned, referenced things posted directly on this thread.

At least for me, that 6moons link, just illustrated more reasons; "Why not horns?". I want to spend time listening to my system, not table saws. For those that enjoy all that, well good for them. Perhaps, I'm mistaken, but it appeared that many involved in that project were more than just possibly retired, and if so, might have more available time than those who are not retired. I will admit that there is something appealing about custom made speakers designed for a particular room, but, the commercial viability of something like that looks (at least to me) limited. With satisfactory products that I can actually audition before committing to, I have neither the time or inclination to bother with such a project.

Well Macrojack, we do share a love of something; the World Cup. Of course I absolutely loathe those horns (vuvuzelas)!:-)
HUP HOLLAND!

Macrojack, LOL! I don't like the sound of live vuvuzelas.
Thanks for the well wishes for the Dutch. Two players are being with held for cards for the next match, but the Dutch are deep enough for it not to be too much of a concern. I would consider them more of a technically proficient team than a physical one.
HUP HOLLAND!

:-)HUP HOLLAND!:-)

:-) HUP! HOLLAND HUP! :-)

:-) HUP! HOLLAND HUP! :-)

Strawman argument?

I doubt anyone would argue that HP wasn't one of the pioneers of subjective audio journalism. As for creating the language of describing what is heard, I'd really give just a bit more credit to J. Gordon Holt. Without either of them I suspect that many of us might still not quite understand what many of us were describing. I think that in itself begs for some respect and gratitude.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50

Al, I was under the impression that the Carver was supposed the emulating the sound of a conrad-johnson amplifier?

Ah, thanks for the follow Al.