Duke your loudspeaker design is interesting and I'm sure very well thought out but the name darn your as bad as me picking them ;) Cloud chaser..I was thinking of pimping your bi pole design if I do will name it the DL BP after you. I started this when we chatted awhile back but didn't want to step on your toes. But read where you do not care if others use your idea. I have what I thought is a great idea for cabinet to allow better bipolar effects and image. So far results are very good. Might be able to break the $2500 price point with this design.
Why not horns?
I've owned a lot of speakers over the years but I have never experienced anything like the midrange reproduction from my horns. With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, it seems like a no-brainer that everyone would want this performance. Why don't you use horns?
992 responses Add your response
I'm running 1000 watts on bass horn 550 on mains. My horns do run fine on low power. But to think only low power is best for horns is wrong. Many audio designers I know run hi power on there horn systems. Doesn't mean I use all this power but the sound quality's of the amplification I choose compliments my horn system. |
If you take 6 different drivers, unless they have perfectly linear transfer functions, they will all have slightly different responses. If they all have the same input signal their responses should smooth to a more linear response. Sorry, a complete load of crap. Are you serious? You add up a bunch of errors and the total error is less than any individual error? You've already embarrassed yourself with your theory about parallel amps. Might be better to retire now and save face. . |
I completely understand the difference in parallel and bridged. I completely understand that parallel amplifiers cannot double the power output. I remain confused that you insist they do. I saw nothing on the BAT site that explains why their amps do this. Maybe I missed something. I accept your apology . |
And honestly, I'm not going to retract anything either. I don't doubt that you (Herman) teach electronics but I am still a little wary as to why, when I said "parallel", you assumed bridge and didn't seem to know the difference. I had written a lengthy explanation to all of this but Audiogon rejected it for being too long. This is probably a good thing. So I'll just sum up in a few lines. First, your equations make sense for DC and purely resistive AC. But this is not how drivers directly coupled to amplifiers behave. The whole argument arose from an example I gave as to why Avantgarde would chose to use a high power amp on an already sensitive speaker. This had nothing to do with the assertion that the basshorn could not be sensitive BECAUSE it has a large amp. Because this line of arguing really has no relevance to the thread. And because we seem to be on different verbal wavelengths here. I'll simply refer you to Balanced Audio Technology for an explanation on why they list their Vk-75 as a 75watt amp and why they list their Vk-150 as a 150watt amp. Even though the only difference between the two is the internal paralleling of the inputs and outputs and a different nameplate on the VK-150. Any more explanation as to why this matters on a complex load I leave to them. Cheers, and goodnight, for now. |
If you take 6 different drivers, unless they have perfectly linear transfer functions, they will all have slightly different responses. If they all have the same input signal their responses should smooth to a more linear response. It may be to small to be audible which is why I stated that it MAY be argued to be better. But it doesn't change the fact that these differing nonlinear transfer functions should become more linear as a whole. The reduction in distortions, which is what Weseixas picked up on, should have been a little more obvious. |
You then went on to explain it in , well, a simpler term , coming to the same conclusion that you originally denounced. I did not denounce his conclusion. I denounced his reason. I said something complete different LOL !! Prez, I read exactly what you wrote. You said "6 different ones will average out their non-linearities. ." That statement is false. Nothing averages. To average something you must add up each one and divide by the total. They produce less because they aren't driven as hard. Each one produces much less so the TOTAL is less. That is in no way, shape or form an average. That may be what you meant but that is not what you said. I'm sorry but I am not a mind reader. Good GAWD !! There is a lot I don't know about electronics but after teaching it for 10 years I do have pretty good grasp on the basics. Since you want to be condescending let me explain it to you in the simplest of terms. To produce 75 watts into 8 ohms an amp must have rails of about plus/minus 34 volts. That give you peaks of 34 volts which is 25 Vrms. Square that and divide by 8 oms and you get 75 watts. P = V squared divided by R. When you put things in parallel the voltage stays the same. If you put 2 amps with 34V rails in parallel you get an amp with 34V rails. Same volts = same watts. You are correct that V x I= P. Also V divided by R = I With the same R and the same V you get the same I With the same I and the same V you get the same P He didn't change the speakers so the R stayed the same. Sill got 34V peak amplifiers so that stayed the same. Same V same R same I same power. Care to retract your admonition to "Sit back, take a breather and learn something!!" . |
"Those of you making categorical pronouncements about the limitations of horns - all horns - demonstrate the greatest need for education." I always love the smug responses. I'm not sure who you are calling out here. But everything I've ever said is based off of extensive and first hand experience. I'm not and never have claimed that it's impossible to create something from a horn. But to date I have yet to hear one that truly impressed me overall. I'm not out there trying to design one therefor I really see no reason why I would need more education on the matter. When I hear one I like it will change things. |
Good Gawd Herman!!! Sit back, take a breather and learn something!! First of all, Voltage X Current = Power (Watts) This is basic basic stuff. If you double the current you double the power! And what I said about distortion is also true. I mean seriously, your most recent post calls into question your very ability to remotely discuss these things. In all seriousness. Go ask a Electrical Engineer. You'll find that everything I've said about this stuff so far is true. I don't mean to be crass, but Sheesh! |
Herman ! Prez said lower distortion for the same sensitivity, with multiple drivers vs 1 , this is correct! 1. Transient Distortion 2. IMD 3. THD all will be lower vs a single driver ! You then went on to explain it in , well, a simpler term , coming to the same conclusion that you originally denounced. LOL... Regards, |
prez, I think you are bit off base. Bridging and paralleling are two very different things. Bridging effects the voltage. Parallel does so with the current. If a design can allow for paralleling you double the current thus doubling the wattage. Assuming you aren't trying to draw so much current that the supply voltage sags then the max power is determined by the voltage rails. If you parallel two amps you get the same maximum voltage before clipping. If you get the same maximum voltage you get the same maximum power. Two 75 watt amps with a given gain in parallel is a 75 watt amp with the same gain but capable of delivering more current into a low impedance load so it won't sag and clip as easily. Now that might explain why it sounds better. a serious argument could be made that it is better to use 6 individual drivers to achieve the same sensitivity of just one and a huge horn due to the way the 6 different ones will average out their non-linearities. Interesting theory but again, a little off base. You think if multiple drivers have different distortions that will add up to less distortion? You can't average out distortions. A + B + C + D + E + F is less than A ??? I don't think so. Now if you told me that 6 would distort less because each is working 1/6 as much therefore distorting much less then I would go for that. I hate to be blunt but if you don't understand some of these basic concepts it kind of puts your other conclusions into question. . |
Here's an excerpt: Conical Horn Geometry IÂ’m often asked how horns differ from one another, and also how different types of horns differ in sound and design, such as exponential, tractrix, and new versions of these which carry the names of their designers. IÂ’ve put together some observations, backed up by actual frequency response curves and measurements, so that people can decide for themselves what types of horns would work best for them. The above are the words of Bill Woods. If you are genuinely interested in knowing something about horns, this article is available in its entirety on the Acoustic Horn website. I am not an expert but I can tell from reading these comments that many of you are overestimating your understanding of the subject. Do yourselves a favor and get the real info from someone who has devoted his life to this study. Horns differ tremendously and Bill has as good an understanding as anyone of how and why this is true. Let him explain it to you. He's a scientist with a degree in industrial design and a lifetime of trial and error experience. Those of you making categorical pronouncements about the limitations of horns - all horns - demonstrate the greatest need for education. |
Before I completely lose my train of thought (again), let me do a quick tie-back-in: The conical horns Bill Woods (designer of Macrojacks's speakers) uses are arguably what might be called "waveguides". And when Bill Woods came by my room at RMAF several years ago, he subsequently referred to my waveguides as "conical horns". Maybe neither perfectly fits the defnintion of the other, but they are conceptually and sonically very close cousins. Duke |
I use a Geddes-style waveguide on most of my designs, but it's not the same as the ones he uses. Nor am I using his patented refractive waveguide plug. In my more recent/less expensive models, I'm using what might be called a "waveguide-style horn", which is considerably more of a challenge to get good results from. If either of you will be at RMAF, come on by my room if you get the chance. Duke |
Pdprez, good call - I hadn't made a mental distinction between "horn system top-to-bottom" and "horn system over part of the spectrum". And your understanding of my designs is correct; you also get extra points for coming up with the right name for one of them! I have no hands-on design experience with top-to-bottom horn systems, and would think that they'd be far more difficult to do well. I'm too chicken to even try. Weseixas, a waveguide (as Earl uses the term) is a type of horn optimized for low coloration and well-controlled off-axis radiation characteristics. If you're willing to distinguish a Geddes-style waveguide from the rest of the horn world, then you and I are quite likely to end up on the same side here. And what fun would that be?? Cheers, Duke |
My take on the blind test was that the listener was noticing all of the same similarities that seperate Stats and Horns from typical dynamic speakers. It doesnt surprise me one bit that he guessed the way he did. I've seen the same thing with the (effectively) 100dB Scaena speakers being compared to Magnapans! |
Duke: Ah, yes! I remember now. Then again, your contribution has thrown into the light that we should be careful in defining exactly what "horns" we are talking about. Your Dream Maker is only a "horn" from 1.7K up. It's not a wonder it would sound so smooth. the majority of all instrument fundamentals as well as all voices aren't coming form a "horn" at all! (if I understand the design correctly) I would think this would be a major difference between it and something like an Avantgarde! If not, please do explain. I am curious! |
Prdprez, that guy who hated horns was talking about mine at Lone Star 2010. The speakers behind the curtain in the first example were GedLee Summas. Until you've heard speakers designed or inspired by Earl Geddes, you haven't heard all there is to hear in the world of low-coloration hornspeakers. And at least one of his students got some press a couple of years ago: a Golden Ear Award from The Absolute Sound. Duke |
Bridging and paralleling are two very different things. Bridging effects the voltage. Parallel does so with the current. If a design can allow for paralleling you double the current thus doubling the wattage. You also cut the output impedance in half thus increasing your damping factor. The question of whether or not a set of three basshorns will reach 109dB sensitivity is not as simple as measuring 1watt at 1 meter. Measuring actual sensitivity in the real world is a little more complicated. And the whole 1w/1m standard is very misleading! 1w/1m works adequately for comparing drivers and most simple one to four way dynamic designs. But for planar speakers and line arrays it is basically useless. A typical speaker will measure a particular level at 1m and that level will drop off as a function of distance. A planar or line array will measure one thing at 1m and then INCREASE as a function of distance up to a point. This is because it takes a little space for the entire surface of the planar or all the drivers of a line array to combine. In the same way, three bass horns are effectively a line array of 6 different 12inch woofers. This takes up nearly eight feet and will only combine at a distance of about 10feet away or more. Therefor, in order to accurately define the actual sensitivity of the entire system you have to measure both the upper frequency horns and the basshorns are the same distant spot. You measure the upper horns to get their true sensitivity at that point and then set the basshorns so that they are of equal SPL at that same spot. THEN you measure the amplifier output. And only THEN do you have a real estimation of the sensitivity of the entire system. |
The experience in the Cathedral room was way different than in the room with the mega gear driving those horns. Cathedral used a modest CD player and a vintage Fisher tube amp as I recall. Some classical piano and more pop pieces (carole King) were played while I was there. The Cathedrals were very pleasant and clean sounding and easy on the ears, though volumes and dynamics were not to the max with that setup and source. They indicated they were going for more of a "vintage" type sound. I could have stayed and listened in this room for much longer than the 20 minutes or so I spent, but I still had some ground to cover before event end. The mega gear room was tweaked to the max for phono, and the phono stage designer (Dynamic Sounds) was present. The phono rig there was most impressive, not a trace of noise on those ultra sensitive horns and a quite nice and vibrant presenation overall to boot, but that's another story for another thread. Some digital was played using an Accuphase player, but this was way less impressive in that setup. |
Wes, I know nothing about this bass driver. You need to ask Dan. I understand what bridging an amp is. If you bridge a 75W amp you get 300 watts if the power supply can handle it, not the 150 stated by paralleling it, whatever that means. Perhaps I misunderstood what he meant, that's why I asked him to clarify. . |
Prez, so one watt to the basshorns produces 109dB at one meter? Identical in every way expect the fact that the monobloc has paralleled outputs.Identical except it has more power and a different output impedance and just about everyone who has tried it says running a stereo amp in mono changes it's sound even if they are played to the same level. BTW, If you take a 75W amp and run it as a monoblock you get twice the voltage swing so 4 times the power, not twice. What amps were these? Wes, that is what Dan told us, I was asking him to clarify if that was what he meant. |
Duke .. LOL.... Duke are you saying those that dislike horns cannot pick them out in a blind test , good Man , you know your market, Stevie wonder must have a Pr then ? ..........LOL Dukey maybe you have yet to hear good hi-fi, hence the horns ...) Seriously i'm sure you can respect it does not work for everyone and with good reason. Most dealers have had the same bad experience for years, just stick you head into one of their demonstration room's ... Deaf comes to mind !!! |
Herman, we can use flea power because of the efficiency of the drivers that can be used with horn loading. Horns are a device that give a certain amount of gain with a particular driver. The efficiency can be enhanced with a horn, but the horn itself is not what dictates the power needs. I understand, and am not irritated by physics, that with a longer horn and smaller throat, a different drive will yield different sound. But to say that something is not a horn because it uses 200+ watts is not accurate. I guess you really said "true" horn. How about saying "a non-folded horn". That I believe I can agree with. I can theorize that the seismics are about 101-102 db. The drivers are 95 dB and I can guess to at at least a 6db gain. But this is a bass horn, ~20-200 Hz. There is quite a bit of energy needed to get from 40Hz (your horns) down another 20, and mine are a folded horn which I can move from room to room if needed. The rest of the horn system is easily 110+ dB and that is what I referred to in my last post. I'm biamping this upper end with two, 50watt amps. They rarely get beyond the first watt, except for the amp driving the mid-bass. It probably does get a bit of a workout from the 105-106 db mid-bass. There again using a large driver because it is a 3/8 horn. It's not even worth talking about the mid-range and tweeter horns. There is a lot more to creating a note and creating a note that sounds as big as the instrument which originally created it. This is subjective, naturally, based on the music that each of us prefers. to all, Did someone actually tell me that all horns are not alike? ;-) Really? I would have never guessed. I thought that all through this thread I have been pointing that out. My way is not the only way. Neither is yours. |
I read the following statement wrong so I'll try to answer it again. "You are comparing 2 amplifiers that obviously have differences other than max power and saying it is definitely because they have more power. It seems you jump to a lot of conclusions." Actually, I made no such claim! I offered this example as a counter to your implication that simply because a speaker HAD a ton of amplifier power that it NEEDED the power. I simply offered a concrete example as to why Avantegaurde WOULD install a 250watt amp versus the argument that it NEEDED one. My initial response to this statement was offering a reason as to why the amp with more power would sound better. |
@ Duke: I remember reading that same account of the guy who hated horns until that experience. I just can't place it. But I disagree. I've heard everything that has gotten any press in the last 10 years and more. Some are better than others. But I maintain my ultimate conclusion. All horns sound like horns to some degree or another. Some are just better at hiding the fact. But like we "horn haters" have said over and over..... To each his own. Its all a balance of compromises, no matter how you look at it. |
"You are comparing 2 amplifiers that obviously have differences other than max power and saying it is definitely because they have more power. It seems you jump to a lot of conclusions." Well, for starters, the output impedance was cut in half. "Prez, so there is nothing you could possibly do to improve the sound of that system?" At this time, no. But we are always searching. "How do you figure the efficiency of the "basshorns" given it is an active system?" Easy. You raise to volume to a specific SPL and then measure the output of the amplifier. The rest is just math. Incidentally, I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt but so far I'm not entirely certain you understand the full breadth of sensitivity and the ways to achieve it. FWIW, a serious argument could be made that it is better to use 6 individual drivers to achieve the same sensitivity of just one and a huge horn due to the way the 6 different ones will average out their non-linearities. |
Several years ago I conducted a controlled blind listening test, administered under the guidance of a leading researcher in the field of psychoacoustics. In the questionaire that the listeners filled out, one very experienced listener wrote that he knew what kind of speakers we had behind the curtain: Electrostats. He owned electrostats and was sure he recoginzed their signature clarity, detail, and freedom from coloration. Just so you know, guessing what kind of speaker was behind the curtain was not part of the test. Well, he was wrong. They were hornspeakers - rather unconventional ones, but still that's the category they'd fall in. Fast-forward to a recent audio show. This was posted on another forum: "As an audiophile for 40 years, and a high-end dealer for 15, I have my preferences of what works and what don't. When I first stuck my head in the room and saw the horns, I immediately judged the speaker and walked by the room. Every horn speaker I have ever heard always screamed at me one way or the other, I hate horns. "But since I was there for a couple of days, I found myself back into this room. [They] sure made me eat those thoughts. Smooooooth, musical, and detail.....it was awesome. I went back more than a few listens, I knew they were going to start screaming at me eventually, I was wrong." Those of you who, like this guy, hate horns, I'm not saying you haven't heard colorations. What I'm saying is, you may not have heard from among the best of the low-coloration hornspeakers yet. Duke dealer/manufacturer |
Dan, The fact that there is a horn connected has nothing to do with the power requirement of the driver. Is that really what you meant to say? It has very much to do with it. The very reason we use horns is to raise efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_loudspeaker Are you saying that seismic sub is 110dB efficient? I can't find anything on the web, his site is down for construction. I saw where he recommends 100-200 watts. If true it is hard to believe it is 110 dB efficient. If you had a front loaded horn that was sufficiently long you could get those bass notes with very little power. Sorry if that irritates you but it is the truth. Prez, so there is nothing you could possibly do to improve the sound of that system? If it is optimized that is what you are saying. Optimal is as good as it gets. How do you figure the efficiency of the "basshorns" given it is an active system? For reference, this same guy with the Trios went from one 75 watt stereo amplifier to two 150 watt monos for just the top three horns. And it sounded better! Why, when he only needed 1watt?? For reasons OTHER than headroom.I agree it wasn't headroom, so what was it? You are comparing 2 amplifiers that obviously have differences other than max power and saying it is definitely because they have more power. It seems you jump to a lot of conclusions. |
How many different ways do I have to say this? A) the fact that a speaker HAS a 250watt amplifier attached to it does not mean that it NEEDS 250 watts. The reason for using this much is simple. (though arguable) The more power an amp has the greater it's power supply. The greater it's power supply the (usually) more linear it's first watt is. Read up on Nelson Pass and his theories for more on this subject. For reference, this same guy with the Trios went from one 75 watt stereo amplifier to two 150 watt monos for just the top three horns. And it sounded better! Why, when he only needed 1watt?? For reasons OTHER than headroom. One of the basic points of those little, low watt, SET amps is the linearity. But that linearity is not exclusive to low watt SETs. It just takes a whole lot more power supply (amoung other things) to make a bigger amp the same. Trust me, I have all of the fun little tech toys to measure these beasts in every conceivable way. And the bottom line is that the sensitivity of three basshorns nearly matches that of the rest of the system. Period. Second, I am not simply a casual, some of the time, listener with my friends system. We've been working on it together for about 10 years. He is retired and has the time and resources. I and a couple others have the expertise. So I say, yet again, I am fully confident that if there is a technology or any other way to make his horns sound better, we have explored it. As far as time alignment goes, we've tried both electrical and physical. Trust me, we've tried it all. Still don't like 'em long term! |