Why not horns?

In the link provided by Rok, it is claimed that the ONLY component which effects sound is the Loudspeaker.

Shindo San would be much impressed.

"99.99999999999" of the time, with some gentle prodding and especially persistence, truth will usually reveal itself. Those desperately seeking support for a questionable position would do well being careful about who their bedfellows are.

Rok2kid,
Hello my fellow jazz lover/admirer, we'll have to cheerfully disagree on the "all amps sound the same" issue. It has been covered redundantly and there's nothing new to add and to each their own. By the way I'm listening to Milt Jackson and Wes Montgomery "Bags Meets Wes!".
Take care,
Charles,

Julian Hirsch, Leonard Feldman, Rok2id :), Pete Azcel and about 99.99999999999% of all HUMANITY, both past and present, KNOW, that all amps sound the same. Meaning, if they are well made and engineered correctly, they have no 'sound'.

Now the question is, which 'camp' is laughable? Humanity, or 'audiophiles'.

I don't know anything about HP. Neither he, nor any of the other charlatans, occupy space in my universe. BUT, what Pete said about him, and it was brutal, you can take it as Gospel!!

The man did not lie or stutter. Spoke English. You understood him. A true hero of audio. Don't like it? Too Bad!!!

One more thing. We all splurge on something! If anyone wants to spend 10k on a power amp, or a few feet of wire, fine! Just don't feel you have to demolish or corrupt science and the scientific method, in order to justify your purchase.

After all, it's your money. Leave science out of it. The Wire Moguls won't mind. :)

Cheers

Peter Aczel's "all amplifiers sound the same" attitude is why I'd referenced Stereo Review earlier. Even as a young greenhorn back in the late 1980s I knew that mindset was patently false. This is an obvious area where the subjectivity crowd got it right, component's most definitely sound distinct with their individual character. Julian Hirsch was very different from the compelling HP and JGH in those days.
Charles,

I am still waiting for actual and specific examples of the lying and bullying that HP is accused of. I also find it ironic and more than a bit laughable that Peter Aczel, the man who claims that all amplifiers sound the same, is being introduced into this discussion as a way to somehow give credence to the bashers.

What sort of a man reads Playboy? For those old enough to remember, this was an ad campaign launched very successfully by Hugh Hefner. In those days (the Madmen era) American men were being encouraged to fancy themselves to be oozing savoir faire and unabashed self confidence. James Bond was there to set an example of the gentleman who is rugged, handsome, virile, well to do and always tasteful. HP developed an essence of such an individual as the TAS reader, the audiophile snob, the knowing and eager pursuer of the Absolute Sound. It was pretentious to its core and it reeked of arrogance and selfishness.
And it was the launching point for a collusive and insular con game. He was a petty and petulant tyrant given to vindication or revenge as he felt necessary. He seemed to think of himself as Queen of all he surveyed. And we bought into his schtick hook, line and blinkers.

But that's not why we're here. We are gathering at this thread to determine why we as individuals have or have not chosen to explore the greater virtues of horn loudspeakers.

A simple 2way hybrid system can be put together for under $5K if active amplification is used and a little creativity is employed. I obtained a fine working pair of JBL L-200 speakers. The weak point of these was always the mid-horn. So I bypassed that horn and mounted a larger and more broadband horn on top of the cabinet. At first I just used the onboard JBL passive crossover. Then I acquired a digital speaker management system and bi-amped the speakers.
This worked very well and set me off on my way.
The footprint of this combo is 24 inches wide by 21 inches front to back, with the compression driver extending about 8 inches behind the cabinet. I think in today's audio that would not be considered a very large speaker.
That takes care of price and size arguments. Some will surely object to the appearance and some will simply not have a large enough room. Generally, however, a horn installation is a pretty realistic option for nearly anyone who reads Playboy.

If Kiddman is right (and in this respect he is) that the industry would have flourished, whether or not there was an 'HP' or 'JGH' reporting on it, then some responsibility rests with the manufacturers, distributors and the rest of the industry in the States for failing to recognize the virtues of horns and low powered tube amplifiers at the time. If you rewind to the early 70's, the focus, with a few exceptions, was high powered amplifiers; acoustic suspension speakers, of the 'bookshelf' variety, were still the norm for home use and the only horn loudspeakers I remember from that era were Klipsh and a variety of professional and sound reinforcement pieces, e.g. Altec A 7. Electrostats were also sidelined for a number of obvious reasons. The Magneplanar was a practical compromise for planars, but took up space and required oodles of power.
Information about good sounding gear was not as easy to come by then; you could rely on what could be heard at your local hi-fi shop (I was fortunate in having a good one in my town) and in others' systems.
Whether or not HP and JGP 'invented' the vocabulary, they did much to promote the notion that not all gear was created equal and questioned whether specifications dictated sonic outcomes (remember the quest to reduce 'TIM')?
Perhaps HP did audio enthusiasts a disservice by failing to recognize the virtues of horns, but given the direction of the industry as a whole, I don't think he should bear sole responsiblity. And to the extent he and other writers did inform and influence readers, I regard it as a positive. How many people were aware of some of those great old recordings before these magazines explored them in depth? (I always enjoyed Sid Marks' work on the RCA and Mercury catalogs and even if I didn't always find the music on HP's 'Super Disc' list to be engaging, he did identify a number of well recorded albums that I can still listen to today).

Strong stuff in that link but hard to shoot down totally.

The audio magazines really don't go about their things any different than any other publication with a focus on selling stuff. Science and technology is boring. Fantasy and soap boxes are much more fertile grounds for keeping people interested.

For an industry firmly reliant almost exclusively on technology, high end audio no doubt resides elsewhere. It is to real science kinda what WWE is to real sports.

Honestly, I have read all the rags over the years on occasion and continue to but I take it all with many grains of salt. I did not know who HP was or his influence until this thread.

Someone must be to blame for all the nonsense that goes on for big $$$s in HEA. In all fairness, TAS should probably be held as accountable as any.

Interesting article Rok2id!

I didn't read TAS, but here is an opinion of Pearson written by the man I most respect in Audio.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_23_r.pdf

Another short paragraph about the guy in Issue #24.

Cheers

Dkarmeli, specifics please. My definition of "lie" is not the issue here; yours is. Explain "misguidance and misinformation" with specific examples; it is very easy to condemn or criticize. What exactly are you referring to? I would like to understand your perspective.

Frogman, What would you call creating a bully pulpit through misinformation and misguidance to satisfy one's ego and fulfill a personal agenda without care for those who're your supposedly helping? Not to make this political; " if you like you can keep it, period!".

An honest question: what lies? There may be disagreement, but lies? Kindly explain.

Macrojack & Kiddman, I'm with you regarding HP. I'm surprised after all these years of bullshit there are still so many that haven't caught on to his lies. Of course certain manufacturers benefited while others paid the price of his crap. His sound, the absolute sound was a misnomer to begin with. The man's a charlatan and a narcissist. Having heard his systems on two occasions I even wonder if he can hear. Unfortunately he was influential and imo ruined high end. He moved the goal post from musical all the way to hifi and worse. I don't understand how people can read his crap for years and not see through it when its always the same self stroking gibberish. Never met the man but from what I hear his writing is a reflection of him.

Hi Kiddman,
We've shared forum topics before and I've come to respect your insightful input and feel the same regarding Frogman as well. I do feel a sense of gratitude towards HP and G. Holt for their publications in my early years in this most enjoyable pastime. Of course as you gain personal experience/knowledge the influence of others naturally tends to diminish. They did jump start my exposure to the world of subjective audio review and observation. In those days Stereo Review and Audio magazine in contrast did virtually nothing for me.
Charles,

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.

Setting the record straight is all. Folks so often give HP credit for "founding the industry", "inventing the language that allowed us to talk about what we hear", and implying the industry would not have flourished without him. I am offering an alternative take, the reality that although the exact same words might not have been used, the phenomena were recognized and discussion and awareness of great equipment would have occurred without HP. Great journalists do not create industries, they report on them. That they often take credit for products, or "discovering" certain products, or even an entire industry, more reflects on the type of individual drawn to telling folks "how it is" than the reality of the situation.

No more, no less, no agenda.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Kiddman, I don't recall ever reading copies of the Absolute Kiddman or of Kiddmanfile. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about the use of a similar descriptive language before Holt or HP did. So what? The point is that it was they that took the leap and made the investment to found their magazines and introduce me and countless others to it. Isn't that alone deserving of credit? You seem hell bent on not giving them any credit. I am truly curious as to why that is. Perhaps a clue lies in your hint that you are in the industry. BTW, no one has said anything like:

****To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words.****

****gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?****

HP revered the great engineers like Layton and Wilkinson and gave them their due many times over in his reviews of their recordings as well as discussing their techniques.

It seems obvious to me that there is something going on here beyond a simple wish to set the record straight. I for one would be interested in knowing what that is.

Ah, history is so easy to swing to your position when you are doing the reporting.

Harry claimed he pioneered the use of many words as related to audio and they certainly were not all true.

"High end" is the most ridiculous one.

As for "soundstage", I have used, and heard others use, words like "placement", "positioning", "3d" before we ever read HP or Holt. Many of us identified the lack of 3 dimensionality of CD before HP ever reported on a CD player.

To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words is ludicrous. Before HP or Holt ever took pen to paper stereo was long since out there....gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?

All the greats that MADE it happen, who knew what they were putting out long before HP came on the scene, are shortchanged by the revisionist history that says HP taught everyone about such matters as imaging, depth, etcetera.

HP and many reviewers are great at taking credit for what they are critiquing, as if they were the cause of the advances. That's just not reality.

Mapman, I remember there was an Ohm model that got good reviews back in the early 80's in Stereophile and maybe TAS too. I can't remember the model, but I want to say it was about a $750.00 speaker at the time. I still have all my old copies in storage. One day I'll try to dig them up.

I've got every single TAS from about issue 2 or 3 through around 1997 or so and when I was a kid, I memorized them cover to cover. Regarding horns, my recollection was (and I could be remembering wrong) that HP kind of dismissing them, but at the same time, every once in awhile, he'd unexpectedly say a nice thing about a trait of Klipschorns. I seem to remember thinking that he'd occasionaly contradict himself on them.

Given his influence, still sounds like horn designs were largely ignored by HP back in his day, and that may be one (not the only reason) that horn speakers do not get as much attention today (or over the years since their heyday) as they might deserve.

On the other hand, over the years, I have heard a lot more poor or mediocre sounding horn based systems than really good ones. Only in more recent years again it seems have a large variety of vendors seemed to endeavor hard to get the design right and also make them affordable and in a package whose size has appeal for more as well.

So the comment earlier that HP did a disservice to horns somehow seems to ring true to me, even if the error was merely one of omission, in that he was in search of TAS apparently so cost, size etc. should not have been a limit.

Did he ever review any Walsh style speakers set up well?

If not then I'll pin that disservice on the poor guy as well. :^)

Ralph, way wrong. There were great horns when Harry hated them.....Tannoys have been great for a long time, various JBLs were, horns were all over in recording studios sounding great.

Kiddman, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I happen to agree there were great horns when hp made that statement and one of my early customers was making Hartsfield reproductions which sounded great at the audio shows in the late 80s and early 90s. I was running Altecs with dual 15" woofers back in the 1970s... Anyway my point was with my last post that hp would certainly not say that today.

As far as contributions- hp created most of the vernacular we audiophiles use to describe the sound of our stereos- 'soundstage', the use of color descriptions to describe tonality ('bright', 'dark', etc.). He was one of the very first to describe the sound of equipment based on listening. Stereo Review and other magazines around at the time simply did not do that. Nowadays we take that sort of thing for granted. So his contributions should not be ignored even if you don't agree with his reviews. He had a serious influence on high end audio.

Really? I don't think so; my heroes make music and sound not write about them. Here's what I do know: I can't remember a time that I bought a recording that he recommended, and then, when judging the sound of the recording on my system not being able to verify what he described. Operative word here is MUSIC. I am not aware of anyone else being so articulate and accurate (aargh!) in the way that he wrote about recorded music; and the passion with which he did so. That is good enough for me. Additionally, I can't think of a component that he spoke highly of and which I then owned (not many), or had extensive experience with, that I disagreed with his assessment of. The man has great ears.

Frogman, you are suffering from a bit of hero worship and unfortunately don't really know the real scenarios that played out. Neither do you know the sound there over those years, obviously.

dc10audio is all horns!

Funny, because I transitioned from a pair of Crosby Quads (which I still have) to my horn system back in 2006 or so, largely because I wanted the best of both worlds- the dynamics and vividness of the 'big system' together with the open, unboxed quality of the Quad (though i still think, at least in the midrange, the 57 is better than the 63, even as modified). I don't remember HP overtly bashing horns, perhaps he did. Or was it a sin of omission?

Perhaps your reality, not mine. I think your comment "The systems always could play loud, and usually did, could go deep in the bass and with a lot of volume, and threw big images. But to get those traits they often veered quite a bit away from truth in tonality." is a gross mis characterization of reality. As you may (or not, apparently) recall his reference systems were broken into categories: large, medium and small. While it is true that his no.1 reference speaker system was the IRS he championed many smaller ones like the Crosby Quads (and who can argue with the "truth in tonality" of those), smaller Thiels, Proacs and Sequerras to name just a couple. But, more importantly, I think you miss the point of the bigger picture. HP was TAS, and the adherence to strict standards of reviewing (flaws and all) and variety of opinion expressed by his chosen reviewers (and subsequent rebuttals) was something that was unparalleled. Sure he was a gear head; so what? That in no way detracts from his loftier contributions. He had a tremendous amount of influence and it is true that he (with a negative review) could cause great harm to a start-up, but on balance his positive contribution to the health of the industry was huge.

This is not bashing, just a dose of reality. HP wrote about remaining true to the music, but a lot of his equipment did not reflect that. He's as much of a gear head as anyone, and the gear took precedent many times, as did politics. And anyone in the industry in his hayday knew that well.

The systems always could play loud, and usually did, could go deep in the bass and with a lot of volume, and threw big images. But to get those traits they often veered quite a bit away from truth in tonality.

Readers loved the dream of his equipment and sound, but reality was often not as good as the verbal dream he conjured in readers' heads.

His great gift, truly, was writing in a very provocative way. Nobody could touch that in his prime, and his is still closely chimped in that regard, especially by one print writer in particular.

Harry could have been a great writer in the wine industry, camera industry (especially about Leicas), or many other subjective industries for which he had a love.

But one thing should really be clear: he was far more of a columnist and editorialist than unbiased reviewer.

Part of the bias was an extremely strong anti-horn sentiment, which is how this diversion about writers started. Many folks who would have loved compression drivers coupled with horns missed out on them, and the joy they could have had by listening to some of the great ones, due to reading how they were not true high end products in the opinions of biased opinion shapers in the high end digests.

As usual, Almarg comes to the rescue with his indisputable reasonableness; in this case, helping to turn the tide of the usual reviewer bashing which is partly what I like to call simple reviewer envy (all that great gear!).

Perhaps the bashers are younger than I and some of the other supporters and are not familiar with the TAS of its heyday; and I will concede that the TAS (and HP's contributions) of the last several years was not on the same level. IMO, the contribution of TAS and HP in particular has done as much (in a positive way) for the health of the industry as just about anyone else including the great equipment designers. His relentless adherence to a standard influenced these great designers to continually improve their designs. No other reviewer that I can think of was as adamant about the concept of the gear always being in the service of the music. Read some of those back issues and you will learn not only about the concept of faithfulness to the sound of live acoustic instruments, but also (via the infamous "surveys") everything from the great concert halls around the world to the great pipe organs of the world; not to mention an incredible (for an audio mag) number of discussions about music theory and pedagogy, and the "Super Lists" of great recordings. Additionally, he did more to create a vocabulary for discussing audio matters than anyone else that I can think of. I think the bashers are taking a whole lot for granted and not giving credit where credit is due.

I read HP, JG Holt and the others, starting ca. 1972 or so. It was fun to read about expensive, esoteric gear at the time a/k/a 'audio porn,' but with hindsight, the lasting value of their contributions was, I think, what to listen for- the so-called 'subjective school' of audio. (I also enjoyed Richard Heyser in Audio Magazine, who was far more engineering grounded).
I doubt that any of this reading influenced what I bought at the time, but as my pocketbook allowed, I was able to listen to, and buy, gear that reproduced the recordings with somewhat more 'life.' (At the time, it was an ARC SP 3 -a-1, which was a revelation to me, compared to other preamps, circa 1974, and a pair of 'old' Quads, a/k/a '57's'). Today, when I read these magazines, I do so largely for entertainment. I like Fremer for keeping the torch lit on vinyl, and a few other reviewers (Roy Gregory when he was at HiFi+).
I had occasion to read an old copy of TAS recently and it was a far more ambitious publication 20 plus years ago.
The intra-web has certainly changed things, to allow users to compare listening experiences and share information (as well as provide a huge inventory of old vinyl from across the globe).

Kiddman,
You use live acoustic instruments as your template and I happily do the same and this approach has served me very effectively in choosing audio components. You do need to be familiar with real instrument sound in order to determine how and to what degree components deviate from this standard. HP did recognize and strongly advocate this concept and I'll give him cconsiderable credit for making this an important criteria. I enjoyed TAS quite a bit during my introduction in the late 1980s and this continued for about a 10 year period. I admired his efforts but didn't view him or anyone else as an all knowing infallible guru. I also believed that HP truly loves and respects music just as I do.
Charles,

I had never heard of Stereophile, TAS, J. Peter goofball, or any of the high end when I went stereo shopping after college. I told the salesperson "I want to hear jazz, classical, pop, but jazz and classical instruments have to sound real". She (yes, she) asked if I ever heard a violin. I said "of course" and she played a string quartet album. Then jazz.

Point is, I wanted to hear music and knew what it sounded like, all without some rag telling me just what to listen for, how to listen, and what albums to listen to.

When I found TAS (which was inevitable) it did not mean a thing to me. The notion of individuals blessing or not blessing equipment based solely on their tastes in their rooms with their listening biases struck me as something that might be entertaining to read but not to take very seriously.

Point is, great equipment existed before any of those cult mags, plenty of folks used the simply logic that good speakers should make an insturment sound like it does in person, and they CERTAINLY did not "found" the industry. SME existed way before them. How about Peter Walker's original Quads? How about the BBC monitor work? All based on good research as well as listening. AR loudspeakers and turntable. We could go on and on. It is completely self-reporting that has HP and others in the press claiming they "founded" high end. Hell, HP even claims he invented the term "high end" - and not just as it applies to audio. That bit of self-reporting is also false.

I appreciate HP's wit, love of music, love of audio, and he certainly had very strong influence in some of the directions it went after he and others in the high end press became powerful, But any thoughts that high end audio would not have flourished without him and his high end reviewing contemporaries is totally false.

I read TAS religiously from the late 1970's until around the time the world wide web emerged in the mid-1990's. I also read pretty much all of the other major audio-related publications of the time, and a number of the minor ones, representing pretty much all of the points on the spectrum of audiophile ideologies. I found that I could glean useful information from all of them.

As a technically oriented person I certainly had issues with a lot of what I read in TAS, especially when the writers hypothesized technical explanations for their sonic perceptions. However, based on my listening experiences during that period and those of my audiophile friends, I don't think it can be denied that the listening impressions reported by HP and many of his writers tended to be more consistently spot on than those in any other contemporaneous publication. Albeit with matters of degree perhaps being somewhat exaggerated at times.

Concerning Harry's considerable power and influence, it seems to me that ultimately its most significant effect was promulgation of his fundamental underlying philosophy, the use of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real performing space as the ultimate reference. And promulgation of that philosophy was sorely needed at the time, and all to the good, IMO.

If some folks followed his recommendations blindly, and if he had great influence (which he did), that is not his fault. My perception has been that the net result of that influence during the roughly 20 year period in question was more beneficial to the evolution of quality audio reproduction than that of any other audio reviewer or journalist.

And btw, I've found Parker's wine ratings and books to be useful as well.

Regards,
-- Al

The man had great power, folks followed him blindly like many follow Fremer blindly today for analog stuff, or how they followed Parker and his ridiculous wine ratings system. When one guy, not a do-er, but a reviewer, gains too much influence it can really muck up an industry.

Strawman argument?

I'm glad I did not know who he was until now.

Nothing against him personally, but one one human can represent truth and reality for all.

Plus I never found the Absolute Sound to be that interesting or useful. I never connected with it whenever I picked one up and gave a read.

Ralph, way wrong. There were great horns when Harry hated them.....Tannoys have been great for a long time, various JBLs were, horns were all over in recording studios sounding great.

And Harry would still say today that they are bad. Lack of correctness never stopped Harry from being religious about his audio beliefs.

Macrojack, you are so right.

Me so horny

Harry who???? :^)

Funny, being casually interested in horn speakers for some time, I have been casually intrigued by this thread for some time also without actually taking the time to read it until today when I looked at the some of the posts in this last page. I then read:

****Harry Pearson has done a greater disservice to high end audio than anyone else I can think of. His faulty proclamations, pretentious stance, and cronyism misdirected about 2 decades worth of audio growth. The internet came to the rescue when we finally started talking amongst ourselves thereby learning the myth in his message.****

Man, talk about living on a different audio planet from mine! I am still intrigued by horns (a little), but one thing is certain: I am looking (listening) for different things in audio than the author of that comment. Perhaps that is a part of the answer to the OP's original question.

Harry Pearson has done a greater disservice to high end audio than anyone else I can think of. His faulty proclamations, pretentious stance, and cronyism misdirected about 2 decades worth of audio growth. The internet came to the rescue when we finally started talking amongst ourselves thereby learning the myth in his message. Stereophile was nearly as bad but not nearly as effective.

Those of you who have not spent significant time with a quality horn system know not of what you speak. Conventional horn drivers and panel efforts just can't manage the realism provided by well-engineered horns. If you are inexperienced, find a way to change that. I bought mine from The Acoustic Horn Company. Friends have Gedlee and I have heard EdgarHorns in the past that were quite impressive. There are numerous choices and Ralph (Atmasphere) has what I believe to be one of the best, Classic Audio Reproductions.

If you would like to hear mine, I'm in 81521. Perhaps some other owners will extend a similar invite. Seems like the best way to spread the word and debunk the myths about horns.

If they were not "high end" then they would be pretty much extinct by now, at least for home use.

Obviously that is not the case and they still thrive in pro applications where efficiency is in high demand.

I remember once Harry Pearson (back in the 80s) commenting that horns weren't 'high end'. That sure has changed- no way he would say that now.

I don't own horn speakers but I do like them quite a lot when they're properly implemented. At CES last month I heard a multitude of rooms with very expensive and highly raved about speakers. One of the very best sounding rooms I heard in terms of realistic and natural sound was the Cessaro horn driven by the Electra Fidelity 300b SET. Very alive and involving presentation. Many rooms even with high power amplifiers driving relatively inefficient speakers had a duller, less vibrant and flat 2 dimensional sound in comparison. The difference was pretty striking in some cases. A good quality horn can sound excellent.

Charles,

"Because the USA press killed them for the US market over 30 years ago and most audiophiles are naive enough to believe what they read."

The large systems needed for full range high efficiency horns and space increasingly being at a premium for many probably had a lot to do with it. Not to mention all the other inconveniences and potential additional expenses for many dealing with large and heavy household items.

Why not horns? Because the USA press killed them for the US market over 30 years ago and most audiophiles are naive enough to believe what they read. In the Far East they never gave up on horns and I can assure you, it's not because they are deaf. Far from it, they never took several horrible wrong turns that the USA audio market did, following the magazine founders, and then the sycophant reviewers they hired, like they were gods.

The new JBL Studio 530 monitors are EXCELLENT!

Horns make me horny

Csontos, Any updates on your application with the JBL 4345 system. If they actually were able to and had also succeeded to"rip your head off" I will expect no response.