I have many speakers and I still am enjoying my horn-loaded options more than the other types. Horns have been the most engaging the most entertaining and the most interesting loudspeaker types I have worked with over my 40 years of loudspeaker building. But I will add all my horns are fully horn-loaded. A hybrid horn ie horn with a ported box under can work very well but it's not the same as a full horn-loaded loudspeaker. But I do understand most wouldn't want such a large loudspeaker and to me, that's kind of sad small always sounds small to me, and real music isn't small. YMMV on all things rock on.
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 wonder how many "horny" readers are sitting back wondering what our naysayers would think if they sat in our sweet spot? If my ears are being tricked into thinking my Klipsch Lascalas are clean, mean, music machines when actually they are distorted/honky losers then my life is a fantasy delusion. Very possible. But strangely, I've never been more pleased with the music quality/experience. I've heard Klipsch Heritage line are so industrial that it takes years for them to break in properly! But maybe they are breaking my ears instead! Sitting in several audio rooms to evaluate other systems, nothing has equaled my sweet spot yet. But my chair is pretty comfy! |
@rolox -- +2 |
Also I'd like to add that what a lot of audiophiles are calling "horns" are in fact merely direct radiator speakers with horn loaded mids or treble. A true horn system is fully horn loaded and very often sound more coherent. it's not easy to match a horn with a direct radiator mid/woofer and that is often where the design is flawed. |
There are no two horn speakers that sound the same. There are mediocre ones, good ones, very good ones, and some that are unlistenable. There are some with qualities BUT flaws (like most vintage Klipsch designs for example) that you can either live with or not, depending on your sensibilities. Modern horns, new horn designs don't sound "honky" anymore. Rejecting all horns in block makes absolutely no sense. It's such a vast world with extremely different designs and ranging from budget to ultra high end, cost-no-object... then there's the synergy with the room, with the system... no, you just can't "loathe all horns". That's just ridiculous IMHO. |
| Post removed |
Also if your looking for a pair of horns that sound like a PA I've got a pair of cs99a's in the box I could never get quite right!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Most, at least I;'m guessing here, many of the new horns have huge magnets, and my teck geek, warned me to avoid these new horn PA designs. ~~~Just cranked up a test cd, Schnittke Concerto Grosso 1/BIS. The addition of Magnovox (thanks to Richard Gray's loaning). this 1963 horn tweeter with a small alnico magnet, really picks up details which any driver under say, 92db will voice only as a background echo. IMHO, a horn tweeter will voice details and nuances in a superior sensitivity making dome tweeters obsolete. The only dome tweeter I know which will compete with a nice horn tweeter is the Seas Exotic T35, rated 94db sens. |
Hello all as a newbie in this forum I spend my tyme reading not posting. That being said I recently added another pair of horns JBL Synthesis 47s at first they were very harsh by harsh I mean mids and highs were overbearing. So I Tried a break in cd and wow way more in balanced. Also spent big on power conditioning and cords . So guess I'm saying no harder to integrate than other speakers it's the details that make it work!! Also if your looking for a pair of horns that sound like a PA I've got a pair of cs99a's in the box I could never get quite right! |
eldartford4,262 posts05-24-2010 8:11amHerman... Sounding like trumpets is a quite precise description of what I find undesirable about horns. I think everyone will understand what I am saying, although they might disagree. As is often said on Audiogon, we couldn't care less about specs...it's how it sounds. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While reaseraching the heck for info on the pair of Jesen alnico 1960's Tri ETTE speaker horns I came across this upload of a readable link to a 1960's magazine ad for I think Electro Voice or Jessen, The tech went onto say about his speakers,, ** the buyer is not the least interested in specs, graphs, only in how it acutally voices music, this is what we should be concern about making a speaker** Paraphrasing. Listening to a rough quick set up on the Jensen mid?? ot tweet? horn. The motor is nice has a rather large alnico magnet. Simuliar to the Magnoxov horn I have, which sounded STUNNING and realistic So based on this I went ahead and bought the Jensen, hoping it would fill in to 1600hz up to the 9k Magnovox horn. But I think its a tweeter horn and from my superifical testing, not as clean, real as the Magnovox = perhaps a bad buy. Not sure til Richard figures out what we can do, right cap value and maybe find a new horn, as the horn that came with the motor is a cheap, thin rounded brass , like a tiny trumpet. I think horns are best for high fq's,. once you get into mids, it starts to sound like you say *Trumpety* My guess is the Voxativ AC1A will reproduce the midrange I'm looking for over the horns ability to match this performance. I'm going to hold off buying up more horns , as I need to put that cash away for the AC1A's. Now will I need the Magnoxov tweeter horn to help out the AC1A in the highs?? Can not say for sure, as we know *Full* Range really does nopt mean *complete range* I'm not concern about bass, as the W18E001's dual/each cabinet handle that range. So even if the AC1A are a tad weak in the bass, its no real issue. If the AC1A does what folks are saying it does, I think the new Vox technology has *trumped* the older technology of midrange horns. I'm guessing my *Frankenstein* ( as Adam over at madisound has taged it) will be a mix of ] Low sens bass W18E001, 2000 release High sens Vox for mids 2020 design High sens Magnovox tweeter horn from the 1960's. Its hard to beat any of these 3 drivers in what they do. Its like I am taking the best from all 3 speaker designs, blending all in one *The Frankenstein* |
hummm these Jesnen 1960's horns came witha tiny thin brass voice horn,, the driver iteslf is at least 2 lbs and has a nice huge alnico magnet,, sounded a bit harsh, not too clean,,have to get with Ricahrd Gray see if he can make some adjustments. Let me read through this thread,,see whats up in the world of horns past 10 years. |
macrojack OP1,300 posts05-23-2010 9:55am and permits us to get back to the topic of "WHY NOT HORNS?". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My answer is Because no one TOLD me about horns. I was like so many here, not thinking ~~Outside The Box~~ = box being box xover/low sens traditional dinsaur speaker designs. Had Richard Gray NOT suggested I try a horn, to this day I would be left in the dark about horns superior musical voicing. My horn project will take me up to the place I can afford the Voxativ AC1A's at $1900, maybe late this year. It will be a midrange shootout Midrange horn vs Voxativ AC1A. My hunch is the horn will be sold off. I may end up keeping the Magnovox tweeter horn with the Vox AC1A for highs. Again Horns Rule. But which horns? The new masive rock concert horns are not for me. I am looking for nuances, subtility., Not horns that will **rip your head off* as Richard Gray likes to say. Richard mentioned the JBL's are too aggressive for his ears. Post man just droped off the Jensen 1960;'s Midrange horn... later............................. |
bjpd57a196 posts05-22-2010 1:10pm Properly set-up, the Horn speaker, is capable of uncanny realism. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a Horn Believer And this conviction in what you claim is true, based ONLY from a tweeter horn witha 2.2 Mundorf cap (set up right?? who knows)) the Magnovox Alnico which came out of the old console cabinets,, This is the highs I've laways wanted in my system. My guess is the early 60's american made horns will annihilate any dome tweeter from Seas and Scanspeaker, this due to horns higher sens at say,,97ishdb. Whereas tweeters comming from Seas and scanspeak are below 91db, = Dinasaurs. Realism vs A faint echo. Dome tweets leave so much music behind, Horns will give every tiny nuance = realism. |
unsound6,882 posts05-22-2010 11:01amI absolutely loathe horns! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So lets have this shootout Seas Millennium tweeter, worlds finest mid tweeter. vs a high quality early 1960's american made horn. Horn will annihilate any /all dome tweeters. db sens is what makes horns~~~ far~~~ superior to any tweeter from Seas and Scanspeak. |
tpreaves2,633 posts05-22-2010 9:55am it seems like a no-brainer that everyone would want this performance.I find most horns too "in the face" for my likin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I was very interested in the new 18 Sound horns, and such, weighing in at 8-15 lbs each. Richard screamed at me,,**Those are for concerts, they'll rip your ears off*** He also suggested I avoid JBL's as they are too aggresive, Especailly as he knows i like very near field listening, low volume. , small room. I have a gut feeling the Jensen purchase was a good deal. These Jensen Mid horns are rare/hard to find. Paid $250/pair |
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?macrojack05-22-2010 9:08am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just experiened my 1st EVER horn in my system, Richard Gray, noted how i was suffering after spending $$$$$$$$ Upgrading My SEAS Thor MTM speakers, especially with buying brand new Millennium MIDRANGE/Tweeters. So he dug around in his stash room, and found a pair of early 1960's, Magnovox tweeter horns, with a small alnico magnet. WOWWWW UNREAL. So i figured we will need to finda midrange horn, same era, early 1960's,. The choice was EV Wolverine and the Jensen midrange horn, same build as the Mgnovox, alnico, came out of the Jensen Tro ETTE 2 way 1960's speaker. The Jensen arrives today. I am excited. I have the Mag tweet running with a 2.2 Mundorf Supreme Silver Oil, and this runs from ohh say 9k up, I will disconnect the new DavidLouis 4 incher **Full** range**( actually its a high bass through upper midrange, highs roll off), and so my speaker will be Dual W18E001 + Jensen Midhorn + Magnovox Tweeterhorn. 87db + ohh say 97ish db. I am very confident the Jensen Mid horns will easily shootout the 91db DavidLouis FR. Only have a 8.2 Mundorf EVO SGO cap, here, Richard will look around his shop for a 4uf and on Monday I can add the 4uf and bring the mid horn down to ohhh say, 1600, which is where my W18's come up to, 1600, have 2 Mundorf caps on the bass. The Mundorf SESGO cap is the finest bass producing cap, Rock sold bass notes. Will post a note after installing Horns Rule |
| Post removed |
Hi Unsound, That was an emulation attempt that occurred a bit later during the 1980's, with a different Carver amplifier model, that was written up in Stereophile and therefore drew more widespread awareness. Remarkably (or perhaps not), Stereophile's writeup of Carver's effort to emulate the CJ tube amp made no mention and reflected no awareness of his earlier effort to emulate the solid state ML-2 with some of his other models. Best regards, -- Al |
I think the m4.0t was the one mirroring a CJ amp maybe? I ran a 4.0t for a long time up until a few years back. It was definitely a unique sounding beast. I would say that it did tend to match up best with speakers that were more tube amp friendly by nature, my Maggies at the time and my Triangle Titus's. Went loud but fell flat with more difficult loads, like B&W and Dynaudio and also OHM but to a lesser extent. |
Yes, nicely put Seikosha. Clearly, listeners were speaking about what they heard before TAS and Stereophile came along; it would be silly to think that they weren't. As I said in an earlier post, even if Kiddman's premise is correct, so what? As you say, it was HP/JGH and others who actually consistently put their thoughts in writing and were able to get many who were new to the hobby excited about it; in no small part, because they related this terminology to the music in a vivid way. I, likewise, don't recall these individuals taking credit for "inventing" the terminology. To the extent that they are given credit for it, I don't think that this "transgression" can't be forgiven for the credit that they do deserve. I just don't get the general tenor of these criticisms as if these individuals were somehow guilty of some great sin when the truth is that they brought a lot of interest to the hobby. ****I believe that the real legacy of HP and his followers is that we are no longer concerned with high fidelity reproduction, or accuracy, but instead pursue good sound.**** Really?! Read these comments (in the context of the entire story) from Kiddman's post: ****At no time was there any suggestion of distortion, nor any hint, in the quality of the music, of the electrical transfer it had undergone. For the new apparatus (microphones, amplifiers, electrical filters, transmission lines, and loudspeakersreproduces with absolute fidelity all sounds that the normal human ear is capable of hearing.**** ****From 1960, a Shure ad: "Shure announces a stereo arm and cartridge that recreates sound with an incredible fidelity, transparency,....." **** Are you kidding me?! Those comments put a lot of this in context and demonstrate the state of "hi-fi" back then. Do you really think that those comments would hold up to scrutiny by most knowledgable audiophiles today? If those comments are an indication of the level of sophistication of the average audio aficionado (and equipment) of the day, then I think much is left to be desired. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++The truth is that I dont know everything. No reviewer does. And we all can miss things and sometimes do. Now there is the key. What I did from the very start of TAS [The Absolute Sound] was invite multiple commentaries on things because no one person has the perfect insight- not me, not anybody else. If you think Im full of you-know-what comment. It is the internal dialog that sets up the truth that will reflect the variety of opinions you get from people exploring the equipment. Perspective is the word. And you have to know what that perspective is. That is what I tried to identify with the absolute sound by asking: What is your perspective? How do you look at things? You know how I look at it, I try to compare it to live music. And if I fail on that comment. If I do a really good job comment. {{Are you hoping to provide a sense of illumination as a writer?}} Yes, but not only that. Illuminating is the first step of the process. What I am trying to do is help people create a passion for that which is eternal. And that which is eternal is music. Take the Tagore quote: music fills the infinite between two souls. That is what music does. And if I can turn that passion on or show people the way to that passion I am a guide, I am not the end. I am to be looked at as a guide. Not as a final authority. What happens, is that a persons life is enriched to an extent that they will be ever thankful, not to me, but for the enrichment. For the music. See I am not here to teach people what HP says. Thats bullshit. What HP says is bullshit comparatively to what they can find out on their own. But if I can kick their ass into starting that is the goal. ++++ - HP (interview in High End Report) ++++ I think the explosion of designs in the High End are symptomatic of the health of a field that others have said is dying. This is the most creatively stimulating period for designers since the early Seventies and there are more interesting and good electronic designs out there at once than there have been in a quarter of a century.++++ - HP (interview in TNT Audio.) |
The 1.5t was nowhere near the ML2 (itself not my favorite amp)and making "transfer function matches" between 2 totally different amps with different components and topologies is entirely preposterous. This was "an inside job", nothing less. Should surprise nobody familiar with the Fourier shenanigans. |
Correction to my previous post: Looking at Issue 10 of "The Audio Critic" I am reminded that the Carver amplifier which was the subject of the preprint was the M-1.5t. The M400t was released subsequently, and was claimed to have been similarly matched to emulate the transfer function of the ML2, but was not the subject of Aczel's preprint. Regards, -- Al |
03-06-14: KiddmanThe aforesaid review was in fact eventually published, in Issue 10 in 1987. That was the first issue Aczel published following the nearly seven year hiatus I referred to earlier. The 1983 review "preprint" to which you refer was extracted from what Aczel indicated in Issue 10 had been an almost complete, mostly set in type issue which was not published due to the hiatus, which occurred for unrelated reasons. Carver requested and was granted permission to issue the preprint. Also, I recall some seemingly credible speculation that the close transfer function match between the aforesaid amplifier, the Carver M400t, and the transfer function of the Mark Levinson ML2 it was designed to emulate, may not have been maintained in production to anywhere close to the same degree as the match that was measured by Aczel on Carver's prototype. Also, I'll mention that I owned an M400t for about 20 years, alternating it with other much more expensive amplifiers. It sounded surprisingly good, driving 90 db speakers having easy to drive impedance characteristics. (Its predecessor model which I VERY briefly owned, the M400a, which pre-dated Carver's attempt to match the transfer function of the ML2, did sound very poor). The M400t had no trouble whatsoever cleanly producing 100 to 105 db peaks at my 12 foot listening distance playing classical symphonic music on labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, and Reference Recordings. It never clipped once in my extensive experience listening to those kinds recordings having exceptionally wide dynamic range. The amplifier, btw, is still going strong in the home of a relative, after 30 years. Regards, -- Al |
My point is that folks were using the terms, so whether they were in reviews or not they were in the lexicon. Therefore, they most certainly would have been used in reviews even if there were never an HP. Actually, first piece I quoted was a news story, not an ad, so we can say that the press indeed used the concepts and words in the 30's. And that press piece compared the sound of the hi-fi to that of a symphony....which is "real, live, unamplified instruements". So there we go: words and concepts, including using unamplified instruments, goes right back to the 30s. |
Aczel criticism overblown? I don't know that this would be possible. Here's a guy who never published a particular issue, but write a bogus review for Carver saying that Carver had exactly duplicated the sound of a well known, very expensive amplifier. Nice little arrangement, Carver reprinted the excerpt from the non-existent issue and supplied them by the load to Carver dealers. Nice little bit of fraud on both sides. The amp, by the way, was very poor sounding compared to one Aczel said it was identical to, and took out many a tweeter of relatively easy to drive speakers at way less than its stated output power. |
Some of the criticism of Peter Aczel in this thread is overblown. In a changing environment for someone to alter their position can be considered a sign of an inquiring/flexible mind. "All amplifiers sound the same" is not an accurate statement of his position, it should read "all amplifiers should sound the same". If amplifiers are designed to be accurate to the input signal, then they should sound very much alike. Stereophile considered this issue when they put a Cary 805 tube amp on the cover with a Krell and asked, "If either of these amplifiers is RIGHT...the other is WRONG." Aczel believes that he had a methodology for determining if an amplifier was "right". Whether or not his methodology was correct or even useful is a tangent I won't pursue, but at least he was asking the question about accuracy. I believe that the real legacy of HP and his followers is that we are no longer concerned with high fidelity reproduction, or accuracy, but instead pursue good sound. The end result of this type of thinking is that we now talk about "the sound" of fuses, outlet covers, resistors and binding posts. |
Thanks for the info Kiddman. I was never under the impression that HP or JGH ever claimed that they were the first to use these terms, I felt that they were the ones who picked them up and started using them consistently and made efforts to let us know how they were using them and if HP ever bragged about it, it wasn't about inventing the terms, it was about using them consistently in his reviews. In other words, they were the first who started drilling into the readers a point of view stating "hey, here's how we listen to equipment and these are the terms and definitions of the words we use." There is no question in my mind that people were talking about image placement or soundstage concepts before the first issue of Stereophile or TAS. I remember being a kid and my father playing records and pointing out the placements of the different sections of the orchestra while the record was playing. Before JGH and HP, I can't remember any reviewer who was consistently describing what they were hearing from audio equipment in terms imaging, depth, soundstaging and transparency and if there was someone consistently reviewing this way before HP and JGH, then they should be given credit. My memory of reviewing before HP/JGH back then was that it was all about how everything measured on the bench and then at the end of the review there's be a few generic sentences about how the sound was clean and fine, just as it measured, or if their was an anomaly in the measurements, a statement about the sound to support that anomaly. What do you think; were HP and JGH the first mainstream writers to consistently review this way, or were others reviewing like this earlier? |
Who invented the terminology: more evidence it was not who you think it was. One of HP's favorite words/concepts, which he claimed he coined, and wrote a long essay about: "Transparency." From 1960, a Shure ad: "Shure announces a stereo arm and cartridge that recraates sound with an incredible fidelity, transparency,....." There goes another concept and word that did not need inventing. -------------------------------------------------- Then listen to any of the 5 Fischer stereo perfectionist systems and you will hear hitherto unattainable tonal purity, STEREO DEPTH (my caps) and realism, a PANARAMIC SWEEP (my caps) of living sound......" There we have both depth and width imaging concepts clearly described, 13 years before the founding of TAS. -------------------------------------------------- Go to this video and forward to 12 minutes 30 seconds and you will hear the phrase "....to create an illusion of depth and width....." There we have it: the concepts of imagine, but going by the name "illusion"...I would submit that this is as good a word as "maging". But further, the words "width" and "depth": all that is needed to describe imaging. I suspect that I will also find the words "focus" and "space" used if I search a bit more. The date of this video: 1957!!!!! ----------------------------------------------- The above is simply to support my original premise that it was not any individual reviewer who invented the concepts and vocabulary, about stereo, and to show that the concepts and vocabulary to describe depth, imaging, transparency, "closest to the live event" were in use before the 70's, when the magazines many think of as having defined high end stereo were founded. The language and concepts were being developed decades before most readers of this forum assume. |
Who invented terminology to describe what we hear? One more entry to dispel the myth that this was anyone associated with TAS, Stereophile, or any such magazine. Below you will read the words and phrases "auditory perspective" (I think that word describes imaging enough to suffice as an equal substitute for "imaging"); "an illusion that causes the listener to seem to hear a specific sound from the point at which it originates" (sounds like another description that fully describes imaging and focus"; "audience in Washington had no difficulty in telling just where on the Philadelphia stage the brasses, tympani, bass viols, and so on were placed" (now we see the word "placed", so the concept of "placement" is introduced. Folks, the proceeding article was in 1933!! I think we can see we did not need modern reviewers to introduce the concepts of imaging, placement, stage, illusion, and "auditory perspective." 1933! Now the Article: ---------------------------------------------------- NEW ELECTRICAL SYSTEM GIVES VAST TONE TO Full Orchestra on Empty Stage Conductor, 150 Miles from Musicians, Controls Expression with Master Key ORCHESTRAL music such as never before had been publicly heard, poured from the apparently empty stage of Constitution Hall, Washington, D. C, a few nights ago when Dr. Leopold Stokowski, conductor of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, demonstrated before the National Academy of Sciences, a new electrical system of musical reproduction and transmission developed by engineers of the Bell Telephone Laboratories. The source of the music was the stage of the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, 150 miles away. There the hundred musicians of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra played a program of standard orchestral numbers. In front of the Philadelphia stage stood three sensitive microphones, one in the center and one at each side. Each was connected separately by telephone lines with a loudspeaker that stood behind a sound-porous curtain on the stage in Washington. In the rear of Constitution Hall sat Dr. Stokowski, before him a small oblong box, not unlike a midget radio receiver, with a front panel equipped with three dials and a pair of switches. Manipulating these devices, the conductor controlled the music of the far-away orchestra, hushing the sounds issuing from the loudspeakers until they were barely audible, and then making them swell to twenty times the volume produced by the actual orchestra. At no time was there any suggestion of distortion, nor any hint, in the quality of the music, of the electrical transfer it had undergone. For the new apparatus (microphones, amplifiers, electrical filters, transmission lines, and loudspeakersreproduces with absolute fidelity all sounds that the normal human ear is capable of hearing. Moreover, the location of the microphones in reference to the source of sound and the placing of each loudspeaker in a position that corresponds with that of the particular microphone with which it is connected brings about an effect that the Bell Telephone engineers call auditory perspective, that is, an illusion that causes the listener to seem to hear a specific sound from the point at which it originates. For example, the audience in Washington had no difficulty in telling just where on the Philadelphia stage the brasses, tympani, bass viols, and so on were placed. Hum and the other noises are only one three-hundredth of those heard from moving-picture theater sound equipment. ----------------------------------------------------- This took me 5 minutes to find on the computer. Guaranteed I could come up with a reference to "depth" and the other concepts that folks, listening to HP's self-reporting, believe he invented. I remind you, this article was a full FOUR DECADES before TAS was founded. |
"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'." Hey Roks, no offense but don't you ever get tired of trying to convince a collective group that gather together to discuss their experiences with different audio products that they are just wrongheaded and that your light of absolute correct conciousness is going to somehow sway them to your belief system? Why do you do this and often relent to the pressures you are subject to endure? I really dig your appreciation of music but for the life of me wonder why a guy in the 99.99999999999% percent of humanity feels SO compelled to mandate the rest of us in see the errors of our experiences on a forum dedicated to this concept. BTW, when was the LAST time you compared different amplifiers in the past 5 years,(not to mention cables, I won't even bother to go there, we know, right?) Competent design indeed and indeed what do you mean by that aside from the electrical compatibility of a specific speaker to a specific amplifier aside from the room? I'll give you this, you ARE a persistent pest but I still love you man! I would however suggest you stay within that which you know unless you are willing to offer more than what you believe, your specific experiences maybe? Or is it all for your personal amusement? Inquiring minds really want to know :) PS Why did I "go there". Well Roks, you and I have gone head to head before several years back yet you still adhere to the same balderdash yet have to date given not one example of your personal experiences. At least I havent't read it, maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, its all good, enjoy! |
"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've seen Stereophile reviews of the first and second generation Walsh 5s. Stereophile review of gen 1 directly influenced gen 2 as I recall. That's about it though. If TAS ever addressed any Walsh designs, I am not aware. OHM is a more "blue collar" type brand that has never specifically targeted the "High End" buying community, TTBOMK but rather just let teh pecking order of things fall out naturally over time as determined by the consumers, not those in teh media who might assume ownership of what is or is not "high end". |
Frogman & Tubegroover, thanks for your comments. Yes, I recall the saga of the Fourier Systems speakers quite well. In fact I auditioned the substantially redesigned second version of the Fourier I at Lyric's White Plains store in 1983, as I was shopping for speakers at the time. In Aczel's own words (Issue 10, published in 1987 following the long hiatus), the redesign addressed "some driver-related problems that had eluded our attention in the laboratory, [which] made its interface with certain rooms unpredictable." Shortly after the release of the initial version a generally negative review in "The Sensible Sound" (not exactly the most hyper-critical of audio review publications) had cited a "silvery spacey effect" created by its subsequently replaced tweeter. The mid-range driver was also replaced in the redesign. The version I heard sounded generally ok during my fairly brief audition, but left me unexcited. Aczel's lengthy recounting in Issue 10 of the Fourier saga and his involvement in the company is persuasively written, as might be expected, and if taken at face value would dispel any cynicism about it all. But who knows? One thing is certain. Both the timing and the degree of his ideological metamorphosis were striking, and, as you indicated, fascinating and mysterious. Best regards, -- Al |
Interesting read this thread, particularly the last part concerning reviewers and their motivations. While Harry Pearson may have been a guiding beacon to many readers of TAS he never was to me. More a pompous know it all although I occasionally was amused by his writing style. In the context of the history of subjective review and reviewers I always felt more drawn towards JGH and what I perceived in him a real integrity in his often attempts to correlate measurements with what he heard. Don't know if anyone recalls in the mid/late 80's when there was a blind listening session performed with the reviewers of the magazine when the ARC SP-9 was compared to the SP-11. JGH was the ONLY one of the reviewers that participated that could consistently hear the difference between the two. The thing about Gordon that seemed to ring true, to me at least, is that he didn't ever seem to have an agenda and that he reported what he heard and always attempted to be honest concerning that. He was my hero in that I felt I could trust what he heard and reported. |
Almarg, thank you for the history lesson; fascinating, and should be very interesting for those too young (or uninterested) to remember. You may also recall that it was Aczel who gave Fourier speakers some of their first positive reviews. It was then revealed that Aczel was one of the owners of the company. Hmmm. What that says about the integrity of the reviews (and the reviewer; at least, at that point in his career) is fairly obvious. What it it says about Aczel's sudden change of opinion (and it's motivation) about the sound of amplifiers I find far more interesting and mysterious; and, I know you are too much of a gentleman to surmise. I am not nearly as much of a gentleman, and am still ruminating the possibilities .... |
Regarding Mr. Aczel, I think it is worth noting that there were vast differences in his views following and prior to the approximately seven year lapse in publication of "The Audio Critic" that occurred between early 1981 and late 1987, while he was involved with the Fourier loudspeaker company. The later Mr. Aczel, consistent with what has been said above, believed that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria (high input impedance, flat frequency response, low output impedance) sound the same. The low output impedance criterion, btw, excludes most tube amps. On the other hand, here are some quotes extracted at random from Volume 2 Number 3, published in 1980. These pertain to solid state amplifiers, which certainly meet those criteria: Re a revised version of the Bedini 25/25: The sound is, if anything, even better; the silkiness of the highs and the transparency of the midrange are unsurpassed in our experience, except possibly by some -- not all -- versions of the Futterman tube amplifier and one or two solid state prototypes. The bottom end of the Bedini is very impressive for a 25/25 watt stereo amplifier with a single power supply, but of course there are many large amplifiers with all-out dual power supplies that will give you firmer and subjectively deeper bass.Re The Leach Amp: We find it beautifully transparent in the midrange, very well controlled on the bottom end, but a bit overbright and glassy on top (our bench tests won't tell us why).And this comment in the preamplifier review section of the same issue: Regardless of your methodology, you can't escape from judging subjectively which one of two sounds appears to sound more like music. Or at least more like what you believe to be the true sound of the input. And such a belief can be formed only by listening first to the output of a familiar reference system driven by that input. Which is where we came in.Mr. Aczel was someone who's reviews and opinions I **wanted** to like and respect. He wrote in what was stylistically an extremely persuasive manner, and his writings always seemed to convey an impression of an intelligent and disciplined approach to component evaluation. Ultimately, though, I found it impossible to reconcile much of what he had to say with my own experiences, and those of others for whom I had respect. Especially in his later period. Which is not to say that I believe investing $10K in a pair of wires generally makes much sense. In audio, as with most things in life, IMO the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle ground between the extremes. Regards, -- Al |
****By the way I'm listening to Milt Jackson and Wes Montgomery "Bags Meets Wes!".***** I seem to have 'Bags' with everyone, except Wes. Should be a good one. Very hard to make a bad Jazz recording that includes vibes. Esp Jackson. Speaking of not having, I seem to have let Fats Navarro slip thru my net totally undetected. :( Cheers |
