Horn Speakers - Is it me or.......

[Frank Dernie]

Yes, we have adapted very well to stereo's limitations, and it is a credit to the composers that the music can survive the limitations to deliver pleasure. However, I often try to imagine what one of the great composers of old would have done if they had access to full-bandwidth multichannel sound. I attend live orchestral performances a dozen times a year, and they are "reference" quality experiences. But, in my excellent home immersive system I can be equally, but differently, satisfied.
I find great pleasure in video concerts. Classical, not so much, because once one has been zoomed in on all of the soloists it becomes repetitive. An animated conductor adds some zest, though. Mostly I sit back and listen to the music, which for this genre of music I mainly do with audio only. However, popular and jazz concerts are something else, and to see the visual "performances" and sometimes elaborate, imaginative staging is high entertainment. With a large screen, immersive hall and audience sounds, it is hard to sit still during the show, and not clap at the end.

I enjoy surround sound when I watch films and video concerts too.
My surround system is modest though, I have 3 Meridian M33 speakers as centre and rear, I can't sensibly put speakers to the side in my room layout. My main stereo pair remain left and right and I have an ancient REL Studio subwoofer, from when Richard Lloyd still ran the company.
My speakers are all >25 years old...

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Wagner had diffuse orchestral sound in his operas:

Indeed, there are many composers who went to great pains to integrate spatiality into their music. Giovanni Gabrieli had antiphonal choirs in St Marks, and I'm sure there are others I can't name off the top of my head. In more modern times Stockhausen's Kontakte used multi-channel and surround speakers, as directionality was integral to its proper performance.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Wagner had diffuse orchestral sound in his operas:

But that was more so the fat lady wouldn't trip over the music stands.

 

[Sal1950]

Modern music recorded in multich provides an immersive experience that stereo can't equal. You have to put aside the old "open window to the stage" presentation aside and learn to appreciate becoming a part of the performance with the presentation happening all round you. Taking in the productions of engineers such as Steven Wilson, Alan Parsons, Mark Waldrep, James Guthrie, etc will take you to a new (and IMO improved) place in experiencing the ART of music recording.

 

[tuga]

Modern music recorded in multich provides an immersive experience that stereo can't equal. You have to put aside the old "open window to the stage" presentation aside and learn to appreciate becoming a part of the performance with the presentation happening all round you. Taking in the productions of engineers such as Steven Wilson, Alan Parsons, Mark Waldrep, James Guthrie, etc will take you to a new (and IMO improved) place in experiencing the ART of music recording.

Most studio music is not recorded in multi-channel, it is produced from multiple usually mono tracks. It's fabricated in the mixing desk.

Classical music is a live unamplified event and it is only logical that a recording of such an event should be the old "open window to the stage" presentation.

Horses for courses...

 

[Sal1950]

Most studio music is not recorded in multi-channel, it is produced from multiple usually mono tracks. It's fabricated in the mixing desk.

LOLOLOL Ah, it's still multich, just maybe 40 or 50, then mixed down to 4,6, 8,12 or even more. Are you just looking for a debate?

Classical music is a live unamplified event and it is only logical that a recording of such an event should be the old "open window to the stage" presentation.

Why? Very little is recorded in a minimalist 2 or 3 mike/channel manner, they're multi-miked with God knows how many channels. Throw out those old ideas. Go to 5.1 or 7.1, add Atmos. There are thousands of Classical recordings done this way, or as Floyd mentioned earlier you can upsample.
Put yourself in a seat in the concert hall instead of just sticking your head in the window. Someone's libel to punch you in the nose for not buying a ticket.

 

[Lbstyling]

Very interesting!

Aside from the photo I just looked at, I know nothing about the 2384. Looks like the horizontal pattern width varies a bit, not sure what the nominal coverage angles are, maybe 90 degrees horizontal and 50 degrees vertical?

Can you elaborate on what you like about it?

Seams to excel with orchestra film sound tracks. John Williams

JMLC excels with voice.

 

[Tim Link]

Some horns are real monstrosities.

 

[tuga]

LOLOLOL Ah, it's still multich, just maybe 40 or 50, then mixed down to 4,6, 8,12 or even more. Are you just looking for a debate?


Why? Very little is recorded in a minimalist 2 or 3 mike/channel manner, they're multi-miked with God knows how many channels. Throw out those old ideas. Go to 5.1 or 7.1, add Atmos. There are thousands of Classical recordings done this way, or as Floyd mentioned earlier you can upsample.
Put yourself in a seat in the concert hall instead of just sticking your head in the window. Someone's libel to punch you in the nose for not buying a ticket.

If you don't attend live classical music events and don't listen to them at home then perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from.
Pop/rock and classical are different and in my view they have different requirements.

The most accurate stereo and timbral representation of such events in my view and experience is 1-mic 1-track 1-channel. It can be 2.0 or 5.1. In fact a few labels are recording that way.

I have my own reasons for not pursuing multi-channel, and have absolutely no interest in upmixing or atmos which again in my view and albeit limited experience is focusing on the accessory or secondary and to me unessential visual aspect whilst having a negative impact the sonic aspect.

Horses for courses...

 

[Sal1950]

The most accurate stereo and timbral representation of such events in my view and experience is 1-mic 1-track 1-channel

Who records stereo or multich with "1-mic 1-track 1-channel"??? That's called mono

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

If you don't attend live classical music events and don't listen to them at home then perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from.
Pop/rock and classical are different and in my view they have different requirements.

The most accurate stereo and timbral representation of such events in my view and experience is 1-mic 1-track 1-channel. It can be 2.0 or 5.1. In fact a few labels are recording that way.

I have my own reasons for not pursuing multi-channel, and have absolutely no interest in upmixing or atmos which again in my view and albeit limited experience is focusing on the accessory or secondary and to me unessential visual aspect whilst having a negative impact the sonic aspect.

Horses for courses...

In my 2.0 system, with a good recording (either classical or not), the imaging and sense of I am hearing the walls of the original recording space all around me is unmistakable. I also have multi-channel capability in this same room, and compared to good 2.0 stereo, multi-channel it sounds more like discrete speakers coming from different directions - not at all as cohesive as regular stereo. 2.0 stereo is capable of a seamless envelopment which reaches all around to, and beyond, the walls of the listening room if done right. In instances where good reverbs are used in studio recordings, these too can image to, and beyond the listening room walls. Instruments can image well beyond the left and right boundaries of the speakers, either 'in the room' or far behind the front wall of the room. Of course recordings which are flat and bad will still sound flat and bad.

Positioning of the speakers and listening position are make-or-break issues; get it wrong, and this type of imaging is impossible. Of course the type of speaker plays a big role too, with more directional types being better at projecting the spatial cues in the recording to the listener with less interaction from the room. The space I use was originally constructed as a recording studio (and is still that to some degree), which has been adapted to be a large listening room.

 

[Chris A]

I love it when I hear some of these "classical" attributes in popular music, especially those recorded in multichannel or stereo upmixed to multichannel.

Dr. Toole, can you relate what you use (briefly...since it is a bit OT) to synthesize stereo to multichannel?

My experiences with typical higher-end AVPs doing this have not been successful, i.e., using AVPs at a $2K-$4K price point. In my case, every fully horn-loaded channel is carefully dialed in using manual in-room measurements, with all channels employing DSP crossovers dialed to flat SPL and phase response using 1m measurements in-room. These AVPs only show me only the limitations of 5.1 synthesis from stereo recordings, which is an added subjective confusion of the soundstage image itself, something that's not there in authentically recorded multichannel recordings.

I find that keeping the stereo tracks reproduced in stereo tend to have more natural soundstage image (albeit a bit "thinner")--even if there is an issue with the 2 kHz "fundamental flaw", which is somewhat fillable using controlled front-of-room reflections. As an indicator of the effectiveness of the setup itself, the soundstage image in both cases is the size of the front wall--or slightly wider, so this isn't a factor.

Chris

 

[Lbstyling]

An interesting comparison - Figure 10.15 in my book.

I have been thinking about this for a day or 2.

I have never heard a good center speaker.

Think I might have a go at designing a rough center speaker that matches the directivity that you posted! It will be very hard to get it that wide mind you.

 

[stevenswall]

Is it me? Am I biased? Heard the wrong horns? Some rave about horns but it's lost on me.

What are others experiences?

I see a horn as a large and deep waveguide. I'll bet I'd like "horns" that are calculated to evenly project all frequencies in a direction without emphasizing specific pitches. I'll bed I'd dislike horns that are slapped on to concentrate the sound and provide 'dynamics' which just means more volume to scratch my ears off.

Unfortunately, I don't think most horns are modeled/calculated correctly. Maybe Klipsch, but whatever they are going for, it's not good.

I am curious if there is a way to identify horns that were modeled vs a generic megaphone shape though. Maybe the horn shape isn't correct inherently? (But then trumpets would have wonky sounds, but maybe we accept them as part of the instrument.)

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Unfortunately, I don't think most horns are modeled/calculated correctly. Maybe Klipsch, but whatever they are going for, it's not good.

That's not even remotely true. Optimized horns have existed for decades. Constant directivity horns will have the dispersion pattern you describe as desirable (personally, I find constant directivity horns to have a harsh treble - that includes Klipsch, but there are many other types of horn which do not have this characteristic). Painting any class of transducer with a broad, indiscriminate, pejorative brush only indicates lack of research and critical listening. There are 'horrible' examples of other speaker types, but that in no way disqualifies all types in that class.

If you personally don't like the sound of horns you've heard, I would suggest that if you're interested enough, seek out different ones. Otherwise stick with other types of speakers.

 

[stevenswall]

That's not even remotely true. Optimized horns have existed for decades.

I don't have a cutoff year or argument for when optimized horns started.

Might not be the issue with the horn inherently then, but instead what the company is aiming for (their house curve, etc) or that most speakers seem to have audible issues. To be fair, I don't like the sound of most speakers I've heard when I'm looking to purchase something. Maybe there will be a horn I hear eventually that sounds like a Genelec and disperses like their Ones series.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I don't have a cutoff year or argument for when optimized horns started.

That depends heavily on who you ask, but I would say that by the 1930s horn design was being optimized, based on the use case such as in cinemas. Certainly by the 1940s, many horn types are basically perfected. And don't forget that compression driver technology was and is just as important as the physical horn.

Shearer Horn

Later developments such as constant directivity came in the 70s I believe. The Tractrix horn which is popular today with Klipsch and others was originally patented in 1927.

Horn Loudspeakers - Wikipedia

 

[Frank Dernie]

disperses like their Ones series.

the tweeter in the one uses the mid cone and part of the enclosure as a horn.
Also, whilst wide dispersion is liked by many I prefer narrower because I sit quite a long way from my speakers.

 

[stevenswall]

the tweeter in the one uses the mid cone and part of the enclosure as a horn.
Also, whilst wide dispersion is liked by many I prefer narrower because I sit quite a long way from my speakers.

Yeah, I have a pair of Genelecs with the mid cone surrounding the tweeter, and a pair of Kalis, though they don't have much of a waveguide after the midrange cone.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I am curious if there is a way to identify horns that were modeled vs a generic megaphone shape though. Maybe the horn shape isn't correct inherently? (But then trumpets would have wonky sounds, but maybe we accept them as part of the instrument.)

I'm having a much harder time thinking of speakers with "generic megaphone shape" tbh

Do any examples come to mind?