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

[Chris A]

I use a Xilica XP-8080 for the front three loudspeakers (Jubilees/TAD 4002s, K-402-MEH tri-amped with BMS 4592ND). The surrounds are bi-amped by a miniDSP 2x4 HD (AMT-1s on top of Belle bass bins). Since I'm using Danley-style crossover filters, I've found that I don't require the use of FIR filtering (i.e., the "XD" series Xilica instead of the "XP" series). The Xilica crossovers are dead quiet quiescently. It was Tom Danley that recommend them in the first place. He was right about their suitability for home hi-fi.

Chris

 

[oivavoi]

I use a Xilica XP-8080 for the front three loudspeakers (Jubilees/TAD 4002s, K-402-MEH tri-amped with BMS 4592ND). The surrounds are bi-amped by a miniDSP 2x4 HD (AMT-1s on top of Belle bass bins). Since I'm using Danley-style crossover filters, I've found that I don't require the use of FIR filtering (i.e., the "XD" series Xilica instead of the "XP" series). The Xilica crossovers are dead quiet quiescently. It was Tom Danley that recommend them in the first place. He was right about their suitability for home hi-fi.

Chris

Man, your setup seems amazing! I'm almost tempted to take the trip from Scandinavia just to ask for an audition...

Concerning DSP filters: Curious if you or Danley have compared the Xilica crossovers to Venu360 from DBX? I use that box, but currently only for integrating subwoofers with active monitors. Works well here. I know that Sanders Sound also use the same box for their electrostats. But I don't know how the noise level of the Venu360 would compare to the Xilicas when used on high sensitivity horns.

 

[Chris A]

Man, your setup seems amazing! I'm almost tempted to take the trip from Scandinavia just to ask for an audition...

Concerning DSP filters: Curious if you or Danley have compared the Xilica crossovers to Venu360 from DBX? I use that box, but currently only for integrating subwoofers with active monitors. Works well here. I know that Sanders Sound also use the same box for their electrostats. But I don't know how their noise level would compare to the Xilicas with high sensitivity horns.

My door's open to audio visitors--just PM. D/FW International is about 20 minutes away. I can offer free taxi service to/from with bedroom/bath here.

As far as the Venu360 that you mention, I think you'll have to talk to Danley himself. He intimated in his post on that subject that he tried other DSP crossovers, and the Xilica apparently won based on price+performance. Danley Sound Labs apparently stencils its name on Xilicas for turnkey fixed and mobile install customers.

The Xilicas auto-mute, user selectable from the front panel if you wish to turn it off. When I say dead quiet, I mean it. The Jubilees and K-402-MEH are nominally 106 dB/1w/1m sensitivity, so very low noise is basic requirement.

Chris

 

[CDMC]

Just my two cents.

It seems when getting into any discussion of horns v. dynamic v. planar speakers, it helps to look at it through the lens of history. Lets go back to the 1950s and 60s. At that time in the realm of affordability, you could get a Dynaco ST-70 with a whopping 35 watts a channel. Big, reasonably affordable power didn't exist until 1970 when the Phase Linear showed up giving 350 watts per channel. So in the 50s & 60s you had really three distinct choices for speakers:

1) Horns- The only speakers that could preserve dynamics and put out realistic SPLs. No CAD design, just the best of pencil and paper engineering. The compromise was that you got those dynamics and efficiency from their large size (Thiel-Small parameters applied as much as then as they do today, pick two of three, size, efficiency, bass extension) in tradeoff for their cupped sound and lack of driver integration.

2) Planars (ESL and then planar magnetics (Manepan)). No cuppy sound, no boxy sound, open amazing midrange and imaging, limited bass and treble, dynamically restrained, inefficient, SPL limited even if you had the power.

3) Box Speakers- Efficiency varies depending on size and design (big boxes, better efficiency, acoustic suspension, smaller, but lower efficiency). Okay imaging, okay frequency extension, okay dynamics, nothing amazing, but nothing truly bad.

At that time, you really had to choose your compromises and what was important to you. It was also when it seems that the general sound virtues and deficits off each design became the default by which people approached them and through today expect each design to have a certain sound.

Fast forward 50+ years. Guess what. We now have a lot of changes, amplifier power limitations are not really an issue. Through time, development and evolution, each speaker design has maintained its strengths, while lessening its weaknesses. We now have horns that don't sound cuppy and can be smaller. We have Planars that can put out decent sound levels and have decent dynamics (they are still constrained in their size v output limitations, can't change physics). We have dynamic speakers that are dynamic, play loud, and don't sound boxy.

So when someone says they don't like a design, I don’t think they should look at it through the prism of there is one perfect speaker, but rather what tradeoffs is a person willing to live with while recognizing that as time moves on, the tradeoffs between designs have and will continue to decrease. Personally, I have traditionally preferred the tradeoff of planars and their open sound over the dynamics of horns. That said, after nearly 30 years of various magnepans in my main system, I seriously considering changing to dynamic speakers, as I have heard ones that have that open boxeless sound of magnepans without some of the magnepans tradeoffs (specifically was impressed with how transparent Salk Song 3s sounded).

 

[oivavoi]

My door's open to audio visitors--just PM. D/FW International is about 20 minutes away. I can offer free taxi service to/from with bedroom/bath here.

As far as the Venu360 that you mention, I think you'll have to talk to Danley himself. He intimated in his post on that subject that he tried other DSP crossovers, and the Xilica apparently won based on price+performance. Danley Sound Labs apparently stencils its name on Xilicas for turnkey fixed and mobile install customers.

The Xilicas auto-mute, user selectable from the front panel if you wish to turn it off. When I say dead quiet, I mean it. The Jubilees and K-402-MEH are nominally 106 dB/1w/1m sensitivity, so very low noise is basic requirement.

Chris

Cool! I'm one of those annoying enviros who have started to restrict my personal flying, so it'll have to be if my work ever brings me to TX... but who knows! Your setup is now high on my "wish to audition" list.

Concerning noise, it's indeed impressive to be dead quiet with 106 db sensitivity. I doubt that the Venu360 unit can match that, even though I can't hear any noise with my active monitors.

 

[etc6849]

Those amps have really held their value well over the 2-3 years I've owned them. When I bought them, there weren't AP measurements for some of the lower cost options (although we are still talking over $7k or more for 15 channels of Hypex NC400's).

My system is limited by the Xilica XD4080, so any amp that has a similar measurements will be fine with no audible difference. The noise floor of the Xilica improves some when you use filters too (and it is already top notch). It is a fantastic unit if you want a DSP that can do FIR filters and has 8 analog outputs. The Okto DAC8 would be the one I'd get if I were to implement FIR filters through software.

The level of performance I am getting right now is better than any system I've heard in any audio shop. In my experience all consumer gear available is a compromise, no matter the cost. I will never go back to using an AVR/AVP; they are a waste of money as they get outdated all the time and the performance is subpar.

It is much better performance wise to use digital outputs from a PC or use a networked audio option like Dante, AVB, etc... Use an iPad for control on content to playback from a NAS. JRiver can be setup to use scripts that can turn your display on, so no remote to confuse family members is needed.

Someone sent me a PM about these: https://xilica.com/products/fr1/ and https://xilica.com/products/qr1/

Imagine, having an FR1 with 32 analog outputs and driving it all from a PC with no sound card (using a Dante virtual sound card: https://www.audinate.com/products/software/dante-virtual-soundcard). Plus the FR1 is an open DSP with FIR filters and you can reconfigure it if your needs change by adding analog input cards, GPIOs, etc...

Ask Ellery (etc6849). I think he's got it: https://community.klipsch.com/index...t-i-got-today/&do=findComment&comment=2172512

I'm told that Hypex NCore modules can do it, too (the quiet amplifier part of the equation, with "pure" output...).

Chris

 

[anmpr1]

Ask Ellery (etc6849). I think he's got it: https://community.klipsch.com/index...t-i-got-today/&do=findComment&comment=2172512 I'm told that Hypex NCore modules can do it, too (the quiet amplifier part of the equation, with "pure" output...).

Chris

Thanks. As much as I appreciate what you and others here have shown, the 'trivial' part of the equation still remains to be factored. Remember, in his quote, Siegfried wrote how passive crossovers proliferated simply as a matter of low cost. But, again, that really over simplifies the situation--at least the situation as it exists for the average (and even above average) consumer. It was easy for SL to say that. He worked it all out, tilling the soil for most everyone else. During the course of his life he forgot more than most speaker designers will ever know. And unlike the high-end opportunistic crowd, he pretty much gave it away at a very low cost. I have nothing but respect for him.

But in order to make an active system like the one he was talking about (and we must remember that in his last word on speaker design, the crossover was only 'part' of his overall deal), one has to be at least two and a half standard deviations above the regular audiophile in hook-up sophistication. I think some of the designs here show that.

I certainly agree that in the scheme of what is presented in these solutions, overall cost can be considered rather trivial... at least compared to something like a lot of high-end marketed speakers. But the cost of the ticket just gets you in the door. To use a rock 'n roll analogy, it would be like paying a couple of hundred dollars for a ticket to a Cream reunion. You walk in the theater, and Eric points at you and says, "Umm... Jack and Ginger can't make it to tonight's gig. You want to hear the tunes? Great. OK, which do you want to play... bass or drums?"

 

[anmpr1]

So when someone says they don't like a design, I think they should look at it through the prism of there is one perfect speaker, but rather what tradeoffs is a person willing to live with

Excellent. I've lived with acoustic suspension, ported, passive radiated, electrostatic, time aligned and horns. What I've always wanted was a speaker about the size of an AR3a with JBL L100 'blown out of the chair' dynamics, the finesse of the original Quad, overall ceiling to floor spatial coherence of Harold Beveridge's lens loaded electrostatic, 3-dimensionality of the Walsh driver, low distortion at high SPL along with sensitivity of the Klipsch, and not require subwoofers. Not only that, it would require a remote, so you could switch between each of the sonic profiles, along with a 'blend' dial to mix 'n match.

Unlike amps and things, I'm thinking we have ways to go yet, in speaker design.

 

[Tim Link]

I love horns but the reasons are mysterious to me. I think it's partly the directionality that I like, the relative lack of early room reflections that leads to my perception of dynamics, speed, and detail. This lack of early reflections may also be what produces the cupped sensation for some people - including myself at times. It's as if my mind is seeking an answer for what could possibly produce an effect of sound hitting me without the accompanying flood of early reflections in this small room. Could it be something cupped shaped around the driver? In any case, I find the effect wears off as I continue to listen. I don't get fatigued. Wide dispersion speakers sound uncolored or uncupped to me right from the start but I tire quickly from their splashiness if they don't have a lot of room to operate in to delay the early reflections, or a well damped room with lots of carpets and heavy drapes and plush furnishings. But then things start to sound a bit dead.
Attending the CAS last year revealed something else to me: other high efficiency designs that aren't horns also sound very good and similar to horns to me. I preferred all the high efficiency designs at the show over lower efficiency ones. I didn't think I would like the Audio Note speakers based on what I had read about their design, but they had something that seemed more lifelike to me than most. I'll bet they're a bit more directional than a lot of speakers. What I need to hear is a 108db/watt omni and see if I love it or hate it.

 

[tuga]

OK, it happened again. I recently listened to some large horn speakers. I have periodically done this over many years at various hifi shows. I came away again with the same thoughts. I just don't get them.

Firstly they were clearly highly directional. Unless I was right bang in the firing line on axis they had no high frequencies.

Secondly, mid range seemed over emphasised with a "cuppy" effect. Exactly like the sound you get if you cup your hands around your mouth.

Lastly they were no more dynamic than any other large speaker.

All the same characteristics I have heard previously.

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

What are others experiences?

Which horns did you listen to?

The "cupped hands" sound is the "tromboneing" resonant effect that results from the triggering of the horn's resonance. It should't happen in adequately design speakers where the lower knee is frequency is kept far from that frequency.
Horns have limited operating range (each horn should cover no more than three octaves) thus requiring multiple ways (≥ 4).
Some info here: http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/07_horns.html

 

[March Audio]

Which horns did you listen to?

The "cupped hands" sound is the "tromboneing" resonant effect that results from the triggering of the horn's resonance. It should't happen in adequately design speakers where the lower knee is frequency is kept far from that frequency.
Horns have limited operating range (each horn should cover no more than three octaves) thus requiring multiple ways (≥ 4).
Some info here: http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/07_horns.html

I was sort of reluctant to name them at the time I posted that, still am. My comments were meant to create a discussion point rather than any criticism of a particular product. If you want to do a bit of detective work you will figure it out. Look at hifi shows.

 

[tuga]

I was sort of reluctant to name them at the time I posted that, still am. If you want to do a bit of detective work you will figure it out. Look at hifi shows.

I understand that.

 

[tuga]

2 of the publications are in English (anglais)...

I had lost my PDF of the ETF2010 measurements. Thanks!

It shows how much more effective/accurate modern horn profiles are.

 

[anmpr1]

From a domestic oriented aural feng shui standpoint, a smaller box speaker will likely integrate decoratively into a living room better than a large horn loaded speaker--especially if all the drivers are horn loaded. Then, you are looking at a couple of refrigerators in your living room. In the days of mono a large horn was only half as intrusive. You could 'tuck it away' in a corner and it would 'spread' sound throughout the room. For just a few watts--back then watts were expensive and hard to come by.

For some types of music, especially instruments that are plucked and struck, a horn can render an uncanny likeness. It's not everyone's cup of mead, but I've had the experience of listening to ancient traditional Chinese instruments-- things will be soft (guzheng zither or pipa), and then a loud gong or drum will sound unexpectedly. In those instances I've been startled by the dynamics and clarity of the sound. Never experienced that with a box speaker. Of course I've not heard all box speakers, so it's just my generalization.

 

[mhardy6647]

Acoustic horns (i.e., for loading compression drivers) are like music* There are (only) two kinds.
* Good
* The Other Kind



_________________
* The reference to music is attributed to Duke Ellington. I believe it appeared in an essay or magazine article, but I cannot currently track down the Urquell(e). This'll have to do for now: https://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/duke-ellington/48612

 

[tuga]

This is the in-room response at 2.50m of some Consonance M12 mk1s I had at one time after a couple of mods (Visaton TL16H, Stereo-Lab tractrix horn), cheap mic response in blue. I can't find the measurement with final crossover version.

Original

Visaton tweeter & Stereo-Lab horn time-aligned on prototype stand

 

[Tim Link]

I had lost my PDF of the ETF2010 measurements. Thanks!

It shows how much more effective/accurate modern horn profiles are.

Thanks for posting. I haven't seen that paper in a while! So many of those horns have that kicker around 2 to 3 milliseconds. Is that the tromboning? The paper suggests it is mouth to throat reflections. My BL-409 horns sound very clean and natural. Attached is a measurement I took a few days ago. I tried to make it look as much like the paper's results as I could. I do see a little kicker around 3 milliseconds but it doesn't seem nearly as strong as what I'm seeing in the paper on many of the horns, no matter how I mess with the graph settings. This BL-409 sounds very natural and uncupped to me.

 

[tuga]

Thanks for posting. I haven't seen that paper in a while! So many of those horns have that kicker around 2 to 3 milliseconds. Is that the tromboning? The paper suggests it is mouth to throat reflections. My BL-409 horns sound very clean and natural. Attached is a measurement I took a few days ago. I tried to make it look as much like the paper's results as I could. I do see a little kicker around 3 milliseconds but it doesn't seem nearly as strong as what I'm seeing in the paper on many of the horns, no matter how I mess with the graph settings. This BL-409 sounds very natural and uncupped to me.

That's a good question.
Le Cléac’h explains the measurements in the first pages but makes no correlation between the artifacts and audible distortion...

It's been years since I last visited the Melaudia forum but the answer might be in there somewhere.

 

[A800]

In my experience compared to (a) proper designed and built horn(s) other speakers are toys.
There simply is nothing like it.

There are a lot of "bad" horns out there.
If you want a really good horn you probably need to diy.

hornresp is an amazing piece of free software.

My first horn took me like 2000+ hrs start to end.
No regrets.

 

[Deleted member 17820]

One of the horns main job is pattern control. This is dependant on the size of the horn, larger the size, lower the frequency it controls.

A wide and short horn is JUST begging to ruin sound and color everything.
I have never heard a horn speaker where the transition from horn to driver was not completely evident, but that's just me.

I heard from an old timer that in the days of low powered gear for pro audio events they NEEDED horns for everything, even the bass!
Look up Leviathans with bass extensions. haha.