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

[Bjorn]

Dome tweeters work very well when you use many of them together. Like in the CBT design. That seem to give the clarity similar to horns and the best compression drivers.

But yeah, a single dome tweeter doesn't cut it. Besides the obvious thermal compression, the intemodulation distortion of direct a radiator is higher. Something Paul Klipsch and others understood decades ago.

Also worth mentioning; The impulse response is quicker with horns and this may be the reason why horns have a "faster" and more dynamic presentation of transients.

 

[dasdoing]

the transients are so realistic that in the begining I sometimes thougt my speakers where breaking when there was any impulse-like sound in the audio. you could knock on the cabinet, record that, play it back and you couldn't tell the diference.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Can you explain in more depth what you mean by this?

Like this:

I think he is saying that the energy spectrum for HF is lower, not because the voltages/SPLs are lower, but because the duration of the voltages are shorter, ie high loudness levels in HF tend to be of short duration. So tweeters still need to be able to deliver high peaks without crapping out.

But that's just my guess, let's see hear from him.

This is how it works, basically.

Power is low, but peak amplitude level can be very high. As you go up in frequency, the crest factor increases.

I read some more answers, seems like this is quite well understood. Will read the rest now.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

let's compare Erin's Instantaneous-Compression™ from two top dome-speaker to a to CD speaker, shall we:

So there is undoubtly some loss in the transients at reference-level-ish even with "state-of-the-art" dome tweeters.
and it seams that when you are forced to match woofer(s) to CDs you get better results in the mids, too

Here is another one, this is not a compression driver, but it is horn loaded (85 to 110dB/1m in 5dB steps):

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Also worth mentioning; The impulse response is quicker with horns and this may be the reason why horns have a "faster" and more dynamic presentation of transients.

Which explains why they sound better at low volumes as well.

 

[dc655321]

As you go up in frequency, the crest factor increases.

I would suggest that crest factor (peak/rms) rising as function of frequency is due to the rms falling, not the peaks getting bigger (edit: or even staying the same amplitude).
In the handful of tests I've done, I have not seen any indication that peaks remaining after HPF are similar in amplitude to pre-filtered signal.

Then there was a discussion at ASR about how much power active speakers might need for the different drivers.

Could you point me at that thread? I remember reading it, but can't find it now (grrr!).

I used Audacity to highpass a music sample and was very astonished that the high passed signal sometimes had higher peaks than the full range signal.

I've done that experiment a few time as well, and never observed what you have.

I think I'll write a little analysis software to rip through some of my small music library and look at crest factor and peaks as a function of frequency for high-passed input (linear-phase HPF, multiple frequencies per track, etc).

 

[dc655321]

The impulse response is quicker

"Quicker" in what sense?

 

[dasdoing]

"Quicker" in what sense?

here is how a membrane reacts

the hypoteses(?) is that CDs have a less delay time, steeper rise time, less overshoot and settling time. either one of these, or some, or all

 

[dc655321]

here is how a membrane reacts

the hypoteses(?) is that CDs have a less delay time, steeper rise time, less overshoot and settling time. either one of these, or some, or all

That's a step response, not an impulse response. They can be derived from one another (as from the frequency response).
I'm somewhat familiar with the math.

The statement does not make sense to me. That's why I asked @Bjorn for some clarification.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I would suggest that crest factor (peak/rms) rising as function of frequency is due to the rms falling, not the peaks getting bigger (edit: or even staying the same amplitude).
In the handful of tests I've done, I have not seen any indication that peaks remaining after HPF are similar in amplitude to pre-filtered signal.

Usually, peak level drops quite a lot, but not as much as rms. Part of this drop in level is due to reduced bandwidth.

I have some graphs that shows how peak level remains the same after filtering away low bass, but this was for an article on amplifier power, and hp frequency was too low for this to be useful when discussing tweeters.

 

[LTig]

Could you point me at that thread? I remember reading it, but can't find it now (grrr!).

Found it, it was not me but @RayDunzl who showed it in Audacity. And it was an 80 Hz highpass so not applicable for a tweeter.

 

[dc655321]

Found it, it was not me but @RayDunzl who showed it in Audacity. And it was an 80 Hz highpass so not applicable for a tweeter.

Thank, @LTig.
My experiments were looking at "tweeter-ish" HPFs, >= 1kHz.

EDIT:
Some previous experiments I ran on my small, local FLAC library shows a Spectral Edge Frequency (SEF50) of half power somewhere in the low hundreds of Hz. This is over ~200 tracks, IIRC.

 

[EliGuy]

Tried many drivers/speaker combinations. Keep coming back to horns. Its not just the dynamics either. I have yet to hear a non-waveguided design that has the coherence of a good horn/waveguide. They can sound incredibly real and to me thats the most important attribute of a speaker design. I want to suspend disbelief and feel immersed. Other designs have their pros too, but this is the set of compromises that matters most to me at this time. Pretty hard to beat a very good quality waveguide that goes from around 500hz all the way up with one single point source. The coherence is unrivaled. Ive even had success taking a Fostex ff85wk and front loading it in a shallow 20" square waveguide. Sounds 10x better and for watching movies or music its very immersive and coherent. Any crossovers between 700hz and up annoy me. Ive even built a synergy horn and I didnt like the crossover way up around 1380hz. even though it was within a quarter wavelength. To each their own I suppose. Biggest con to horns is they're big IMO. And often ugly lol. Low SAF But they're alot less ugly than room treatments!

 

[Sal1950]

The above post made me curious about the spec's on the Klipsch Jubilee when I ran into
some new products I hadn't heard of before, The McLaren line and the new MCL-905.
Very interesting, right up your alley Frank!

MCL-905 McLaren Limited Edition Performance Loudspeaker | Klipsch

The Klipsch MCL-905 loudspeaker channels more than 75 years of audio engineering mastery to piss off your whole neighborhood. Shop Now!

www.klipsch.com

This presenter seems not to bright. LOL

 

[kevinh]

My impression is that part of the reason for the external crossover with the Jubilee was to get rid of the delay between the bass horn and the mid high horn, IOW allow the 2 horns to be time aligned.

 

[egellings]

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?

Horns I have heard had a kind of shouty sound to them that at first was engaging, but eventually got fatiguing.

 

[Keith_W]

Horns I have heard had a kind of shouty sound to them that at first was engaging, but eventually got fatiguing.

There are good horns, and there are bad horns. I have heard some conventional box speakers sound shrill, some sound dull, and some have obvious flaws. Yet nobody condemns box speakers as a class because they are so common and everyone knows that there are good and bad examples. Good horn systems that I have heard are not shouty or cuppy and sound as natural as any other good speaker.

 

[Sal1950]

Horns I have heard had a kind of shouty sound to them that at first was engaging, but eventually got fatiguing.

Your exposure must be aurally limited.

There are good horns, and there are bad horns.

Exactly. This is 2023, not 1963.
But the truth is that SOTA audio has always existed in horn designs.
Every type has their weak and strong points.

Direct radiators are mostly hard to drive, without dynamics, and sound weak and boring in the midrange.
But not all of them of course.

 

[fpitas]

There are good horns, and there are bad horns. I have heard some conventional box speakers sound shrill, some sound dull, and some have obvious flaws. Yet nobody condemns box speakers as a class because they are so common and everyone knows that there are good and bad examples. Good horn systems that I have heard are not shouty or cuppy and sound as natural as any other good speaker.

There are good crossovers, and not-so-good crossovers too. My horns didn't do well until that got cleaned up.

 

[dasdoing]

But the truth is that SOTA audio has always existed in horn designs.

I don't think they could compete without DSP. With DSP their advantages can now be used while eliminating their problems. I think their comeback is only limited by the higher cost