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

[Digital_Thor]

It would have better served you to not believe them. It's back to front.

It's the other way around?
No matter... I'm probably never gonna have space for horns anyway...
But I stand corrected... And will read up on my lacking memory

 

[Bjorn]

It was quite interesting to do a comparison between a waeguide speaker and a larger horn. The picture below is not from the actual AB test, which was done in a bigger room with a 15" front firing woofer below the Klipsch K-402 horn. But this was the only picture I could find of both now.

It was a shocker how big there difference was. The waveguide starts too loose its directivity gradually at around 1800 Hz (horizontally and vertically), and which is really better than most waveguides in the market. The Klipsch horn is horizontally constant to 300 Hz area and vertically to 800-900 Hz. The larger horn can cross over much lower with the right driver.

Difference is so huge that's sort of like comparing big speakers to a mini stereo. It's something one have to experience for oneself and unfortunately not many get to do such AB tests. Geddes claimed that constant directivity below 800/1000 Hz didn't really make a difference....

 

[Newman]

It was quite interesting to do a comparison between a waeguide speaker and a larger horn. The picture below is not from the actual AB test, which was done in a bigger room with a 15" front firing woofer below the Klipsch K-402 horn. But this was the only picture I could find of both now.
View attachment 424553

It was a shocker how big there difference was. The waveguide starts too loose its directivity gradually at around 1800 Hz (horizontally and vertically), and which is really better than most waveguides in the market. The Klipsch horn is horizontally constant to 300 Hz area and vertically to 800-900 Hz. The larger horn can cross over much lower with the right driver.

Difference is so huge that's sort of like comparing big speakers to a mini stereo. It's something one have to experience for oneself and unfortunately not many get to do such AB tests. Geddes claimed that constant directivity below 800/1000 Hz didn't really make a difference....

Uncontrolled listening is inevitably going to get you the reported result.
Cheers

 

[Bjorn]

Uncontrolled listening is inevitably going to get you the reported result.
Cheers

This isn't a comparison between DACs or amps with minor differences.

We're talking about something that yields a major difference and very easily heard. Besides, speakers were level matched and also EQed quite similar in near field at first. And testing was done both in mono and stereo. Mono has the advantage of quicker setup.

By the way, are you saying it's not possible to hear neither larger differences in frequency response, totally different reflective pattern from the room, directivity changes between speakers, or an active crossover at 600 Hz vs a passive crossover at 1 Khz?
I don't think you really undstand.

 

[Sokel]

This isn't a comparison between DACs or amps with minor differences.

We're talking about something that yields a major difference and very easily heard. Besides, speakers were level matched and also EQed quite similar in near field at first. And testing was done both in mono and stereo. Mono has the advantage of quicker setup.

By the way, are you saying it's not possible to hear neither larger differences in frequency response, totally different reflective pattern from the room, directivity changes between speakers, or an active crossover at 600 Hz vs a passive crossover at 1 Khz?
I don't think you really undstand.

Such comparison though is not only confined using horns.
It's the sheer size that matters first,the wide baffle,etc.

It would make sense to compare similar size ones,either horns or not.
But yes,horns has this "big" embedded on them IF they are followed by very decent midbass (lots of them sadly don't,is just like they stuff a driver down there just to exist,thus the "honky"sound)

 

[Bjorn]

Such comparison though is not only confined using horns.
It's the sheer size that matters first,the wide baffle,etc.

It would make sense to compare similar size ones,either horns or not.
But yes,horns has this "big" embedded on them IF they are followed by very decent midbass (lots of them sadly don't,is just like they stuff a driver down there just to exist,thus the "honky"sound)

Well, that's kind of the point. That a bigger horn makes a huge difference because of directivity, lower crossover, etc.

With a horn the difference is bigger than a traditional speaker, because directivity difference is much larger, and you also have other differences you don't necesarily have with front firing speakers.

This comparison was a front firing midbass/bass and not horn loaded. But yes, a horn loaded midbass brings it up another notch as well. Directivity control even lower in frequency plus lower distortion. The lower directivity control can in many cases make a pretty major difference in frequency response in the actual room. A big enough midbass horn is much less placement sensitive.

 

[gnarly]

This is the way Earl Geddes put it: "All waveguides are horns, but not all horns are waveguides."

In other words, all such devices which prioritize an approximately constant-directivity radiation pattern are both waveguides and horns; but not all such devices that improve the impedance mis-match also result in approximately constant-directivty radiation patterns, which is what characterizes a waveguide.

My take is that classification opinion reflects a value statement, that constant directivity is the top goal of horns/waveguides....
Iow, achieving constant directivity is a waveguide priority. And horns that sacrifice that priority to achieve greater efficiency, loose their status as waveguides.
I think this opinion likely comes from having designed the (elegant) OS waveguide.

But I don't think that is a good way to distinguish horns from waveguides.
I like the classic view Keith stated,...... that horns raise efficiency though working as acoustic impendence transformers, whereas waveguides work to control pattern.

Whether either a horn or a waveguide is a constant directivity design, is a separate idea imo.

So for me, all horns are waveguides, but not all waveguides are horns. I think there is pragmatic functionally to this classification, missing from the reverse viewpoint.

To relate, I build constant directivity synergy horns or MEHs. The exact same physical build, with the same constant directivity pattern, can be either a horn or a waveguide (as I view them). Depending on where i put the various drivers taps, or entry ports into the structure determines whether any efficiency gain occurs, but does not change the directivity. So sometimes they are just big ole waveguides, and sometimes they are horns as well.

 

[gnarly]

Uncontrolled listening is inevitably going to get you the reported result.
Cheers

The size matters phenom Bjorn raise is very real, ...easily heard and easily measured.

Keele's classic constant directivity formula predicts how polar measurements will fall.
Low frequency of pattern control (-6dB points) = 1,000,000 / (horn width in inches) X (horizontal angle in degrees)

So for instance below: the horn on the right is about 48" wide. The one in the center with the wood "picture frame" is about 32" wide.
Both are 90H x60V patterns, and both use the same core horn,....one with the picture frame, and the larger with wing expansions.

The large one holds H pattern to about 230Hz, whereas the smaller to about 350 Hz.

 

[jeffaegrim]

Chiming in - I would also agree that a blind test is not necessarily needed to differentiate speakers so different in their respective design (high vs low DI). I have horns that offer constant directivity down to 750hz at home & the difference between them and domes w/waveguides that I listen to at friends‘ place is striking and easily noticeable, even with the limited auditory memory humans possess.

Subjectively, the horns offer better overall playback clarity/coherence - the sound, however, becomes very „in your face“. It demands attention. A conventional design sounds very relaxed to me now in comparison, non-intrusive. The „attack“ is, however, oftentimes missing - especially at larger distances.

Edit: reading the comment from @Newman below I can definitely entertain the possibility that the differences would be less „striking“ in a blind mono test

 

[Digital_Thor]

Aaw man.... I want a pool table at home too

 

[Sal1950]

Uncontrolled listening is inevitably going to get you the reported result.
Cheers

Is it a horn or a wave guide? Or a wave guide with a horn? Or a horn that does waveguiding?
"If it ain't one thing it's another, Roseanne Roseannadanna"

 

[Newman]

This isn't a comparison between DACs or amps with minor differences.

We're talking about something that yields a major difference and very easily heard. Besides, speakers were level matched and also EQed quite similar in near field at first. And testing was done both in mono and stereo. Mono has the advantage of quicker setup.

By the way, are you saying it's not possible to hear neither larger differences in frequency response, totally different reflective pattern from the room, directivity changes between speakers, or an active crossover at 600 Hz vs a passive crossover at 1 Khz?
I don't think you really undstand.

If you think that the requirement for controlled listening only applies to minor differences then perhaps you are the one who doesn't really understand, more than I.

Furthermore, the level matching and partial EQ that you did, laudable as a part of a proper controlled listening test, only served to make it EVEN MORE LIKELY that the sighted listening effect would be utterly dominant in your report. I am fully confident in this and all the science of psychoacoustics would support me.

And if you think I said that there are no audible differences then you are not even reading my words. Take more care before you misrepresent your ASR colleagues. I am saying that whatever the actual audible differences are in the sound waves themselves, they will be swamped by the sighted effect. And magnitudes greatly exaggerated. Plus, it is notable that the reported vast differences were exactly the ones we would expect to arise from the sighted effect, given the visual and other non-sonic differences between the two. Consider that.

 

[Andysu]

 

[tmuikku]

Subjectively, the horns offer better overall playback clarity/coherence - the sound, however, becomes very „in your face“. It demands attention. A conventional design sounds very relaxed to me now in comparison, non-intrusive. The „attack“ is, however, oftentimes missing - especially at larger distances.

Hi,
I'll drop a comment on this stuff, morning coffee time:
Positioning, including listener, is very important here. The small wider coverage speaker can demand attention and come into face as well, if you shrink listening triangle size!

Attention/no attention is not feature of the speakers, it's feature of your own auditory system. When original harmonics of a sound is preserved, and no loud (early) reflections swamp it, the auditory system, your brain, pays attention to the sound because it's important from survival perspective, it's nearby, and provides you the cleari well localizing perception of the sound. When the sound source is farther, it's lost in all noise around you, basically early reflections swamp direct sound, and brain does not pay attention to it and the perception is relaxing, but there is no detail and no sharp localization.

Both of these perceptions are available to you with almost any playback system, because it's not feature of the playback system but feature inside you, feature of your auditory system. In fact this works for live music, conversation, school teaching, anything you want to memorize well or consider important, go close enough so your brain does it for you. Take the back seat in lecture hall if you want to pay no attention and sleep.

A playback system directivity and other features along with the room acoustics affect how far away it is possible to pay attention. You cannot consciously affect perception by trying to command and force the brain to pay attention, but it's easy to do indirectly by moving the system and especially easy to move yourself to a position the brain either pays attention or not, which ever you want to perceive. We can change the perception consciously by moving to a location where it happens, indirectly affect our brain!

So, all you need to know is which sound you would like to hear at any moment, and move closer or further from sound source to make it happen, so you just need to be aware of this stuff to fully utilize to your benefit. How far away from stereo speakers transition between the two happens is matter of acoustics and directivity and positioning. You don't have to go shopping different speakers, but you have to do some listening to learn it. This stuff is great platform for confusion in all of this playback system discussion on this and other forums, and largely not mentioned in occasions it should. The text I've quoted is example, to hear ~similar sound from these systems you just need to have them positioned differently. You could point the horns away to get relaxing sound, or drag the small wide coverage system closer to make them int the face. If you never experiment with this stuff and always put the speakers beside the telly and yourself to the sofa, you'll never notice this stuff.

 

[Newman]

My take is that classification opinion reflects a value statement, that constant directivity is the top goal of horns/waveguides....
Iow, achieving constant directivity is a waveguide priority. And horns that sacrifice that priority to achieve greater efficiency, loose their status as waveguides.
I think this opinion likely comes from having designed the (elegant) OS waveguide.

But I don't think that is a good way to distinguish horns from waveguides.
I like the classic view Keith stated,...... that horns raise efficiency though working as acoustic impendence transformers, whereas waveguides work to control pattern.

There is nothing wrong with the separate descriptions above. The unconventional bit is when you try to relate them to one another.

Whether either a horn or a waveguide is a constant directivity design, is a separate idea imo.

So for me, all horns are waveguides, but not all waveguides are horns. I think there is pragmatic functionally to this classification, missing from the reverse viewpoint.

No, there is a fundamental confusion to it. You can't legitimately call something a waveguide if its conception gave no thought to the issue of beam width, just because it inevitably 'did something' to beam width compared to a bare drive unit.

There is no horn that lies within the sub-class of acoustic waveguides that does not have a specification for beam width, therefore horns are not a sub-class of waveguide.

The 'classic' (to use your term) definition of horn is not 'acoustic impedance transformer'; the definition of horn is anything with an expanding cross section from a throat where the acoustic source lies (human larynx, musical reed, speaker driver) to a mouth that exits to open air. Every acoustic waveguide meets that definition, so every waveguide is a horn, and waveguides are a sub-class of horn.

The size matters phenom Bjorn raise is very real, ...easily heard

...prove it is easily heard...and preferred...

and easily measured.

Keele's classic constant directivity formula predicts how polar measurements will fall.
Low frequency of pattern control (-6dB points) = 1,000,000 / (horn width in inches) X (horizontal angle in degrees)

So for instance below: the horn on the right is about 48" wide. The one in the center with the wood "picture frame" is about 32" wide.
Both are 90H x60V patterns, and both use the same core horn,....one with the picture frame, and the larger with wing expansions.

The large one holds H pattern to about 230Hz, whereas the smaller to about 350 Hz.

Of course it's easily measured. We all know that it actually exists physically.

The issue is whether it is indeed easily heard and preferred.

Geddes is the only one I am aware of who has based his conclusion, that it matters little below 500 Hz, on psychoacoustics and research. Please don't tell me that the opposition comprises DIY communities doing sighted listening of each other's creations and reporting huge differences, and definitely due to the additional beam width control below 500 Hz. And that the difference due to that factor and that factor alone is so huge that it cannot possibly be anything but a true perception of the attributes of the sound waves themselves, even in casual/sighted listening. Please, not that.

"Today, I simply do not accept any subjective opinions about sound quality (including my own) unless they were obtained under very rigorous testing protocols – which is an extremely small volume of data." - Dr Geddes

"After working in this area for a long time, I have concluded that the very common phrase “I know what I hear!” is simply incorrect." - Dr Geddes

 

[jeffaegrim]

Hi,
I'll drop a comment on this stuff, morning coffee time:
Positioning, including listener, is very important here. The small wider coverage speaker can demand attention and come into face as well, if you shrink listening triangle size!
[…]

Appreciate the input & thinking about it, what you describe closely mirrors my experience with speakers in the past. I would agree that distance plays a crucial role in this perception.

Funnily enough, to reduce treble with my current speakers, I would have to toe them in heavily (lower DI on axis).

 

[Keith_W]

Subjectively, the horns offer better overall playback clarity/coherence - the sound, however, becomes very „in your face“. It demands attention. A conventional design sounds very relaxed to me now in comparison, non-intrusive. The „attack“ is, however, oftentimes missing - especially at larger distances.

If you have a horn and a conventional speaker and a microphone, try this. Sweep each speakers at 50cm, then 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 2.5m, and 3m. Overlay all the graphs.

What you will see is the conventional speaker dropping in SPL according to the inverse square law. The horn OTOH, does not. The rate of SPL decay per unit distance is much lower. I have said elsewhere that measurements of my own horn suggests that it projects a beam of sound, similar to a high pressure jet of water. The first time I did this experiment, I stared at the screen for a long time. I couldn't make sense of what I was looking at.

I think that horns sound like nothing else. There is a certain energy or physical quality to the sound. I do not have a good explanation for this, apart from what I found when I did this experiment.

 

[tmuikku]

jeffaegrim, yeah, it's very important just to notice it and then position accordingly.

Features of the playback system become very important in a situation where positioning is dictated by practical reasons. If one knows which perception they want they could possibly find good set of speakers that work with the acoustics so that the perception happens at the sofa while the speakers are at the telly, possibly, you might have to do some acoustic treatment regardless though depending on what you want, the relaxing sound or attention, and to tune spaciousness / envelopment that come with them. The relaxing sound is easy, happens always basically, happens by accident 99% time on untreated domestic room with practical positioning and typical speakers available to people, when the good attention grabbing sound needs some effort like moving the butt. If one can move things around many different speakers would likely work just fine, just adjust positioning.

Good smooth ~constant directivity allows toe-in to be utilized for spatial aspects of sound, how the envelopment is, while the direct sound remains well balanced, also with changing listening distance so should work for anyone. At least this is my logic atm. Most of the time this stuff doesn't matter, I'm mostly listening to music and only sometimes the brain, because it's very interesting but I need to do other stuff as well it's great fun try to optimize and put listening chair at the transition so leaning forward gives focus and leaning back the relaxation, great great way to prop up listening skill by toggling state of your own auditory system. Have fun all!

 

[jeffaegrim]

If you have a horn and a conventional speaker and a microphone, try this. Sweep each speakers at 50cm, then 1m, 1.5m, 2m, 2.5m, and 3m. Overlay all the graphs.

What you will see is the conventional speaker dropping in SPL according to the inverse square law. The horn OTOH, does not. The rate of SPL decay per unit distance is much lower. I have said elsewhere that measurements of my own horn suggests that it projects a beam of sound, similar to a high pressure jet of water. The first time I did this experiment, I stared at the screen for a long time. I couldn't make sense of what I was looking at.

I think that horns sound like nothing else. There is a certain energy or physical quality to the sound. I do not have a good explanation for this, apart from what I found when I did this experiment.

Funny that you mention, because I know exactly what post you’re referring to - the one in the thread dedicated to your own system! I have re-read it / the surrounding posts a few times, because I was pretty sure something like that is happening in my room as well & you were the first one to explain the underlying mechanism in a comprehensive way. It was/is a great thread btw, very informative - and I’ll be sure to perform the experiment myself as well.

I don’t remember seeing (m)any off axis measurements from your horns, though. May I ask - just out of curiosity - does the HF sound of your horns decay rapidly off axis, or does it remain similar in level in the coverage range of the horn, whatever it may be? Differently put: is the HF level 1m to the left or right of MLP similar to the level in MLP?

@tmuikku - very well put!

 

[Keith_W]

I don’t remember seeing (m)any off axis measurements from your horns, though. May I ask - just out of curiosity - does the HF sound of your horns decay rapidly off axis, or does it remain similar in level in the coverage range of the horn, whatever it may be? Differently put: is the HF level 1m to the left or right of MLP similar to the level in MLP?

This is the graph you are looking for:

It's in this post. If you look further down that thread, you will see a polar plot.