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

[jhaider]

I own the Mofi Sourcepoint 8s...I've owned electrostats, planars, open baffles and lots of dynamic speakers...but never horns...

Your SP8s have tweeters horn loaded by the waveguide. The dispersion pattern is wider than most horns.

 

[Sal1950]

Call it this way, but this is a pretty common problem. Could you name an affordable good horn pls?

There are plenty of good horns out there.
The biggest problem and main issue is that a lot of the horn market is built/voiced to sound a certain way and mostly that ain't flat. There's a big cult of very expensive horns + 5 watt flee power SET amps that has no interest in accuracy or measurement. AKA Sheep Bhaaa

I disagree with this verdict. Rather a good example of what can go wrong when designers prioritize lab performance of the horn over subjective sound quality of the whole loudspeaker.

Wrong, the M2 is an incredible speaker.
Speakers (nor any other Hi Fi product) shouldn't be voiced "by ear".
That's for the "sounds good to me" crowd.

 

[Arindal]

There are plenty of good horns out there.

Could you name some examples please, and maybe describe how they perform with complex acoustic recordings such as sacred music, orchestra or choir?

The biggest problem and main issue is that a lot of the horn market is built/voiced to sound a certain way and mostly that ain't flat.

We agree on the part that the scene loving horns for the single reason of high sensitivity and impedance, ignoring aspects like tonal balance, bass and transparency, are not to be taken seriously.

Yes, many horns show an anechoic response which is not flat. But most of them also come with seriously uneven directivity, so a flat on-axis response would anyways not lead to perfect tonal balance, would rather be disadvantageous here.

Wrong, the M2 is an incredible speaker.

I would not call the horn colorations, bloated bass, audible midrange lobing, presence-heavy reverb and early reflections, along with increased proximity, lack of ambience and transparency ´incredible´. If you like such sound - well, you might.

Speakers (nor any other Hi Fi product) shouldn't be voiced "by ear".

Noone is saying anything about ´voicing by ear´ in the sense of ignoring measurements for achieving optimum of tonal balance. You can voice a loudspeaker solely by measurements, if shortcomings are as dramatic as in this particular case, you will hear it. Some cases nevertheless astonished me by the amount of horn colorations which can go unnoticed when only starring at the graphs. So without some kind of subjective listening test, many things can go wrong.

 

[kyuu]

I would not call the horn colorations, bloated bass, audible midrange lobing, presence-heavy reverb and early reflections, along with increased proximity, lack of ambience and transparency ´incredible´. If you like such sound - well, you might.

This is a strange take not supported by the measurements or anyone else who has heard them that I'm aware of.

 

[Arindal]

This is a strange take not supported by the measurements

Except from transparency (which is extremely difficult to judge solely from measurements) and bass (which is room dependent), I do not see anything contradiction the measurements. I would rather say every point I was finding worthy of criticism, can be traced down to flaws easily identifiable. I find it somehow astonishing that people who tend to criticize other products for minor flaws in the measurements, are seemingly not realizing what is happening here.

anyone else who has heard them that I'm aware of.

I do not know a single experienced listener or pro audio user who liked them. These (and similar concepts by the same manufacturer) seem to be very unpopular in studios. Or could you name me some examples pls?

 

[snapsc]

I would like to ask a horn/waveguide related question. Am I understanding correctly that the general concept for horns is to use the waveguide to narrow/focus the dispersion vs other designer/speaker types who use wave guides to increase the dispersion? And if so, why these different approaches?

 

[Mort]

I would like to ask a horn/waveguide related question. Am I understanding correctly that the general concept for horns is to use the waveguide to narrow/focus the dispersion vs other designer/speaker types who use wave guides to increase the dispersion? And if so, why these different approaches?

I don't think waveguides/horn ever increase dispersion. They are used to control dispersion.

Do you have an example?

 

[Newman]

I would like to ask a horn/waveguide related question. Am I understanding correctly that the general concept for horns is to use the waveguide to narrow/focus the dispersion vs other designer/speaker types who use wave guides to increase the dispersion? And if so, why these different approaches?

I believe convention has it that the original use of a horn, and hence the term horn speaker, was designed to be an acoustical transformer that efficiently converts the impedance mismatch between driver material and air. The resultant shape tends to produce a ‘beamy’ wavefront where the beam width narrows as the frequency increases. And that the use of the term waveguide applied to devices designed primarily for a constant beamwidth, in other words, to guide the wave front, hence waveguide.

 

[Duke]

I don't think waveguides/horn ever increase dispersion. They are used to control dispersion.

Do you have an example?

Where there's a need, there are smart people who figure out ways to meet that need, even if some compromise is involved. And in prosound there is a need for wider coverage patterns at higher frequencies than a beefy large-format compression driver's throat diameter would normally allow.

A diffraction horn uses diffraction to widen the radiation pattern at high frequencies to give uniform coverage over a wider area than would otherwise be possible. Diffraction horns have an abrupt change in the wall angle which causes this. Many if not most prosound horns are, to some extent, diffraction horns. Sometimes there is a vertical slot at or near the throat, and sometimes an outward "kink" in the walls of the horn, and sometimes both. Diffraction horns arguably measure better than they sound, as their diffraction causes a type of distortion to which the ear is relatively insensitive at low volume levels, but to which the ear becomes increasingly sensitive as the volume level goes up.

Vanes are also used sometimes in the throat of a horn to widen the radiation pattern at high frequencies. My understanding is that vanes do not come with the same coloration issue as diffraction horns but their pattern shape can have lobing issues at high frequencies where the individual "cells" interact as if they were tiny horns.

Lenses are occasionally used on horns to widen the radiation pattern. Lenses operate by imposing a progressively longer path length on the sound at the edges of the horn's pattern than the path length down the middle, thereby bending the pattern so that its shape is wider than it would have been. My understanding is that, despite their rather intrusive appearance, lenses are fairly benign; Janszen used lenses on some of their electrostatic panels. Several JBL models used lensed horns, including the legendary Hartsfield, and at least one (imo quite interesting) DIY-oriented manufacturer, La Dolce Audio, uses horns with 3D printed lenses.

Finally, slot-like "waveguides" are often used in loudspeaker modules which are stacked to form line arrays or flown J-arrays in prosound applications. These are diffraction slots with little if any "horn". I am not a fan, but the practicality (in terms of audience coverage versus the amount of equipment needed) of line arrays and J-arrays has made them quite popular in prosound.

 

[Mort]

Where there's a need, there are smart people who figure out ways to meet that need, even if some compromise is involved. And in prosound there is a need for wider coverage patterns at high frequencies than a large-format compression driver's throat diameter would normally allow.

A diffraction horn uses diffraction to widen the radiation pattern at high frequencies to give uniform coverage over a wider area than would otherwise be possible. Diffraction horns have an abrupt change in the wall angle which causes this. Many if not most prosound horns are, to some extent, diffraction horns. Sometimes there is a vertical slot at or near the throat, and sometimes an outward "kink" in the walls of the horn, and sometimes both. Diffraction horns arguably measure better than they sound, as their diffraction causes a type of distortion to which the ear is relatively insensitive at low volume levels, but to which the ear becomes increasingly sensitive as the volume level goes up.

Vanes are also used sometimes in the throat of a horn to widen the radiation pattern at high frequencies. My understanding is that vanes do not come with the same coloration issue as diffraction horns but their pattern shape can have lobing issues at high frequencies as the individual "cells" interact as if they were tiny horns.

Lenses are occasionally used on horns to widen the radiation pattern. Lenses operate by imposing a progressively longer path length on the sound at the edges of the horn's pattern than the path length down the middle, thereby bending the pattern so that its shape is wider than it would have been. My understanding is that, despite their rather intrusive appearance, lenses are fairly benign; Janszen used lenses on some of their electrostatic panels. Several JBL models used lensed horns, including the Hartsfield, and at least one (imo quite interesting) DIY-oriented manufacturer, La Dolce Audio, uses horns with 3D printed lenses.

Finally, slot-like "waveguides" are often used on loudspeaker modules which are stacked to form line arrays or flown J-arrays in prosound applications. These are diffraction slots with little if any "horn". I am not a fan, but the practicality (in terms of audience coverage versus the amount of equipment needed) of line arrays and J-arrays has made them quite popular in prosound.

Ah fascinating. Thank you for that. It seems counter intuitive that a hard restrictive surface could help widen the pattern but as you say, necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Hear Here]

I've owned electrostats, planars, open baffles and lots of dynamic speakers...but never horns...and for whatever reason, the horn sound was "fun?" (at least for 10 minutes of listening) and if I ever pull the trigger on a pair, the 1120 might be able to correct some of their sins????

With respect, I wonder what horns you've encountered. There are 2 well-known brands that offer relatively inexpensive horns that will deliver the sound you mention, but get properly designed horns and you'll find that the "10 minutes of fun listening" will extent to decades!

I've owned horns since 2002 (3 versions of Avantgardes) and never has the fun ended. A good horn will deliver a more convincing impression of being in front of the musicians than any other type – similarly with high quality electrostatics. I’#ve had several other speakers of most types (not open baffle or omnis) and I’ll certainly stick with the fun of horns.

PS - I've also heard hORNS speakers and was mightly impressed, although it was a more a combination horn / conventional box design than a true horn.

 

[Deleted member 92621]

I've pretty much always owned horns of some kind. In engineering, there's always trade-offs. The one that car guys often know about is: "1. fast, 2. reliable, 3. inexpensive; pick two."

The efficiency of horns is not just for low power amps. High efficiency also means that when you want to get really loud you can and the distortion stays nice and low. Various different forms of compression drivers have less movement of the diaphragm and therefore typically have less IM and multi-tone distortion. They tend to then sound cleaner over a wider range of volume levels.

And honestly, I'm one of those people who listens at low volume levels at night when my kids are asleep and at very high volume levels when no one else is in the house and I would like to make myself go deaf prematurely.

But yes, there are trade-offs. Horns frequently have time alignment problems. Many horns produced by Klipsch have incredibly uneven frequency response.

Some of the comments in addition to Miss misunderstanding about horns are also misunderstandings of the boutique speaker manufacturers. Many of them are hitting a specific frequency response that isn't flat. It isn't tuned by ear. And it is hitting a target market. That's why they're in business. Seriously. That. Is. Why. They. Are. In. Business. Measurement absolutists might not like it but they have a market that they are filling

 

[Newman]

…misunderstandings of the boutique speaker manufacturers. Many of them are hitting a specific frequency response that isn't flat. It isn't tuned by ear. And it is hitting a target market. That's why they're in business. Seriously. That. Is. Why. They. Are. In. Business. Measurement absolutists might not like it but they have a market that they are filling

That is not what the evidence is actually saying. Controlled listening tests show that people without severe hearing damage are very highly uniform in actually preferring a smooth flat frequency response between 200 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Also smooth and extended below 200 Hz, but the level varies a bit to taste.

If you went to these boutique speaker manufacturers and asked them to show you the controlled listening tests that that they have conducted that established a non-flat frequency response that is preferred by their target market… I predict with very high confidence that they will have nothing to show you. They have done no such thing. Yes, they have tuned by ear. Using sighted listening tests, which takes them straight into a spiral of imagined improvements, a spiral that never ends.

The reason they are in business is because they are fulfilling non-sonic preferences. Preferences for premium products; for unconventional products; for a certain kind of look to products; for the backstory behind a product; for the country of manufacture; for the particular kinds of things said in reviews of the product, or by other purchasers of the product talking online; for the size and weight of a product; the list goes on. And, most importantly, a preference for the cognitive biases that are created by all the above non-sonic preferences during sighted listening tests by potential buyers, and that create a perceived sonic effect that isn’t actually in the sound waves at all.

And to conclude with a paraphrase of your post’s conclusion… measurement deniers might not like it, but that is more like the real reason that they are in business, and the real market they are hitting.

Cheers

 

[mhardy6647]

I've pretty much always owned horns of some kind. In engineering, there's always trade-offs. The one that car guys often know about is: "1. fast, 2. reliable, 3. inexpensive; pick two."

The efficiency of horns is not just for low power amps. High efficiency also means that when you want to get really loud you can and the distortion stays nice and low. Various different forms of compression drivers have less movement of the diaphragm and therefore typically have less IM and multi-tone distortion. They tend to then sound cleaner over a wider range of volume levels.

And honestly, I'm one of those people who listens at low volume levels at night when my kids are asleep and at very high volume levels when no one else is in the house and I would like to make myself go deaf prematurely.

But yes, there are trade-offs. Horns frequently have time alignment problems. Many horns produced by Klipsch have incredibly uneven frequency response.

Some of the comments in addition to Miss misunderstanding about horns are also misunderstandings of the boutique speaker manufacturers. Many of them are hitting a specific frequency response that isn't flat. It isn't tuned by ear. And it is hitting a target market. That's why they're in business. Seriously. That. Is. Why. They. Are. In. Business. Measurement absolutists might not like it but they have a market that they are filling

Not that anyone's asked but I have long felt that the high sensitivity loudspeakers here sound better at very low volumes, too. I don't know if it is psychoacoustics, placebo, or other (because I do believe in the equal loudness curves!) but not just clarity but also tonal balance seems better on the horn-y loudspeakers here than the less-sensitive direct radiators. The high-sensitivity direct radiators, very subjectively, fall somewhere in-between.

 

[Deleted member 92621]

Ignore lists are pretty cool. I think that book by Toole is probably only the second most misquoted book behind the Bible

 

[Arindal]

Diffraction horns arguably measure better than they sound, as their diffraction causes a type of distortion to which the ear is relatively insensitive at low volume levels, but to which the ear becomes increasingly sensitive as the volume level goes up.

Can absolutely confirm this from own experience, and never understood why diffraction horns would be used in high-end audio. Same with bi-radial horns in my perception.

slot-like "waveguides" are often used in loudspeaker modules which are stacked to form line arrays or flown J-arrays in prosound applications. These are diffraction slots with little if any "horn". I am not a fan, but the practicality (in terms of audience coverage versus the amount of equipment needed) of line arrays and J-arrays has made them quite popular in prosound.

There are some diffraction slot drivers which are internally corrected for runtime delay, so at the slot there is some kind of even wavefront formed. Example:

Not sure if there is any reasonable application for home audio, but for sound reinforcement some are actually pretty good, tending to sound more transparent, relaxed and less ´drilling´.

There is one example of a high end studio monitor heavily relying on diffraction horns, which I found to be pretty convincing. Strauss SE MF2.1

It seems counter intuitive that a hard restrictive surface could help widen the pattern

Similar phenomenon to edge diffraction at the cabinet´s edges of a conventional loudspeaker with wide radiation pattern of the tweeter.

A good horn will deliver a more convincing impression of being in front of the musicians than any other type – similarly with high quality electrostatics.

I would take that as a hint that directivity and the ability to suppress the room´s indirect response, is the main common factor here. Don't see any other major similarities between horns and electrostatic planars.

High efficiency also means that when you want to get really loud you can and the distortion stays nice and low.

Which is the case with conventional drivers as well, if you have sufficient power and diaphragm area.

 

[Arindal]

Controlled listening tests show that people without severe hearing damage are very highly uniform in actually preferring a smooth flat frequency response between 200 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

Why not under 200Hz? May it be the case, that these so-called controlled listening tests showed that many people actually prefer more bass than a linear response would suggest?

If you went to these boutique speaker manufacturers and asked them to show you the controlled listening tests that that they have conducted that established a non-flat frequency response that is preferred by their target market… I predict with very high confidence that they will have nothing to show you.

No speaker manufacturer does such ´controlled listening tests´, particular not blind tests asking for simple preference. Even Harman who for a long time had had both the facility and the resources to do so, abandoned such tests a long time ago, if I have understood Dr. Olive´s remarks correctly (15+ yrs). And one of the findings he was presenting was a preference of *more* bass level than linear response would suggest. Does it mean no-one should produce neutral speakers without boosted bass anymore?

The reason they are in business is because they are fulfilling non-sonic preferences. Preferences for premium products; for unconventional products; for a certain kind of look to products; for the backstory behind a product;

It is seemingly a common excuse for the interesting contradiction that under these ´controlled tests´, participants in the majority preferred different loudspeakers than buyers in the shops. It is nevertheless in my understanding a baseless claim.

People don´t buy expensive boutique loudspeakers which deviate from a certain ideal because of a story, look or appearance of a premium product. Otherwise it would be very easy to design ´technically righteous´ loudspeakers which beat the competition in these ´controlled listening tests´, while serving the right amount of backstory and premium feeling. According to your logic, such strategy should enable a loudspeaker manufacturer to achieve market dominance quickly. But this never happened. High end loudspeakers which were designed following the findings of the ´controlled listening tests´, vastly failed when it comes to sales.

And guess what - people buy such non-conventional loudspeakers after extended listening tests, because they personally like the sound. You and me, we don´t have to agree to that (and with a professional background both in classical recording and loudspeaker testing, I am pretty sensitive to colorations and have a pretty good understanding which aspects of measurements correlate with which audible phenomena). But we should accept the fact that people just like what they hear and buy.

That said, I have listened to a lot of horn speakers which for me personally left a lot to be desired. I even noticed severe horn colorations, reverb colorations, imaging issues or restricted transparency in speakers which were from measurement point of view described as nearly perfect. While I would personally never listen to such (and almost never see them in studios, so am most certainly not alone in the recording community), I nevertheless understand what people like in them. Yes, there are certain aspects of sound quality, and personal enjoyment, which I would even say some horns do in a superior way.

 

[Flaesh]

I wonder how many BMline100s were sold.

 

[Newman]

Ignore lists are pretty cool. I think that book by Toole is probably only the second most misquoted book behind the Bible

If this is the response to my disagreement with some statements, well....it says more about you than about I.

 

[Mort]

Ignore lists are pretty cool. I think that book by Toole is probably only the second most misquoted book behind the Bible

I'm a firm believer in the ignore function. Many of the 'top' posters here are on my list. But You have 21 total messages. On a science based board one doesn't get instant credibility even if you're the second coming of Jesus Christ. You will be challenged, it's not personal.

(In fact Jesus was here and left butthurt. That's another story. Something about transients and noise floor. )