Are horns and hi-eff designs becoming more popular

My impression is that horns are a bit more popular these days than in the recent past, but then most things tend to cycle in and out of fashion, irrespective of whether they are good, bad or indifferent.

Horns have their strengths, but they also have weaknesses. In other words, they are like any other speaker or piece of equipment. The key to audio happiness is to line up the strengths of a speaker with the those areas where your ear is most sensitive or that you find important in sound reproduction. In my case, while I enjoy the dynamics of a good horn, I've never heard one yet that didn't have a distinct honkiness that knocked it out of consideration for me. It is a sonic trait that I am apparently more sensitive to than others.

Interestingly, I've just finished the book "Musicophilia" by Dr. Oliver Sacks. It talks about about the brain and how we perceive and process music along with the manner in which afflictions can affect our hearing music, or even using music as treatment. While the book says virtually nothing about audio equipment, the entire text reinforces how differently each of us perceives music. Some of this comes how our brain is wired from before we are born, some comes from experiences and training as an infant (which permanently affects how connections in our brain form) and some comes from our training and experiences later on. (A very interesting read if you like that kind of stuff.)

The net result is that each of us is going to be impressed by different things when we listen. Therefore, rather than read about how this or that speaker is the best thing since sliced bread, the key is to get out and listen and find out what [i]you[/i] are sensitive to when listening to music.

I think Johnk missed one of my main points. Perhaps I can restate it as follows.

Speaker design, like all engineering projects, is a complex series of decisions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the various choices available. This can emphasize certain sonic traits at the expense of others, or involve cost or size issues, or limit the suitability of the speaker in terms of placement or the associated equipment required.

Ribbon tweeters, for example, typically have poor vertical dispersion, historically can present distortion issues relative to other designs, and can be challenging to coherently integrate into a system.

All of that said, there are some fine systems with ribbon tweeters that many people think are great. What you have in that situation is a design where the advocates enjoy the strengths of such a system without being sensitive to (or at least bothered by) the weaknesses.

Same thing with higher efficiency designs. Once again we are back to engineering compromises. If the strong points of a design line up with a person's listening preferences, then all is good with the world. However, someone else may value characteristics not available in a high efficiency design (say low bass from a small cabinet where loud volume is not an issue) and will find a different speaker design is a better choice for them.

In summary, one often sees a pattern in audio discussions. There is the presumption that the writer's choices and perceptions are the only credible ones. Anyone who hears differently and prefers other equipment it thought to either lack proper training and education or is just wrong. It is more likely that they simply appreciate strong points of their system that are less relevant to the other person.

Johnk, sorry you seem to be taking this personally. I thought I was quite clear about stating that each person can be sensitive to different aspects of sonic performance.

A good analogy would be a musician having "perfect pitch." (This is the ability to accurately name a note with no external reference. Only about 10% of musicians have it and it is not a factor in how good of a musician a person becomes.) A person either has perfect pitch or they don't, but it is often tied to starting music training as a very young child. There is another example in synesthesia; some people experience it, most don't.

There is no reason to think that there are not many other sonic attributes that some people are more sensitive to than others. The fact that you or others don't hear a distinct attribute I've described as "honkiness" says more about the slight differences in what our hearing is sensitive to and how our brains process that signal than anything else. One should be able to state that without anyone feeling denigrated. Simply put, this trait is apparent to me even the highly regarded modern horn systems I've heard. It has always been apparent enough to preclude those types of speakers from consideration for my home system.

As for the distortion issue in ribbon tweeters, that's been an issue for as long as they've been around (75 years or more). Certainly modern technology and materials have made great strides in this area and efficiency, but that doesn't eliminate the fundamental design challenges. One also needs to understand that not all distortion sounds unpleasant. Certain types can be quite euphonic. (Think of musical instruments - it would be quite dull if they only produced pure sine waves. It the unique harmonics & distortion that give each instrument a unique sound.)

To use a perhaps more neutral analogy, think of cars. One can always put a bigger engine in a car and have it go faster, but that adds extra weight that affects the suspension, handling and braking. It is not too hard to imagine that one driver might value the extra power more while another driver would prefer a more nimble feel. Neither driver is "wrong" about their choice even though the engineering considerations are the same for both.

Things are what they are and different people gravitate toward different designs for a variety of reasons. No two people have their sonic priorities in exactly the same order. That alone helps explain why there are 1,000 or more speaker makes and models on the market today. If there were one design that was universally accepted as best, the list would be a lot shorter.

Atmasphere, I certainly acknowledge that components can interact with each other and exacerbate certain conditions. It is always important to choose components that compliment each other.

That said, I'm still of the opinion that certain designs just inherently have certain traits. One can take those things into consideration to ameliorate an issue, but whether it eliminates the problem to the degree necessary for every situation is unlikely.

In my case, I've been at this for almost 40 years (including time on the professional sound side) and have yet to hear a magic combination where the amp alone fixes this particular issue for me. There comes a point where it is like a fellow who loves brussels sprouts trying to convince his friend who doesn't like them to try just one more recipe. That'll be the one that does it!

Now I've certainly heard a lot of horn systems that are very good, but as noted earlier, this distinct horn trait is apparently something that I and some others are more aware of than other people. I suspect we're just wired that way. I also know the things that impress me about a system may well leave you cold.

I happen to just think it is a good thing that plenty of excellent, but different, designs are out there. Just a matter of looking around to find what floats your boat.

Johnk, I see the brussels sprouts analogy flew right past you. (Actually, just for full disclosure, I happen to like them.)

I've heard horns all the way from the original 1930's Western Electric theater horns to the classic EVs, Altec Voice of the Theaters and Tannoys. One of my best friends owned the large Klipshs for many years. For the newer ones, I've heard the Avantegardes, several Fostex and Lowther incarnations, as well as the Acapellas.

As noted before, I often thought they sounded good, but every single time I knew I was listening to a horn. For me that was a distraction in spite of some other advantages, such as dynamic range, that I've already admitted.

Even Avantgarde said in a Stereophile article (Sept 2000) "that, regardless of available power, horns' high efficiency confers benefits in dynamics and low distortion, and that careful design can reduce horn colorations to a negligible level."

Notice even they did not say "eliminate" but used the word "reduce." What is "negligible" for one person may not be for another.

And I never said I or anyone else had "magic ears." I said we are probably sensitive to different things. What is confrontational about that? I used "perfect pitch" in a previous example. I don't have perfect pitch, but I sure don't denigrate those that do or suggest that they are "full of it." I even gave a reference to a book that talks extensively about how our brain hears and processes music. Like height, hair color and many other traits, this is going to vary by individual.

I'm not really interested in turning this into a 1950's style Ford vs Chevy debate. Nothing I said ever indicated that those who enjoy the strong attributes of a good horn system should stop doing so.

A main point of discussion forums on audio (or any other subject) is to engage in give and take on the subject at hand. I'm not quite sure you've taken this as a personal affront; it was certainly never meant that way.