Horns: Why don't they image well?


Anyone have a theory?

\\\\\\
o| O O |o
  \ . ^ . /
erik_squires

Showing 10 responses by erik_squires

This has become one of the most active and fun to read threads I've ever seen.

Thank you to everyone who has been contributing. :)

Best,
OT (original troll)
   \\\\\\
o| O O |o
  \ . ^ . /
When I read certain descriptions about speaker imaging, I’m reminded of Akira Kurosawa’s biopic.

Shooting on a live volcano, he had to add a lot more smoke. Think about that for a sec. He's on a real, actual live volcano in Japan but he had to add smoke for "realism."

The problem was the limitations of film. If you are standing on a volcano, you feel the heat through your body. You don’t need visual or audible clues to tell you that you are standing on top of one of nature’s furnaces.
Translating this to film though, Kurosawa had to add a lot of smoke effects in order to convey the sense of heat that was impossible to transmit through the silver screen.

I often think that there is such a thing as exaggerated imaging in speakers. For instance, listening to a live chorus, can you pick out each singer? I can’t, but with some speakers I feel like I can.

Is this a faithful rendition of the sound anymore? I’m not sure, but perhaps this makes up for the loss of visual perception?

And as you may know, there are some tricks to tweaking a FR like a dip around 2.4 kHz (conveniently often a good crossover point) which can accentuate this.
Pizzas...why don't they work as spare tires?

Please do the polite thing and start your own thread ... ;)

Erik’s thread is entitled, "Why don’t horns image well?", and the entire text of his opening post is, "Anyone have a theory?".

In asking for theories, it seemed like Erik was inviting "tech details" as well as how they "relate to actual perceived sound".



I do think both are useful and fun, but we should be careful about being sure when we join one to the other. 

Best, 

E
To give an example of this, there's time coincident speakers like old Thiel and current Vandersteen. 

Despite the technical claims made for them, the overall design has not overwhelmed the speaker industry. 

Lots of fun to talk about, and an interesting engineering challenge, but the final result has mixed reviews.  This one concept does not seem to have convinced the market. 

Best,

E
I guess my main gripe comes with questioning the usefulness, in some instances at least, of knowing about minutiae design "tech details" and how these are convertible into or relate to actual perceived sound. The designer/developer him- or herself should have a closer bearing perhaps, but oftentimes I feel such knowledge presented to the end user, illuminating it may be as a field and entity in itself, has a tendency to produce disciples almost or followers of a brand/principle rather than
critical, informed individuals that would seek not to equate too easily.
@phusis

Very well put. There’s a chasm between theory and measurements vs. perception and desirability.

Some companies, like JBL, Bose and Harman, make perception and desirability a hallmark of their research in addition to the speaker physics they are so well known for.

I also agree, a lot of this is a lot of fun to talk about, but perception may be a whole other story. The late Linkwitz was one of many experienced engineers and audiophiles who also promoted this view.

My recommendation for every audiophile: Build at least 1 pair of loudspeakers in your hobby career. You’ll be a much better informed consumer than everyone who has not.

Best,

E
@roxy54 

Ooooh, my bad. I meant to post "Why do horns image SO well." 

I guess I screwed that up... << runs and hides >> 
Another horn thread.
I’m looking for something that hasn’t been said before.

You seem new here... 
stirring the pot again......

I admit it, it's true. But I learn a great deal this way too. :)