You can have my horns when you pry my cold, dead hands off of them. :-)
So many generalized statements about horns, kind of like the ones we horn guys make about monkey coffins and other boxes.
Maybe someone should start a thread about why people settle for cone and dome boxes. |
Great questions. John and Ralph are way ahead of me with horns but I think we are now getting to the reason why more horn systems are not found. Horns do some things similar to boxes but they also many things differently than boxes. There is simply a lot to learn about how horns work when one attempts to setup a horn system. This is especially true when one is doing a multi-driver system. The size of the mouth opening, the size of the horn opening, the flare rate, etc, all impact the freq. response and sound. And we should be considering whether the horn uses a full range driver, or if the horn is front or back loaded.
I listen rougly 11' from my horns. Ralph hit all of the reasons why we hornies like what we like about horns. It is NOT about volume as so many of the uninitiated think. I rarely listen about 90dB even with rock. I don't need to because I can hear very far into the background which I believe is indicative of a very low system noise floor.
And I chose to build a horn system long before I figured out what amps I would use. In the end, I am triamping. One 50+ watt/ch, PP amp for the mid-bass bins, another 50 watt PP amp for the mid and tweeter, and the bass horns are powered by a pro-audio SS amp. This is all controlled by a Marchand active xover.
So you can see that it can go from very simple to very complicated when we talk horns. Most peoples' eyes, especially those here at A'gon, start to glaze over very quickly. :-) |
Ah, there is another interesting issue with horns. The question of whether or not to do digital xovers. Digital xovers do make it possible to time align even when the horns themselves are not. However, I am on of those who prefers vinyl source to CD. Naturally I am against ANY digital device in the chain so I chose not to use a digital crossover.
Instead I have the voice coils of the drivers, except the bass horns, physically aligned. (There is a bit more to it, but that is basically how they stack.) So I have a little more work to do with regards to reflections off of the other horns, but there is no digital xover I have found that sounds like I want. |
Unsound likes Thiels and hates horns. Let's be honest, would anyone who prefers the presentation of Thiels ever appreciate what a good horn system can do? I really doubt it. |
Amen, Herman! Hey, I'm not poking a stick at digital xovers. I'm just hoping to impress on the uninitiated that there are several ways to go. Yes, everything is a compromise. No argument there.
Another compromise that can be found is that with bass horns. It is possible to get low enough with a folded bass horn. The Edgarhorn Seismics that I use are such a design and they are about the size of a refrigerator. These get down in the low 20s and can be EQ'd lower. |
Mapman, as with any speaker driver one can change the presentation of horns. I have read man posts by horn users who prefer solid silver wiring. In some places I agree with them. However, I recently went through auditions of an interconnect cable that is made with solid silver wiring but comes with the option of copper or silver connectors. The silver connectors most definitely moved the musicians to the front and right into your face. The copper connectors, on the other hand, tended to move things back with a more relaxed presentation and that is the option I chose.
unsound, I assume you are generalizing? Yes, my horns do have midrange purity, and low and hi range purity as well. I'm sure we can all find examples of speakers of any type that do and don't have purity. |
I think we can all agree that horns are not going to set the mainstream audio world on fire anytime soon. But I believe it is NOT because of mechanical amplification being outdated. (Are we now going to claim that tube amplification is old technology and outdated?) Most designers don't understand how to work with them. Then there are the drivers. Many horns, including the ones I use, are built with vintage, pro drivers in mind. Except for my Fostex horn tweeters which are very recently made. There are shipping issues, user issues, WAF issues, etc., which are all valid reasons why there are not more horn speakers being designed these days than this old and in the way technology theory.
Victrolas? Bad analogy. Just because those had a horn does not make it work in this comparison. There are many, many more issues with those old gems which would speak to why they aren't used anymore. If we all remember, those things had no electronics and you cranked them by hand. |
No, horns are THE OLDEST form of amplification. ;-) I'm not sure if they ever were all that popular in home audio. It can be argued that they were somewhat of a necessity before we had better amps. And the first electric amplification was with tubes so that technology, while ages younger than mechanical amplification, is considered outdated by many people today. But that is only their opinion. Both of these technologies do still work, and work well.
The average audiophile will not consider pro-audio anything because of a bias instilled by countless years of reading audio magazines. Horns seem to get lumped in with pro-audio, even though there are many horn designs that don't use pro drivers. No, I don't think the shift is due to outdated technology. There are quite a few designers today who use horns. |
"why would "Horns have a greater potential than any other approach."?"
I'm in agreement with you on this question, Unsound. I gather from Microjack's most recent reply that he may be referring to the general masses, rather than what is already known by those who have studied horns for years. |
That reminds me. I still plan on experimenting with a prototype conical against the Edgarhorn tractrix. Bill gave me some dimensions to try but it has become just another bullet item on a long list of things to do. |
There is not way to go from analog, to digital, and back to analog without losing information. That is just a physical fact. |
MIcrojack, I can't fully include you as a horn guy if you don't use bass horns. :-) Hybrids are for cowards. :-)
Just kidding here. I almost gave up and went the box route for the bass. I'm not quite ready to do that yet. I may have to a some point if the vintage pro drivers I use become any harder to find in good condition.
I am also in disagreement with the use of digital filtering. I understand the issues that digital processing can address, but it simply doesn't sound better to me. Different, yes. I would rather live with a little shout or whatever, than lose information. Matter of fact, I would rather go back to using passive speaker level xovers than use DSP.
Bill has indeed revived the conical horn. From what little I know on this subject, the conical was studied a bit back in 50's or 60's but then most turned to other approaches. The claims regarding the lack of phase distortion with conicals is interesting. Thus my desire to model that at some point. But for those who think building a conical is easy, think again. Those 16 or so slats have to identical or there will be un-eveness, which defeats the reason that the conical does what it does.
I would say, however, that tractrix is still the more preferred approach at this point. |
Yes, Microjack. Exactly. It is all about trade-offs. I have heard my system using both digital and analog active line level crossovers. There is no question things change differently with the two approaches. I don't like what I hear with a digital filter in the signal path, others may be perfectly happy with it. All I wish to get across is that there is more than one way, just as there is more than one way to design a horn that performs very well. |
One thing I have always found interesting about Bill's horn is the cast flange. This would seem to give the best control in the critical throat area. Now that I think about it some more, this is also why I have put off trying a proto. I think I could get the cone pretty close but there is no way I could do justice to that throat piece. :-)
Wish I had the price of admission to the field coil drivers. Chris Brady told me that those drivers really impressed him, and that wasn't taking anything away from the Cogents, and Bill's conical. It was his Edgarhorn Titans that got me hooked on horns. I had heard some good ones before that, but his DIY pair really hit home with me. I didn't buy his 'table but I really liked the sound of his horns. :-) |
MACROjack. I apologize for keep using micro-jack! Just realized I was doing that.
There is a huge tap-age of DSP in the home theater circles. It is certainly very good these days. But there is only so much that can be done by hardware and software.
But don't let me spoil the enjoyment. There certainly are many who use digital correction/processing with their horns and are very happy with the results. |
I would not say that digital filtering/processing can't sound good, because it can sound very good. I could probably be happy with that solution if I weren't so involved with analog.
Yes, the pro-audio guys are definitely not concerned with our silly audiophool-ishness. :-)
I can't argue with Atmosphere with regards to actives being a detail filter. There is definitely some loss there when compared to the sound using a passive xover at the speakers. However, there are also some benefits that may out weight this. I find that the increased control of the drivers when doing the active/biamp solution has increased the level of other details. I assume this is due to reduced IMD. This seems to be true for the mid-bass in my system where I do think the active has increased the detail in this range. The sound is much tighter, which sounds faster and better defined. |
I know, the analog purists in the group dismiss this immediately. They've never heard it but are convinced it won't work well so they wouldn't even consider it. That's fine. After many years of chasing the dream I have a system that makes ME very happy. Herman, your system makes you happy and that is all that matters. Congrats to you for reaching this state with your system. Ok, I'll admit to perhaps being the analog purist at least on this thread. :-) Let me be clear. I do not dismiss digital processing off hand. I am a software engineer also, with degrees in EE and CS, so I understand most of what is going on with DSPs and other digital equipment. It is a very legitimate approach. Personally, I have ruled it out digital process in my system after trying it. Admittedly, I have not tried all of the best gear out there, but I have never heard any non-analog source in my system come close to what my vinyl front end produces. I know this sound very well so it does stick out to me when things aren't there. This is where my listening sensitivities have developed and it is something I cannot ignore. I'm afraid that if I were forced to chose between using digital processing to get my horns to sound good, I would move the horns out in a NY minute. However, Duke's and Atmosphere's points are well taken and I also know and admit that my approach is also compromised. I can address some of the shortcomings with placement of the drivers relative to the others and to the listening position. There are compromises with everything and choices have to be made. As Nick Doshi often states, "Enjoy music, tolerate equipment." |
"A horn does not require a 250W amp." I hope that was meant to be sarcastic. ;-) |
The fact that there is a horn connected has nothing to do with the power requirement of the driver. My seismic horn subs go down to ~25Hz and use 18", 400watt pro drivers. They need a certain amount of power just to move that much air, let alone do justice to a good bass note.
I tried the SET route on my horns for a while. They can certainly play, but the SET doesn't have the damping control to make a kick drum snap your chest like it should. This is why I'm running my 110+ dB horns with 50 w/ch, PP amps.
But I don't like spam! Or SET. :-) |
Herman, we can use flea power because of the efficiency of the drivers that can be used with horn loading. Horns are a device that give a certain amount of gain with a particular driver. The efficiency can be enhanced with a horn, but the horn itself is not what dictates the power needs.
I understand, and am not irritated by physics, that with a longer horn and smaller throat, a different drive will yield different sound. But to say that something is not a horn because it uses 200+ watts is not accurate. I guess you really said "true" horn. How about saying "a non-folded horn". That I believe I can agree with.
I can theorize that the seismics are about 101-102 db. The drivers are 95 dB and I can guess to at at least a 6db gain. But this is a bass horn, ~20-200 Hz. There is quite a bit of energy needed to get from 40Hz (your horns) down another 20, and mine are a folded horn which I can move from room to room if needed.
The rest of the horn system is easily 110+ dB and that is what I referred to in my last post. I'm biamping this upper end with two, 50watt amps. They rarely get beyond the first watt, except for the amp driving the mid-bass. It probably does get a bit of a workout from the 105-106 db mid-bass. There again using a large driver because it is a 3/8 horn. It's not even worth talking about the mid-range and tweeter horns.
There is a lot more to creating a note and creating a note that sounds as big as the instrument which originally created it. This is subjective, naturally, based on the music that each of us prefers.
to all,
Did someone actually tell me that all horns are not alike? ;-) Really? I would have never guessed. I thought that all through this thread I have been pointing that out. My way is not the only way. Neither is yours. |
ALL speakers have colorations. Pick the ones which annoy you the least. |
Also, I'd like to see more info from other horn product gurus, makers and affectionados to add a bit more variety. Not gonna' happen. Just go back and read this thread. Thirteen pages of very, very little value. (Sorry John, Duke, and Ralph.) From some of those gurus. . . "It's the same old story, those who've heard/owned high quality horns praise them, those who haven't put them down. Not worth sorting through it IMO. " "Humorous too, in that often the strength of an opinion seems inversely related to any first hand knowledge or experience of the subject." "It would be a waste of time. Those who are already convinced that they hate horns won't be converted, those who know better don't need converting. " |
Unsound, I doubt that any of those folks have A'gon accounts. There is a big, wide, wonderful audio world out there and it doesn't revolve around Audiogon. |
That was my answer to your post Dan_ed, it might helpful if you put a user-name to those quotes. . I completely agree with your list of what you have learned on this thread. How could I not? :-) |
Macrojack, I will correct one of your posts regarding my past visitations of the OMA site.
I will only say that my "time" visiting with OMA was very short, very educational, and very eye-opening.
To say that I would not let my dog lift his leg on the side of the OMA barn would be a gross understatement.
Hope this makes my position clear. Nothing against Acoustic Horns. |
Mintzar, ever heard of ALE Acoustic? ;-) |
:-) Yeah, I think the ALEs are beyond most everyone's budget. Interesting that you run the Faital that low. |
What's your point, Jw? I choose to use horns because they ARE closer to live to my ear. |
TOUCHY, MY ASS! ;-) TURN YOUR DAMN CAPS LOCK OFF AND MAYBE PEOPLE WON'T TAKE YOUR POST THE WRONG WAY! ;-)
Otherwise, I agree with you. |
