Why not horns?


I've owned a lot of speakers over the years but I have never experienced anything like the midrange reproduction from my horns. With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, it seems like a no-brainer that everyone would want this performance. Why don't you use horns?
macrojack

Showing 3 responses by whart

I read HP, JG Holt and the others, starting ca. 1972 or so. It was fun to read about expensive, esoteric gear at the time a/k/a 'audio porn,' but with hindsight, the lasting value of their contributions was, I think, what to listen for- the so-called 'subjective school' of audio. (I also enjoyed Richard Heyser in Audio Magazine, who was far more engineering grounded).
I doubt that any of this reading influenced what I bought at the time, but as my pocketbook allowed, I was able to listen to, and buy, gear that reproduced the recordings with somewhat more 'life.' (At the time, it was an ARC SP 3 -a-1, which was a revelation to me, compared to other preamps, circa 1974, and a pair of 'old' Quads, a/k/a '57's'). Today, when I read these magazines, I do so largely for entertainment. I like Fremer for keeping the torch lit on vinyl, and a few other reviewers (Roy Gregory when he was at HiFi+).
I had occasion to read an old copy of TAS recently and it was a far more ambitious publication 20 plus years ago.
The intra-web has certainly changed things, to allow users to compare listening experiences and share information (as well as provide a huge inventory of old vinyl from across the globe).
Funny, because I transitioned from a pair of Crosby Quads (which I still have) to my horn system back in 2006 or so, largely because I wanted the best of both worlds- the dynamics and vividness of the 'big system' together with the open, unboxed quality of the Quad (though i still think, at least in the midrange, the 57 is better than the 63, even as modified). I don't remember HP overtly bashing horns, perhaps he did. Or was it a sin of omission?
If Kiddman is right (and in this respect he is) that the industry would have flourished, whether or not there was an 'HP' or 'JGH' reporting on it, then some responsibility rests with the manufacturers, distributors and the rest of the industry in the States for failing to recognize the virtues of horns and low powered tube amplifiers at the time. If you rewind to the early 70's, the focus, with a few exceptions, was high powered amplifiers; acoustic suspension speakers, of the 'bookshelf' variety, were still the norm for home use and the only horn loudspeakers I remember from that era were Klipsh and a variety of professional and sound reinforcement pieces, e.g. Altec A 7. Electrostats were also sidelined for a number of obvious reasons. The Magneplanar was a practical compromise for planars, but took up space and required oodles of power.
Information about good sounding gear was not as easy to come by then; you could rely on what could be heard at your local hi-fi shop (I was fortunate in having a good one in my town) and in others' systems.
Whether or not HP and JGP 'invented' the vocabulary, they did much to promote the notion that not all gear was created equal and questioned whether specifications dictated sonic outcomes (remember the quest to reduce 'TIM')?
Perhaps HP did audio enthusiasts a disservice by failing to recognize the virtues of horns, but given the direction of the industry as a whole, I don't think he should bear sole responsiblity. And to the extent he and other writers did inform and influence readers, I regard it as a positive. How many people were aware of some of those great old recordings before these magazines explored them in depth? (I always enjoyed Sid Marks' work on the RCA and Mercury catalogs and even if I didn't always find the music on HP's 'Super Disc' list to be engaging, he did identify a number of well recorded albums that I can still listen to today).