I think that E-stat's and horns have a LOT more in common than most people would imagine. They both have specific characteristics though and some of this is where they differ. Getting them to work properly together would be one heckuva good trick.
E-stat's are typically noted for their very fast rise and fall times, i.e. their "crispness" with a lack of ringing or overhang. At the same time, horns are also noted for being very dynamic, which is also somewhat a measure of speed (velocity). Both are limited in bandwidth, one due to lack of excursion capabilities ( e-stat's) whereas the other is due to lack of size (horn). One can get around this somewhat by using a very large array of e-stat's to move a lot of air or using a very large horn that can go lower. Both are inconvenient and eat up a lot of real estate, to say the least.
Obviously, reasonable quality horns are decidedly more efficient than ANY electrostat. Even though the Innersound Eros are now rated at 96 db's, which is EXTREMELY efficient for an e-stat, they will run into compression when played VERY loudly. On the other hand, "weak" horns are at least 96 - 98 db's with more common designs coming in closer to 102 - 104 db's. Some can even generate well in excess of 110 db's @ 1 watt / 1 meter. The reasons why horns are used in sound reinforcement becomes quite evident once you see figures like that. They simply generate more sound with a wider dispersion pattern, greater "throw" and do it using WAY, WAY less power.
Given the differences in efficiency and maximum "clean" volume level, e-stat's and planar's have typically been favorites for people that listen to "quiet music" such as vocal work, choirs, chamber music, light classical, mellow jazz, etc... One can understand this selection given their ability to seperate voices & instrumentation so well, along with adding a sense of "air" and spaciousness that few other designs offer. On the other hand, horns typically find themselves placed where volume and dynamics are more of a concern. Rock music, big band, etc... type of music that is typically more uptempo and "louder" seem to work well with horns. This is not to say that one type of speaker can't play the other types of music well, it's just that it may not be quite as well suited overall.
Another major difference between the two is in radiation pattern. E-stat's radiate both front and back while horns throw in one direction. This makes for VERY different room placement requirements if looking for optimum performance. Whereas e-stat's will have MAJOR problems with room cancellation and reinforcement from reflections, horns / direct radiators are not nearly as severely affected. Obviously, the room is being "loaded" by both types of speakers, it's just that one "pushes" the air in on direction whereas the e-stat (and planars) push in both directions evenly. The problem results because the back wave is out of phase ( the signal does not arrive at the same time ) with the front wave. There is NOTHING that can be done to correct this and keep sound coming out of both sides of the panel. As such, proper placement becomes VERY critical with e-stat's and planars. While we are simply trying to minimize the effect of the rear wave colliding with the front wave, various room configurations can make reflections and placement quite unpredictable in all but the best situations. As such, one should do a LOT of research before buying any type of "exotic" speaker as they just might not be suitable for your room or listening tastes.
Of the two, i find horns to be more versatile due to their efficiency, dynamics and less finichy placement. I am of course talking about GOOD horns and NOT the stuff typically found in most audio shops or mass merchandise sellers. I would venture to say that the majority of bias against horns ( they sound "bright, glaring, harsh, ring, hurt my ears", etc... ) is due to poor overall design. While some of this can be "lulled away" by using "soft sounding" components (ala tubes), the proper way to do things would be to use the correct flare rates for the horn body itself, pay attention to the materials used for the horn body, make sure that the horn is well damped and securely mounted, etc... as MOST of the annoying attributes of "horn sound" ARE coming from the body of the horn / horn throat. Taking some "generic" horns and simply mass loading / damping their bodies will demonstrate EXACTLY what i'm talking about.
So that one doesn't think that i'm "biased" against e-stat's and love horns, let me give you some background. I have one system with horns and am working on another with e-stat's (VERY slowly). I think that they both have their place IF properly designed and constructed. Once you hear a good version of both types, you won't hold a bias towards either. Sean
>
E-stat's are typically noted for their very fast rise and fall times, i.e. their "crispness" with a lack of ringing or overhang. At the same time, horns are also noted for being very dynamic, which is also somewhat a measure of speed (velocity). Both are limited in bandwidth, one due to lack of excursion capabilities ( e-stat's) whereas the other is due to lack of size (horn). One can get around this somewhat by using a very large array of e-stat's to move a lot of air or using a very large horn that can go lower. Both are inconvenient and eat up a lot of real estate, to say the least.
Obviously, reasonable quality horns are decidedly more efficient than ANY electrostat. Even though the Innersound Eros are now rated at 96 db's, which is EXTREMELY efficient for an e-stat, they will run into compression when played VERY loudly. On the other hand, "weak" horns are at least 96 - 98 db's with more common designs coming in closer to 102 - 104 db's. Some can even generate well in excess of 110 db's @ 1 watt / 1 meter. The reasons why horns are used in sound reinforcement becomes quite evident once you see figures like that. They simply generate more sound with a wider dispersion pattern, greater "throw" and do it using WAY, WAY less power.
Given the differences in efficiency and maximum "clean" volume level, e-stat's and planar's have typically been favorites for people that listen to "quiet music" such as vocal work, choirs, chamber music, light classical, mellow jazz, etc... One can understand this selection given their ability to seperate voices & instrumentation so well, along with adding a sense of "air" and spaciousness that few other designs offer. On the other hand, horns typically find themselves placed where volume and dynamics are more of a concern. Rock music, big band, etc... type of music that is typically more uptempo and "louder" seem to work well with horns. This is not to say that one type of speaker can't play the other types of music well, it's just that it may not be quite as well suited overall.
Another major difference between the two is in radiation pattern. E-stat's radiate both front and back while horns throw in one direction. This makes for VERY different room placement requirements if looking for optimum performance. Whereas e-stat's will have MAJOR problems with room cancellation and reinforcement from reflections, horns / direct radiators are not nearly as severely affected. Obviously, the room is being "loaded" by both types of speakers, it's just that one "pushes" the air in on direction whereas the e-stat (and planars) push in both directions evenly. The problem results because the back wave is out of phase ( the signal does not arrive at the same time ) with the front wave. There is NOTHING that can be done to correct this and keep sound coming out of both sides of the panel. As such, proper placement becomes VERY critical with e-stat's and planars. While we are simply trying to minimize the effect of the rear wave colliding with the front wave, various room configurations can make reflections and placement quite unpredictable in all but the best situations. As such, one should do a LOT of research before buying any type of "exotic" speaker as they just might not be suitable for your room or listening tastes.
Of the two, i find horns to be more versatile due to their efficiency, dynamics and less finichy placement. I am of course talking about GOOD horns and NOT the stuff typically found in most audio shops or mass merchandise sellers. I would venture to say that the majority of bias against horns ( they sound "bright, glaring, harsh, ring, hurt my ears", etc... ) is due to poor overall design. While some of this can be "lulled away" by using "soft sounding" components (ala tubes), the proper way to do things would be to use the correct flare rates for the horn body itself, pay attention to the materials used for the horn body, make sure that the horn is well damped and securely mounted, etc... as MOST of the annoying attributes of "horn sound" ARE coming from the body of the horn / horn throat. Taking some "generic" horns and simply mass loading / damping their bodies will demonstrate EXACTLY what i'm talking about.
So that one doesn't think that i'm "biased" against e-stat's and love horns, let me give you some background. I have one system with horns and am working on another with e-stat's (VERY slowly). I think that they both have their place IF properly designed and constructed. Once you hear a good version of both types, you won't hold a bias towards either. Sean
>