What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???

[Solypsa]

Moreover I believe the best sounding, horn-based (hybrids or all-horns) setups are actively configured via a quality DSP solution..

/Mikel

Mentioning Munich and the above text I would think Martion might be interesting to you....

 

[LL21]

...Lastly I'm confounded by seeing the general presence of direct radiating subs being mixed with horn-loaded main speakers. Horn-loading subs matters, and they need not be utterly ginormous so long no lower than a 20-25Hz tune is required. My own setup is not horn-loaded between ~85 to ~600Hz - a range some may consider to be the most vital with horn-loading - but it will be realized eventually down the road. However the vertically mounted dual 15" woofers match the directivity pattern of the large MF/HF horn above them at the cross-over, and the subs are 20cf. per cab tapped horns....

/Mikael

How do you feel that tapped horns compare with more typical sealed subs (like Velodyne, Magico, JL Gotham, REL, etc, etc) and then compare again to front loaded horns? I am not asking about specific brands but more typology.

I am contemplating the next move after the final fune tuning of the XLFs to our current electronics now that they have settled in reasonably well. I am thinking of taking a look at the Velodyne and going dual 18" in a single sub (Funk 18.2) or possibly 2 of those. Intriguing comments have been around their performance being considered by some as closest to front-loaded horn subs.

Thanks for any insights.

 

[Sampajanna]

Best in the world, I don’t know, but I had the chance to listen to German speaker maker Dynamikks Athos speakers this week and found them to be absolutely stunning in every way: gorgeous looking and a beautiful, flawless sound. They are technicallly hybrids. I hadn’t even heard of the brand before sitting in front of them. I was truly blown away.

HOME - dynamikks

dynamikks.de

 

[Jägerst.]

How do you feel that tapped horns compare with more typical sealed subs (like Velodyne, Magico, JL Gotham, REL, etc, etc) and then compare again to front loaded horns? I am not asking about specific brands but more typology.

I am contemplating the next move after the final fune tuning of the XLFs to our current electronics now that they have settled in reasonably well. I am thinking of taking a look at the Velodyne and going dual 18" in a single sub (Funk 18.2) or possibly 2 of those. Intriguing comments have been around their performance being considered by some as closest to front-loaded horn subs.

Thanks for any insights.

First some observations and questions:

With your XLF main speakers in mind you'd want some serious displacement from the subs, and/or at least as important: distribution. Do you presently only use a single Velodyne, and how is it configured; with the XLF's running full-range and the Velodyne then overlapping slightly? Why do you use the Velodyne in the first place - what does it do sonically to your ears in conjunction with the mains, and what's your incentive of thinking about an upgrade here?

Implementation of any bass principle is very important, as is physics; the less those cones move for a given output, the less distortion and the cleaner and more effortless the reproduction of bass, so don't skimp on effective air radiation area here, nor, if you can/want to, efficiency. Naturally also the overall implementation and integration of the subs is vital, indeed some would claim that below the Schroeder frequency the implementation is more important than the specific bass principle used - be that sealed, ported, horn-loaded or other.

As an outset I'd always use a pair of subs, not only one, and some would say 3 or 4 subs for a distributed array (DBA) is the preferred scenario for smoothing out the acoustic response throughout the listening room, hereby avoiding severe peaks and nulls. Depending on how high those subs are low-passed different scenarios may be preferred; cross them high-ish above some 60-70Hz I'd go with a pair with each sub placed close to and symmetrically to their respective main speaker, and crossed below some 60 or even 50Hz a DBA may prove an intriguing proposition. Or, a pair as in the previous scenarios placed symmetrically and close to the mains could as well be the thing here.

Describing a difference in sonic characteristics between different bass principles can be tricky, because the implementation is so important and can be a varying factor to a degree that "overshadows" the importance of the specific bass principles used. That being said, and things somehow being relatively equal, horn sub variations are different animals compared to most direct radiating varieties. A horn sub, be that a FLH or TH, has the cone loading the air differently - i.e.: more gradually via an acoustic transformer, and hereby "cathing" or exciting the medium of air more effectively. This may serve to illuminate the sonic difference here, where horn subs tend to have a smoother and more enveloping feel of bass to them (like in: bass just "happens" in the room around you), where direct radiating sub varieties typically have a more "pulsating," ground-based and, to my ears, less layered presentation. Horn subs generally have a stronger mid bass "hit," and yet they're somehow less noticeable in the "mix." Horn bass very generally just is; direct radiating bass has a more produced or "with effort" feel to it. The latter can be quite animating to some, but it can also be too much - too noticeable with some genres of music. The sheer presence of bass as a physical experience can be quite overwhelming with horn subs at high outputs, more so than with DR subs.

With regard to FLH vs. TH, that's more difficult to describe. TH's may have a slightly fuller and warmer imprinting by comparison, and also "shake" the air a bit more effectively for a given size/volume. But other than that the real takeaway is that both FLH's and TH's are sonically different animals compared to DR subs, or at least that's my assessment.

/Mikael

 

[LL21]

First some observations and questions:

With your XLF main speakers in mind you'd want some serious displacement from the subs, and/or at least as important: distribution. Do you presently only use a single Velodyne, and how is it configured; with the XLF's running full-range and the Velodyne then overlapping slightly? Why do you use the Velodyne in the first place - what does it do sonically to your ears in conjunction with the mains, and what's your incentive of thinking about an upgrade here?

Implementation of any bass principle is very important, as is physics; the less those cones move for a given output, the less distortion and the cleaner and more effortless the reproduction of bass, so don't skimp on effective air radiation area here, nor, if you can/want to, efficiency. Naturally also the overall implementation and integration of the subs is vital, indeed some would claim that below the Schroeder frequency the implementation is more important than the specific bass principle used - be that sealed, ported, horn-loaded or other.

As an outset I'd always use a pair of subs, not only one, and some would say 3 or 4 subs for a distributed array (DBA) is the preferred scenario for smoothing out the acoustic response throughout the listening room, hereby avoiding severe peaks and nulls. Depending on how high those subs are low-passed different scenarios may be preferred; cross them high-ish above some 60-70Hz I'd go with a pair with each sub placed close to and symmetrically to their respective main speaker, and crossed below some 60 or even 50Hz a DBA may prove an intriguing proposition. Or, a pair as in the previous scenarios placed symmetrically and close to the mains could as well be the thing here.

Describing a difference in sonic characteristics between different bass principles can be tricky, because the implementation is so important and can be a varying factor to a degree that "overshadows" the importance of the specific bass principles used. That being said, and things somehow being relatively equal, horn sub variations are different animals compared to most direct radiating varieties. A horn sub, be that a FLH or TH, has the cone loading the air differently - i.e.: more gradually via an acoustic transformer, and hereby "cathing" or exciting the medium of air more effectively. This may serve to illuminate the sonic difference here, where horn subs tend to have a smoother and more enveloping feel of bass to them (like in: bass just "happens" in the room around you), where direct radiating sub varieties typically have a more "pulsating," ground-based and, to my ears, less layered presentation. Horn subs generally have a stronger mid bass "hit," and yet they're somehow less noticeable in the "mix." Horn bass very generally just is; direct radiating bass has a more produced or "with effort" feel to it. The latter can be quite animating to some, but it can also be too much - too noticeable with some genres of music. The sheer presence of bass as a physical experience can be quite overwhelming with horn subs at high outputs, more so than with DR subs.

With regard to FLH vs. TH, that's more difficult to describe. TH's may have a slightly fuller and warmer imprinting by comparison, and also "shake" the air a bit more effectively for a given size/volume. But other than that the real takeaway is that both FLH's and TH's are sonically different animals compared to DR subs, or at least that's my assessment.

/Mikael

Mikael,

Thank you very much. A few more details:

1. The XLF is run full range. The single Velodyne DD18+ is run from 40hz down (very steep 48db cut off above 40hz).
2. The Velodyne adds a sense of the venue and contributes towards the sense of foundation of the overall music presentation. What I like to call the sense that the instruments are nailed to the floor in the room.
3. When you play the system with the main amps off...you simply get a sense of energy in the air or a reasonably right pulsing/beat during certain passages. But having advanced the main rig over the last 18 months, I intuitively feel like this sub-40hz range might now be trailing in performance

In terms of more specifically, why the consideration for an upgrade:
- speaking with or reading about about audiophiles (and professionals like Dan D'Agostino) who have had significant experience running very large scale subs to create an effortless sense of venue. Dan D'Agostino for example at one point had 6 of his Krell Master Reference Subs (12 x 15" cones) with his Wilson X1 Grand SLAMMS. Arnie and his Arrakis and REL 6-pack (dual sub towers). The list goes on.
- And again, I do wonder what happens if we simply get more air displacement, lower distortion, more ease...what that does to the overall presentation
- I would have thought 'more' of what we get from adding 1 Velodyne.

In regards to your more technical questions around setup:
- Room/space remain an issue. While the room is 40' x 18' x 11'...it is a living room, and therefore having a sub-array is not in the cards. There is certainly a very good corner for a dual-18" sub or a linear stack of med-sized cones. I am intrigued by FLH but they are BIG for anything below 40hz down full range and wonder whether it could fit in that corner
- There could potentially be a 2nd location, but things start to get visually in the way just that bit more.
- It might be that it is better to wait for a different room configuration than to try to 'max out' the corner with a dual-18" sub (Funk 18.2).

Nevertheless, I am intrigued as having enjoy the advances in the main music listening range over the last 18 months, it would be nice to see that sub-40hz range match that.

 

[bonzo75]

First some observations and questions:

With your XLF main speakers in mind you'd want some serious displacement from the subs, and/or at least as important: distribution. Do you presently only use a single Velodyne, and how is it configured; with the XLF's running full-range and the Velodyne then overlapping slightly? Why do you use the Velodyne in the first place - what does it do sonically to your ears in conjunction with the mains, and what's your incentive of thinking about an upgrade here?

Implementation of any bass principle is very important, as is physics; the less those cones move for a given output, the less distortion and the cleaner and more effortless the reproduction of bass, so don't skimp on effective air radiation area here, nor, if you can/want to, efficiency. Naturally also the overall implementation and integration of the subs is vital, indeed some would claim that below the Schroeder frequency the implementation is more important than the specific bass principle used - be that sealed, ported, horn-loaded or other.

As an outset I'd always use a pair of subs, not only one, and some would say 3 or 4 subs for a distributed array (DBA) is the preferred scenario for smoothing out the acoustic response throughout the listening room, hereby avoiding severe peaks and nulls. Depending on how high those subs are low-passed different scenarios may be preferred; cross them high-ish above some 60-70Hz I'd go with a pair with each sub placed close to and symmetrically to their respective main speaker, and crossed below some 60 or even 50Hz a DBA may prove an intriguing proposition. Or, a pair as in the previous scenarios placed symmetrically and close to the mains could as well be the thing here.

Describing a difference in sonic characteristics between different bass principles can be tricky, because the implementation is so important and can be a varying factor to a degree that "overshadows" the importance of the specific bass principles used. That being said, and things somehow being relatively equal, horn sub variations are different animals compared to most direct radiating varieties. A horn sub, be that a FLH or TH, has the cone loading the air differently - i.e.: more gradually via an acoustic transformer, and hereby "cathing" or exciting the medium of air more effectively. This may serve to illuminate the sonic difference here, where horn subs tend to have a smoother and more enveloping feel of bass to them (like in: bass just "happens" in the room around you), where direct radiating sub varieties typically have a more "pulsating," ground-based and, to my ears, less layered presentation. Horn subs generally have a stronger mid bass "hit," and yet they're somehow less noticeable in the "mix." Horn bass very generally just is; direct radiating bass has a more produced or "with effort" feel to it. The latter can be quite animating to some, but it can also be too much - too noticeable with some genres of music. The sheer presence of bass as a physical experience can be quite overwhelming with horn subs at high outputs, more so than with DR subs.

With regard to FLH vs. TH, that's more difficult to describe. TH's may have a slightly fuller and warmer imprinting by comparison, and also "shake" the air a bit more effectively for a given size/volume. But other than that the real takeaway is that both FLH's and TH's are sonically different animals compared to DR subs, or at least that's my assessment.

/Mikael

as a fan of FLH, very well written. XLF bass is a joke in contrast

 

[LL21]

I have heard big FLHs before in massive rooms and it was indeed sensational...but it was never in a situation where I had the opportunity to make any real comparisons. And they were again absolutely massive...the size of a small car each.

For a compact footprint in a fully adjustable and integrated single speaker, the XLF is an excellent speaker in my experience and that includes its bass. For me, the key is a full-sized FLH bass cabinet it is not, nor was the XLF intended to be. And of course, the X-series was always designed with sub towers in mind. And like most big bass performers, they also take up room...practically another entire X-series speaker column yet again...and optimally 2 of them for stereo setup.

Naturally, the goal is to try to get best performance out of a system and a room where for many people, the room is fixed. It might be that the room is not going to fare well with another sub given how few places it can go. Nevertheless, hearing about others' experience, and then combining with professionals who actually know the room can allow me to have a semi-educated discussion around potential options.

 

[Atmasphere]

Moreover I believe the best sounding, horn-based (hybrids or all-horns) setups are actively configured via a quality DSP solution. This offers a wide array of settings options into delay, filter steepness, notches, overall PEQ, etc. that passive filters simply cannot equal, not to mention the sonic effect (i.e.: sense of "bottleneck") a passive filter creates just by being in the signal path on the output side of the amp(s) prior to the drivers, with all that entails in terms of lack of driver control and the need for more powerful amps.

Lastly I'm confounded by seeing the general presence of direct radiating subs being mixed with horn-loaded main speakers. Horn-loading subs matters, and they need not be utterly ginormous so long no lower than a 20-25Hz tune is required. My own setup is not horn-loaded between ~85 to ~600Hz - a range some may consider to be the most vital with horn-loading - but it will be realized eventually down the road. However the vertically mounted dual 15" woofers match the directivity pattern of the large MF/HF horn above them at the cross-over, and the subs are 20cf. per cab tapped horns.

Passive filters do not absorb that much power! Classic Audio Loudspeakers makes a reproduction of the Heartsfield loudspeaker (improved over the original) and gets 105dB 1 Watt/1 meter out of it.

With regards to bass, standing waves are a common problem in any room with parallel walls, particularly below 80Hz. In such rooms the bass cannot be fixed with DSP of any sort due to the fact that standing waves cause cancellation (and often annoyingly at the listening position), which means you can dump considerable power into that cancellation and it will get cancelled. The solution at such frequencies is something called a Distributed Bass Array. This is practically done by the application of multiple subs placed asymmetrically in the room to break up standing waves. It would be interesting to hear this done using horns capable of 20Hz response but practically speaking this means direct radiation subs. As long as the subs are not producing output at 80Hz and above they will not attract attention to themselves so getting them to blend is very easy.

 

[Jägerst.]

Mikael,

Thank you very much. A few more details:

1. The XLF is run full range. The single Velodyne DD18+ is run from 40hz down (very steep 48db cut off above 40hz).
2. The Velodyne adds a sense of the venue and contributes towards the sense of foundation of the overall music presentation. What I like to call the sense that the instruments are nailed to the floor in the room.
3. When you play the system with the main amps off...you simply get a sense of energy in the air or a reasonably right pulsing/beat during certain passages. But having advanced the main rig over the last 18 months, I intuitively feel like this sub-40hz range might now be trailing in performance

Very interesting to learn of the specifics in implementation and your incentive using the Velodyne in the first place, thanks. The "sense of foundation" and "instruments nailed to the floor" descriptions in particular reflect my own impressions and goal using subs.

In terms of more specifically, why the consideration for an upgrade:
- speaking with or reading about about audiophiles (and professionals like Dan D'Agostino) who have had significant experience running very large scale subs to create an effortless sense of venue. Dan D'Agostino for example at one point had 6 of his Krell Master Reference Subs (12 x 15" cones) with his Wilson X1 Grand SLAMMS. Arnie and his Arrakis and REL 6-pack (dual sub towers). The list goes on.
- And again, I do wonder what happens if we simply get more air displacement, lower distortion, more ease...what that does to the overall presentation
- I would have thought 'more' of what we get from adding 1 Velodyne.

Again, very important info and findings here. How often haven't I heard or read of the ridicule in audiophile circles aimed towards those using such large scale sub setups; saying it's way overkill, only there to lift off the roof over one's head, showoff, blur one's vision, for über bass heads, crazy cinephiles, etc. Not saying such "verbose frivolities" (sorry) couldn't be the outcome with massive sub systems, it's a possibility for sure, but it's really missing the point of their potential (well integrated with capable mains) to create an immersive, hugely scaled, inherently powerful and totally effortless presentation.

"Overkill" to some is just an approximation of sufficient headroom to others, and just because the subs capacity is there in abundance doesn't imply one needs to run it +10dB hot. And yet, I believe it's quite apparent how many gain themselves (as in: negative gain) out of bass issues, be that response irregularities throughout the listening room with boomy peaks or subs sounding strained and thereby more distorted (even if you wouldn't expect it); lowering the subs gain can be a symptom of issues more than striving for frequency response balance, and thus proper bass presence may actually be lacking. The cleaner and more well-integrated the bass, the more gain can be applied without the lower octaves becoming too noticeable to get that more natural fullness and foundation in music.

I would definitely encourage you to proceed with a large scale subs setup, whatever bass principle route you end up choosing.

In regards to your more technical questions around setup:
- Room/space remain an issue. While the room is 40' x 18' x 11'...it is a living room, and therefore having a sub-array is not in the cards. There is certainly a very good corner for a dual-18" sub or a linear stack of med-sized cones. I am intrigued by FLH but they are BIG for anything below 40hz down full range and wonder whether it could fit in that corner
- There could potentially be a 2nd location, but things start to get visually in the way just that bit more.
- It might be that it is better to wait for a different room configuration than to try to 'max out' the corner with a dual-18" sub (Funk 18.2).

Nevertheless, I am intrigued as having enjoy the advances in the main music listening range over the last 18 months, it would be nice to see that sub-40hz range match that.

Given your info here I'd focus on a dual sub setup placed in their respective corners symmetrically to the mains. FLH's are big, yes, but it's also about how they're shaped apart from their overall volume. Another question is availability. Horn subs (FLH's) aren't readily available, but the TH varieties (patented by Danley Sound Labs) on the other hand are offered from pro vendors in a range of options. For proper extension and physical shape the DTS-20 could be interesting. They take up little floor space, but are tall (~87"). A pair of those, on in each corner, would be a powerful and extremely well-sounding solution. The DTS-10's are even bigger and take up more space, but mostly along the sidewalls - if such could be accommodated. The Funk Audio 18.2's in pairs also sounds like a potent solution.

 

[Jägerst.]

Passive filters do not absorb that much power! Classic Audio Loudspeakers makes a reproduction of the Heartsfield loudspeaker (improved over the original) and gets 105dB 1 Watt/1 meter out of it.

Power loss-wise low to moderately efficient speakers are the ones most susceptible to negative effects with passive filters. On the other hand high eff. horn-loaded speakers are more revealing of what's fed to them, and running them passively only makes amp matching that more difficult. Moreover horns are bandwidth limited and prone to be less linear in response, and so the digital DSP XO option is the more natural fit with steeper slopes, more elaborate delay settings, and a generally more hands-on approach to PEQ filter notches, etc. This also becomes more apparent when using horn subs and the often more outspoken need for delay here. A challenge running high eff. speakers actively is noise, but with a little care this can be addressed properly.

With regards to bass, standing waves are a common problem in any room with parallel walls, particularly below 80Hz. In such rooms the bass cannot be fixed with DSP of any sort due to the fact that standing waves cause cancellation (and often annoyingly at the listening position), which means you can dump considerable power into that cancellation and it will get cancelled. The solution at such frequencies is something called a Distributed Bass Array. This is practically done by the application of multiple subs placed asymmetrically in the room to break up standing waves. It would be interesting to hear this done using horns capable of 20Hz response but practically speaking this means direct radiation subs. As long as the subs are not producing output at 80Hz and above they will not attract attention to themselves so getting them to blend is very easy.

I know of the DBA (which I also mentioned previously), and I've heard FLH DBA setups with clean 20-25Hz extension - with one of them we're talking some 120cf. total volume spread over a cluster of 4 of them forming a single mouth centered in the front, and 2 of them in the back. So, a 3-source DBA. Extremely powerful, flat response and effortless, smoothed out further with DSP software correction. Less volume in a domestic environment will do, and TH's maximize the volume to output ratio compared to FLH's - at the expense of upper range extension, depending of the specific fold implementation. So, more care will typically have to be taken using TH's and knowing their design limitations wrt. bandwidth, but once accommodated they're a killer solution.

To me symmetry of subs placement in relation to the mains is paramount. I cross fairly high above 80Hz, but for directivity to be a non-issue with subs placement I find crossing not much higher than 50-60Hz is necessitated. We're usually not crossing brick wall steep, and so there's often some response "bleeding" an octave or more above the XO. I use 6th order slopes (L-R), and that allows me to cross my TH's a bit higher without running into upper band irregularities. A DBA in my case would need to uphold symmetry certainly in the front, but a 3rd source placed centrally behind me may be enough.

 

[Atmasphere]

Power loss-wise low to moderately efficient speakers are the ones most susceptible to negative effects with passive filters.

Yes- not really the focus of the thread, so I didn't mention them...

 

[sbnx]

Audiolife Buren Avantgarde Acoustic Trio

What color are the trios in the video?

 

[bonzo75]

I have heard big FLHs before in massive rooms and it was indeed sensational...but it was never in a situation where I had the opportunity to make any real comparisons. And they were again absolutely massive...the size of a small car each.

hi which FLH are you referring to?

 

[andromedaaudio]

What color are the trios in the video?

Multiple , here is a shot i made .
Grey white and orange .

 

[Don Reid]

Judging by what I have read in the thread, "Visit to Audiophile Bill to Hear His Horn Project," I would be in no way surprised if Bill's horn speakers, once completed, ended up being one of the top horn speakers in the world today.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Judging by what I have read in the thread, "Visit to Audiophile Bill to Hear His Horn Project," I would be in no way surprised if Bill's horn speakers, once completed, ended up being one of the top horn speakers in the world today.

Hi Don,

That is enormously kind of you and thank you for your vote of confidence. I have a long way to go still but making some progress. Long journey ahead. System sounding good with my tapes at the moment - got some Rubinstein Mazurkas on right now.

Best wishes.

 

[Hear Here]

got some Rubinstein Mazurkas on right now.

Very nice too. I was lucky enough to visit one of his "retirement concerts" at the Royal Albert Hall, down the road from where I was living. This frail old man being helped to the sole instrument on the huge stage with 5000 people watching and litening was an event I'll always remember. Mostly Chopin, but all played in the wonderful way that only he could do. Peter

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Very nice too. I was lucky enough to visit one of his "retirement concerts" at the Royal Albert Hall, down the road from where I was living. This frail old man being helped to the sole instrument on the huge stage with 5000 people watching and litening was an event I'll always remember. Mostly Chopin, but all played in the wonderful way that only he could do. Peter

Great story.
I just love Rubinstein tbh. His Chopin really hits me deep inside. Wish I could have heard him live.

 

[gian60]

I listen Avantgard trio many times,In Italian show,in Munich,in Italian shop,in one private system,
for me is one of the worst speaker,always found a terrible sound,confused,innatural,hard,and not well balanced

 

[Argonaut]

Ooooofff