Can one find realism in box speakers that cost less than $150K after experiencing dynamics of horns and horn-type speakers?

[Al M.]

It says: "This calculator does not account for room acoustics, amplifier dynamic headroom or off axis listening positions."

Compare with: https://www.crownaudio.com/en-US/tools/calculators#amp_power_required

I don't understand what amplifier dynamic headroom in that context means. I know from experience and measured sound levels that the calculator that I use is more in the ball park of reality, and your posted calculation is nonsense. Sorry to be so blunt.

EDIT: or perhaps I misunderstand, and you mean 85 dB SPL with 20 dB headroom for peaks = 105 dB. The calculator that I posted is obviously for maximum achievable levels, i.e. peak SPL.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

105dBSPL with 20dB headroom? I wouldn't attempt this with your Swings - your mid-high horn might not mind, but your 15" bass drivers would be no more

Indeed

 

[manisandher]

EDIT: or perhaps I misunderstand, and you mean 85 dB SPL with 20 dB headroom for peaks = 105 dB. The calculator that I posted is obviously for maximum achievable levels, i.e. peak SPL.

Yep.

 

[Al M.]

Yep.

Ok, thanks.

 

[tima]

Tim - if you've seen my speaker thread, you'll find how hard it is to demo horns in the US. I'm honestly contemplating giving up on the entire idea and just sticking to dynamic driver speakers. In SoCal, arguably the #1 audiophile market in the US, there is no dealer for any of them. You basically have AG in Florida and Cessaro in NYC of the big guys. Acapella is in California now, but are lower sensitivity hybrid horns.

Its even hard to demo JBL that was based in Northridge for years. I was at the Harman store in NYC last week and was appalled at the setup- for a company that spends $ with its whole spinarama research.

Thanks - you're confirming what I've found. Here in the upper Midwest, there's John Wolf's Classic Audio Reproductions (CAR) in MI. The one that piqued my interest is the Oswald Mills Monarch - not sure if those are in NY or PA. I am/was mostly interested in demo/audition, given all the going-on from the Euro wing. The pubs here print & on-line have little coverage, though Roy Gregory gives us a bit. The 'division' is interesting but not understandable for the usual reasons - horns also take up a fair amount of room. Maybe its just economic?

Like the Treaty of Tordesillas, where the Pope Alex (heh) drew his finger down the globe in 1494(?) creating the Line of Demarcation - Spain got the western new world (box speakers), Portugal got the east (horns).

 

[tima]

I would say yes but rather than go through the litany of prerequisite and requisite conditions and the variables associated with the same, I'll just stick to the physics. It is a question of power to weight when it comes to dynamics, how fast and how hard can you go an equally important, how fast can you make the driver stop. In such light the the driver can only be seen as as good as the amp supplying power when looking at the macro end. When looking at the micro en of the spectrum, horns have the distinct advantage of needing less power because the diaphragms are typically of lower mass and that they are acoustically impedance coupled to the air by the horn itself. Same can be said for electrostatics which on the other hand require more power but have even lower mass diaphragms.

Now there are horns and there are horns. The majority of horns for the home have box base boxes, typically bass reflex. Factors that go into this are size and throw. Front loaded horns can be 5 feet deep. With a 10 or 12" driver expect extension to drop off as early as the 50s. The throw is still quite directional for the work it is being asked to do. Best integration ends up beyond the typical 150Hz floor bounce leaving one with distances to the speakers of 10 ft or more to get the best out of them. The more common box arrangements allows for a closer listening distance ergo smaller required space. Strangely enough, the relationship isn't strictly linear. Front loaded horns have been known to do well in small spaces where distance to the rear wall actually aids the integration as the reflection time is very short. In other words, one need choose wisely for the SPACE available to him. That is the primary factor.

On the big pro folded bass horns, the typical audiophile might be surprised to learn that these are seldom if ever tuned to go into the 20s. They can do so easily but the choice is a practical one. Subsonics in music and film are carriers of the information on venue size. Basically the output is the reverberation captured on the recording. Obviously, this is not an issue if you are already AT a large venue. So now the ever present caveat...

For those more interested in tonality and specific imaging rather than scale, subsonics just isn't as important. Going down competently into the 40s covers most instruments range missing only some of the more obscure (in the first place) overtones. That makes for a very broad range of choices.

So again as the physics go, yes for as long as there is enough power, specifically rise time and back EMF damping. The dynamic rivers will need to be light, have robust fixed magnets and not mentioned very often, be able to stay at controlled temperatures given the extra power required will generate thermal distortion.

The cost then to get the quality as opposed to just the dynamics goes to the amplification. Watts are cheap these days but sadly, quality watts aren't. The advantage of horns is that the price of entry for a quality SET amp is much lower than what would be considered quality high power amps. Not to mention, the very good low powered class A SS amps that can be used on horns as well, which likewise have a low price of entry. When we get to the very top of the food chains we find the prices somewhat even out.

For those who personally require scalable midbass and subsoics, let's face it. Bass eats power like an elephant eats peanuts. It is perhaps the most expensive and time consuming thing to get right. I would dare say, I recommend pursuing this only to the most committed. I would also add that it is possible to achieve it with any speaker topology but this is the area where the box speaker has the lower price of entry all things considered.

Nice post, Jack. Thanks.

 

[bonzo75]

Thanks - you're confirming what I've found. Here in the upper Midwest, there's John Wolf's Classic Audio Reproductions (CAR) in MI. The one that piqued my interest is the Oswald Mills Monarch - not sure if those are in NY or PA. I am/was mostly interested in demo/audition, given all the going-on from the Euro wing. The pubs here print & on-line have little coverage, though Roy Gregory gives us a bit. The 'division' is interesting but not understandable for the usual reasons - horns also take up a fair amount of room. Maybe its just economic?

Like the Treaty of Tordesillas, where the Pope Alex (heh) drew his finger down the globe in 1494(?) creating the Line of Demarcation - Spain got the western new world (box speakers), Portugal got the east (horns).

You can hear the OMA monarch in Brooklyn. Not sure if they are also in PA

 

[NorthStar]

They said the first watt is the most important ... true that?

 

[caesar]

Appreciate the replies guys! Extremely knowledgeable and intelligent members on this site!

 

[caesar]

I know that a favorite activity for many guys into this hobby is to hear a piece of live music and then compare a similar piece on their system. I'm not one of those guys, as I see the live experience as a different thing from the home high-end experience. Yet even to me, that speed, dynamics, and immediacy of horns - despite all other drawbacks that technology may have when not implemented properly - makes the vast majority of box speakers sound very lacking.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I know that a favorite activity for many guys into this hobby is to hear a piece of live music and then compare a similar piece on their system. I'm not one of those guys, as I see the live experience as a different thing from the home high-end experience. Yet even to me, that speed, dynamics, and immediacy of horns - despite all other drawbacks that technology may have when not implemented properly - makes the vast majority of box speakers sound very lacking.

subset of horns which can approach live = subset of box speakers that can approach live.

most of either cannot....but there are many more box speaker choices + most horns need box speakers for the bottom few octaves.....so the line is blurred regarding those.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The current renewed interest in horns is interesting.

After years of considerable dalliance with some really fabulous horns (most especially Animas and OMA) I found the horns to finally bring home and live with (Pap trios).

Now having listened and currently comparing the longer term experiences of living with horn, box and ribbon panels I believe more now than ever that the different speaker types actually don’t just sound different but rather bring on differing perceptual states.

It is likely that the perceptual state that is induced characterises the kind of listener drawn to the different essential speaker types and also then most likely leads to the music we most often choose to then engage in.

So while horns certainly might be the topic of the time I don’t believe that they can or should have universal appeal.

Below is not unusual... the reviewer here says they don’t connect with horns at all and proceeds to do a roundup of horns he heard at Axpona.

https://twitteringmachines.com/axpona-2019-horn-quest-with-aaron-sherrick/

Why bother I wonder? In this instance maybe because he was assigned to this task but then what did we learn from his report. Well nothing other than what horns were there because he clearly wasn’t able to perceptually connect or mesh sufficiently to give us much on what he heard. Clearly a bit interested but not immediately or utterly convinced it seems... and this is not an unusual response from quite a few audiophiles.

Either way many seem quite attracted to the notion of horns but then never seem actually deeply or convincingly satisfied with any of the experiences they have with them. To read of other audiophiles for whom the whole SET horn experience is for them game, set and match is possibly part of the allure. We often talk of Nirvana but when a subset of the group seem to find lasting happiness where their main aim becomes more then about the exploration of music as focus rather than the exploration of sound could serve as an alluring significator and an attractor for desire for better understanding.

Perhaps a review of the listeners who are genuinely long term happy and at peace with their chosen system type and are not then constantly seeking significant upgrades or primarily focussed on their system ‘sound’ or regularly expressing frustration with their own setup might also be enlightening in itself... and if the alluring idea of horns then for some proves not in tune with the experience and what they actually need for listening what does this really mean?

Well nothing really I figure, just that some of us (quite a number perhaps) are not drawn to the kind of listening that horn engages but love more the characteristics of the cone and box, or the essential nature of the panel experience.

Rather than just hanging out on the surface debating why we do or don’t like just specific horns or specific cones and box, or specific ribbons or any other of the very different panel types it would be good to drill down deeper and get a better understanding of the essential speaker types themselves and how they then drive us to listen, how they teach us about ourselves because they do or don’t resonate with our listening desires and how they relate to us individually as well as observing the types of music that they then more lead us to. I know some guys are clearly 100% one of these speaker types exclusively and they’ll often tell us that their preferred type is the only way to listen but I don’t believe this is so.

What we prefer can potentially teach us a lot about ourselves and the way that we perceive and what we value most in the listening experience... whether it’s listening to sounds or engaging in music or as for many of us it seems some combination of the two though with perhaps a differing or changing and evolving order of priorities.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Caesar. I have owned box speakers for many years and now horns.

It is very true that very often horn speakers excel with their dynamic abilities - it isn’t surprising based on the laws of physics of course since horn loading drastically increases efficiency.

That said, there are other addictive aspects to some horns presentation that you’ll likely get drawn into more if you start ownership: 1. Musical flow that keeps you engaged and not wanting to flit about; 2. Micro levels of resolution that provide huge insight into the recording that is perceived as musically relevant not “detailed”; 3. Speed of transients and start / stop ability; 4. Tone to die for (please note this only applies to some horns - particularly the vintage horns often excel here but so do *some* current production ones; 5. Seemingly impervious to room acoustical issues - I am cautious here because this isn’t always the case but often they allow quite a lot of placement flexibility and still lock a great image.

Yes once you own horns, it must be very hard returning to normal box speakers imho.

Enjoy.

I agree with much of this post, except I feel compelled to once again bang my drum about how I believe that musical genre preference drives speaker preference. Do horn devotees tend to focus on classical or jazz or classical and jazz, to the exclusion of vocals and rock/pop?

I agree completely that these wonderful attributes of horn speakers are displayed fully in the reproduction of classical and jazz. I feel these attributes are much less evident in the reproduction of vocals and rock/pop.

Putting it pointedly I, myself, have yet to hear a horn speaker that does not do something deleterious to the transparency and resolution of vocals.

If my primary musical interest were jazz I would have chosen Cessaro Zetas or Tune Audio Avatons. If my primary musical interest were classical I would have chosen Cessaro Zetas or a big dynamic driver box system (like Rockport Arrakis or VSA Ultra 11).

If I were interested in classical and jazz and rock/pop equally I would have chosen a big dynamic driver box system (like Rockport Arrakis or VSA Ultra 11). I think big dynamic driver box systems are the most general purpose loudspeakers.

If my primary musical interest were vocals I would have chosen a ribbon driver or an electrostatic driver system. Because my primary musical interest is vocals I chose a ribbon driver system.

I chose a wide frequency range ribbon driver system because the single driver or wide-band driver concept appeals to me. It is only a two-way speaker. That appeals to me because I think multi-driver systems tend to be complex and tend to have complex crossovers, increasing the potential for continuity and coherence issues and for dynamics-robbing lower-sensitivity or power requirements, or both.

The other driver besides the ribbon is a bass tower — which I like because I want oomph and impact on rock music and classical music.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The current renewed interest in horns is interesting.

After years of considerable dalliance with some really fabulous horns (most especially Animas and OMA) I found the horns to finally bring home and live with (Pap trios).

Now having listened and currently comparing the longer term experiences of living with horn, box and ribbon panels I believe more now than ever that the different speaker types actually don’t just sound different but rather bring on differing perceptual states.

It is likely that the perceptual state that is induced characterises the kind of listener drawn to the different essential speaker types and also then most likely leads to the music we most often choose to then engage in.

So while horns certainly might be the topic of the time I don’t believe that they can or should have universal appeal.

Below is not unusual... the reviewer here says they don’t connect with horns at all and proceeds to do a roundup of horns he heard at Axpona.

https://twitteringmachines.com/axpona-2019-horn-quest-with-aaron-sherrick/

Why bother I wonder? In this instance maybe because he was assigned to this task but then what did we learn from his report. Well nothing other than what horns were there because he clearly wasn’t able to perceptually connect or mesh sufficiently to give us much on what he heard. Clearly a bit interested but not immediately or utterly convinced it seems... and this is not an unusual response from quite a few audiophiles.

Either way many seem quite attracted to the notion of horns but then never seem actually deeply or convincingly satisfied with any of the experiences they have with them. To read of other audiophiles for whom the whole SET horn experience is for them game, set and match is possibly part of the allure. We often talk of Nirvana but when a subset of the group seem to find lasting happiness where their main aim becomes more then about the exploration of music as focus rather than the exploration of sound could serve as an alluring significator and an attractor for desire for better understanding.

Perhaps a review of the listeners who are genuinely long term happy and at peace with their chosen system type and are not then constantly seeking significant upgrades or primarily focussed on their system ‘sound’ or regularly expressing frustration with their own setup might also be enlightening in itself... and if the alluring idea of horns then for some proves not in tune with the experience and what they actually need for listening what does this really mean?

Well nothing really I figure, just that some of us (quite a number perhaps) are not drawn to the kind of listening that horn engages but love more the characteristics of the cone and box, or the essential nature of the panel experience.

Rather than just hanging out on the surface debating why we do or don’t like just specific horns or specific cones and box, or specific ribbons or any other of the very different panel types it would be good to drill down deeper and get a better understanding of the essential speaker types themselves and how they then drive us to listen, how they teach us about ourselves because they do or don’t resonate with our listening desires and how they relate to us individually as well as observing the types of music that they then more lead us to. I know some guys are clearly 100% one of these speaker types exclusively and they’ll often tell us that their preferred type is the only way to listen but I don’t believe this is so.

What we prefer can potentially teach us a lot about ourselves and the way that we perceive and what we value most in the listening experience... whether it’s listening to sounds or engaging in music or as for many of us it seems some combination of the two though with perhaps a differing or changing and evolving order of priorities.

As he so often does Tao makes eloquently a very thoughtful and intriguing point. Perhaps it is not musical genre preference which drives speaker preference (as I believe); perhaps it is the varying perceptual states different speaker topologies induce in the listener which drives speaker preference.

Dear Tao, would you kindly describe the different perceptual states you believe are induced by different speaker topologies?

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Once one hears the startling, life-like dynamics of a horn or horn-type system, the more fake box speakers sound. They may sound good, but just not real once you have that experience and know what's possible in terms of dynamics...

Hail Caesar.

I agree with your observations. Imo in most cases credit is also due the amplifier designer. Good horns really put an amplifier's first watt under a microscope.

Once we have to start putting a significant fraction of a speaker's rated power into the peaks, we greatly increase the likelihood of thermal modulation (rapid-onset thermal compression). So it takes either very beefy conventional drivers, or lots of them, to get into the same league as good horns when it comes to dynamics.

But imo horns have another inherent advantage when It comes to dynamic contrast: Their typically fairly narrow radiation patterns. Their narrow patterns result in a higher direct-to-reverberant sound ratio. Less reverberant energy means that the in-room "noise floor" is lower, and so dynamic contrast is greater. If there is already a whole bunch of reverberant energy filling the room, new sounds don't stand out as well against the background.

So even if a conventional speaker is competitive with a good horn "on paper" when it comes to dynamic contrast, I think the horn's narrower radiation pattern gives it an inherent advantage. Compared to a conventional system, a horn's reverberant field will not be as loud relative to the first-arrival sound, so the SPL contrast between the reverberant field and new sounds is greater with horns.

Not that a well-energized reverberant field is a bad thing... I happen to think it can sound pretty good... but there are tradeoffs being juggled whether we realize it or not.

The current renewed interest in horns is interesting...

Frankly I find it refreshing (and encouraging!) that in general people on this forum are open-minded towards horns, even those who have yet to come across a horn system they really like.

At audio shows I couldn't begin to count the number of people who take a half-step step into my room, listen with their eyes, and walk out. That doesn't happen when we have the grilles on. Ime there is still a lot of anti-horn prejudice out there, but I do think it is gradually being rolled back.

Now having listened and currently comparing the longer term experiences of living with horn, box and ribbon panels I believe more now than ever that the different speaker types actually don’t just sound different but rather bring on differing perceptual states. [emphasis Duke's]

This is a fascinating insight. I spent many happy years with big SoundLabs in my living room, and indeed they excelled at inducing a particular perceptual state. I think much of what a well set-up pair of SoundLabs does can be traced back to their reverberant field. Perhaps there is a juggling of tradeoffs that combines (to a useful extent) the immersive "feel" of SoundLabs with the liveliness of horns, but imo that would require a balancing act as far as the reverberant field goes.

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Putting it pointedly I, myself, have yet to hear a horn speaker that does not do something deleterious to the transparency and resolution of vocals.

In my opinion the single most important factor in the design of a horn loudspeaker system, from a sound quality standpoint, is the horn itself. And it's a juggling of tradeoffs: If you want to minimize coloration-inducing reflections within the horn, you trade off optimum loading and therefore optimum bandwidth and efficiency. Imo it's a worthwhile tradeoff, as we see in the Dutch & Dutch 8c, which uses a low-coloration waveguide-style horn, in this case probably a slight modification of an oblate spheroid profile.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I had a quick chat with Manolis when I was there. I won't disclose what he said, but I suspect that the Animas remain his real pride and joy.

Interesting; I came away with the opposite impression after my conversation with Manolis.

 

[jeff1225]

Once you hear the jump factor of good horn speakers, it's hard to return to dynamic box speakers. One is alive one is hifi. For me, the worst horn speaker is better than most dynamic box Spears.

 

[JackD201]

I agree with much of this post, except I feel compelled to once again bang my drum about how I believe that musical genre preference drives speaker preference. Do horn devotees tend to focus on classical or jazz or classical and jazz, to the exclusion of vocals and rock/pop?

I agree completely that these wonderful attributes of horn speakers are displayed fully in the reproduction of classical and jazz. I feel these attributes are much less evident in the reproduction of vocals and rock/pop.

Putting it pointedly I, myself, have yet to hear a horn speaker that does not do something deleterious to the transparency and resolution of vocals.

If my primary musical interest were jazz I would have chosen Cessaro Zetas or Tune Audio Avatons. If my primary musical interest were classical I would have chosen Cessaro Zetas or a big dynamic driver box system (like Rockport Arrakis or VSA Ultra 11).

If I were interested in classical and jazz and rock/pop equally I would have chosen a big dynamic driver box system (like Rockport Arrakis or VSA Ultra 11). I think big dynamic driver box systems are the most general purpose loudspeakers.

If my primary musical interest were vocals I would have chosen a ribbon driver or an electrostatic driver system. Because my primary musical interest is vocals I chose a ribbon driver system.

I chose a wide frequency range ribbon driver system because the single driver or wide-band driver concept appeals to me. It is only a two-way speaker. That appeals to me because I think multi-driver systems tend to be complex and tend to have complex crossovers, increasing the potential for continuity and coherence issues and for dynamics-robbing lower-sensitivity or power requirements, or both.

The other driver besides the ribbon is a bass tower — which I like because I want oomph and impact on rock music and classical music.

I think classical and jazz fare better than other genres on horns because generally these genres are much less prone to abusive use of production tools and effects. Compression and Normalization to my ears can cause artifacts in the 1.5kHz range that are exposed brutally on horns working in this range. Speaking to a horn designer about why his midrange horns don't seem to be prone to this "chuffing" he says the throat needs to be very exact to avoid this. The rest flew over my head a bit but I think I got the gist of it at least. The directness as Duke also described leaves no place to hide for abused recordings. This is smack in our sensitivity range so poor AC power also manifests here.

As for vocals and other center panned sound elements, I'm a bit on the fence. I think we are used to the sum area elements of the phantom center vs the more arrival time prominent dispersion of horns when it comes to the overall perception of the center images. On mono recordings for example horns in my experience do vocals very well. I'm on a fence because I'm not too sure how big an effect phase shifting in the recording has on this. If it doesn't then the implication would be that horns that don't do vocals well (granted cup coloration is non-existent, of which there are many examples) the blame could simply be laid on that last micrometer of set up.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Once you hear the jump factor of good horn speakers, it's hard to return to dynamic box speakers. One is alive one is hifi. . . .

But isn’t jump factor merely one of many sonic characteristics of a loudspeaker?