If your not running dedicated lines to your equipment, then you have accepted everthing you purchase and use will be hobbled and never reach its full potential.
Paul McGowan on Horn Loudspeakers
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
A good high sensitivity speaker has one clear advantage over a low sensitivity one - if talking about cone speakers. To generate a certain volume of sound, their design requires far less power from the amp and the cones move a shorter distance. As can be easily imagined, the smaller the cone movement, the less likely the coil will extend beyond the comfortable area within the magnetic field and therefore the lower the distortion. Also of course if the cone movement is small, the cone surround (that keeps the cone centralised but also has to "absorb" the cone's movement), has a less onerous job, again reducing the distortion at high volume.
Panel speakers are different but they still have serious problems playing very loud or at very low frequencies. Many brands give up trying to get big bass from panels and use a hybrid design where the bass is generated by cone speakers - Martin Logan for example.
Regarding your challenge, any Avantgarde speaker system is over 100 dB and will knocks spots off most low sensitivity speakers if it's sound quality, imaging and "goosebump factor" you are looking for. I've been using them since 2002, but have had other speakers in my listening room, hoping they may offer something even better. Well, they failed. The £18K Martin Logans failed miserably against my 17 year old Unos, although the room was largely to blame in this instance. I've had big Quads, Quadral and others, but none to challenge the excitement factor offered by Avantgarde horn speakers. My current ones are 107 dB and 18 ohms so a very easy load on the amp compared with just about any panel speaker.
Last edited:
The "bottom line" is that YOU are happy with your Avantgards - as Metallia says: "Nothing Else Matters". And, I don't think hybrids sound good AT ALL ( you cannot expect a cone to "keep up" with a panel in the bass or mid-bass region, though if you limit a cone to SUB-bass, they work wonderfully) so I wasn't at all surprised when you said the ML's "failed miserably"
My Klipsch offer GOBS of "goosebump factor", as you put it - but they simply do NOT sound as good (to me or anyone that has visited me and heard them) as my Maggies. That's not an insult to someone else owning horns --- I own horns, too!
Back to the original statement I made on another thread when someone asked about panels vs horns: my response was (and is) "apples and oranges". Sometimes I prefer the former; sometimes, the latter. But that doesn't make an orange less "orang-y" or an apple less "apple-y". I long ago gave up trying to find a speaker that wasn't a compromise in some area. They don't exist (and that's also true of damn-near everything in life.) Back in the early 80's, when Infinity had not yet gone mainstream, they offered a product called the I.R.S. (Infinity Reference Standard) at the ungodly price (in those times) of something like $25K (pushing double that in later versions)! These 4 columns had 12: 12" woofers, a bunch of planar-type midranges and a gazillion planar-type tweeters - all dipolar. Yes, they played LOUD and yes, they sounded GOOD (but, guess what? NOT as loud or as good, respectively, of what I now own.)
So, I just live with two systems and play the one that most closely meets the mood I'm in and/or what type of music appeals to me right now. And I've been doing it for decades: my former "good" system was B&W 801's / Mark Levinson and my former "loud" was Altec Model 19's (later Voice-of-the-Theater's) and bridged NAD 2140's. Both sources were CD's: the former a Krell and the latter a $99 Sony... AND: (heresy!!) the Sony CD transport was not dramatically worse than the Krell.
FYI, I also have smaller systems in the sunroom, the garage, the gazebo, the kitchen, my office. And, or course, in my vehicles. NONE of these are "audiophile quality" by any stretch of the imagination, but they provide me music if I choose to listen, which I almost always do (I am listening to Kidneythieves as I type this). Just last night, I was in the mood for some KORN while showering, so I took my JBL Boombox2 into the bathroom. Since JBL Boombox2's are not ideal for Saint Saens 3rd symphony, I didn't listen to it then...
Aint it great to have options?!
My Klipsch offer GOBS of "goosebump factor", as you put it - but they simply do NOT sound as good (to me or anyone that has visited me and heard them) as my Maggies. That's not an insult to someone else owning horns --- I own horns, too!
Back to the original statement I made on another thread when someone asked about panels vs horns: my response was (and is) "apples and oranges". Sometimes I prefer the former; sometimes, the latter. But that doesn't make an orange less "orang-y" or an apple less "apple-y". I long ago gave up trying to find a speaker that wasn't a compromise in some area. They don't exist (and that's also true of damn-near everything in life.) Back in the early 80's, when Infinity had not yet gone mainstream, they offered a product called the I.R.S. (Infinity Reference Standard) at the ungodly price (in those times) of something like $25K (pushing double that in later versions)! These 4 columns had 12: 12" woofers, a bunch of planar-type midranges and a gazillion planar-type tweeters - all dipolar. Yes, they played LOUD and yes, they sounded GOOD (but, guess what? NOT as loud or as good, respectively, of what I now own.)
So, I just live with two systems and play the one that most closely meets the mood I'm in and/or what type of music appeals to me right now. And I've been doing it for decades: my former "good" system was B&W 801's / Mark Levinson and my former "loud" was Altec Model 19's (later Voice-of-the-Theater's) and bridged NAD 2140's. Both sources were CD's: the former a Krell and the latter a $99 Sony... AND: (heresy!!) the Sony CD transport was not dramatically worse than the Krell.
FYI, I also have smaller systems in the sunroom, the garage, the gazebo, the kitchen, my office. And, or course, in my vehicles. NONE of these are "audiophile quality" by any stretch of the imagination, but they provide me music if I choose to listen, which I almost always do (I am listening to Kidneythieves as I type this). Just last night, I was in the mood for some KORN while showering, so I took my JBL Boombox2 into the bathroom. Since JBL Boombox2's are not ideal for Saint Saens 3rd symphony, I didn't listen to it then...
Aint it great to have options?!
I owned a pair of Maggies for a few years (3.6Rs). Nice loudspeaker but not in the same class distortion wise as either my Klipsch La Scalas or my three pairs of Quad electrostatics. As I recall, they are incredibly inefficient. I had a monster 200 pound Krell 700Cx power amplifier hooked up to my Maggies and even that behemoth struggled to produce anything like concert hall realism. My La Scalas go much louder on 1 watt!. But the beauty of the La Scalas has little to do with brute force volume. As Roy Delgado, Klipsch’s chief designer puts it, they are an acoustic amplifier. They reproduce choral music better than any loudspeaker I have owned in the past 35+ years and I’ve owned a lot of expensive loudspeakers. They are tonally gorgeous and their reproduction of stage width is unparalleled in my experience. I have mine in a large 6000 cu ft space widely separated and they effortlessly fill the 26+ width back wall completely disappearing despite their large size. The Tractrix horn controls directivity beautifully and the horn loaded 15” woofer is a marvel, reproducing a 50 Hz bass transient at 100+ dB. Don’t try that with your Maggie or even a Wlson. They’d go up in smoke. But the 50 Hz bass transient is reproduced with 0.1% THD, which almost no other loudspeaker will do, except a Klipschorn or a Jubilee.
The only limitation of the La Scala, other than size, is that it sounds best listening while sitting down on a low sofa. The larger Quad 2905 or even a Maggie 3.6 sound better standing up, but neither of these can reproduce an orchestra or a jazz ensemble or a soprano singer like the La Scala.
The only limitation of the La Scala, other than size, is that it sounds best listening while sitting down on a low sofa. The larger Quad 2905 or even a Maggie 3.6 sound better standing up, but neither of these can reproduce an orchestra or a jazz ensemble or a soprano singer like the La Scala.
I think the bottom line for you is that you are happy with what you have.
if you are ever unhappy or perhaps just inquisitive you should ,without prejudice, go out and explore the different "flavours" available. A review of this complete thread might be educational.
It would seem you have and have had a variety of good speakers so it surprises me that your first posts were so " let me tell you" confrontational.
The Hegemans, definitely a blast from the past! I remember hearing them in the 70' at a Hi Fi show in Toronto. They were actually out in a hallway rather than in the room. They made an impression on me for sure. The model you have pictured is slightly different from what I remember, same basic design but the tweeter was far more rustic looking and more open to prying finger.
Absolutely. It's pretty obvious he has never heard, or at least properly listened to with an open mind, a good horn speaker system. I never considered horns until I found myself with ACT 50 Actives that I didn't like. It was a review of the AG Unos (Stereophile 2000) that described so accurately the sound I was looking for and this prompted my to visit a showroom for a 10 minute demo. There was no need for further research and explorations into other types (including panel speakers) have always led to disappointment!
Beg to differ on many levels.
1) Your Maggie 3.7 are not even the best sounding speaker of their type. I have owned quite a few planar speakers over the years but never a Maggie. Why? Because every time I heard them at my audio friends' places they were quite underwhelming. Plus they don't sound particularly good at low volume AND they are quite limited when it comes to dynamic expression. Your comment about the IRS is off base as well...the IRS V for sure sounded better than your Maggies when properly setup and driven. I had the IRS Beta, which was one step down, and it actually was a very good speaker...but still had shortcomings that are not solvable (IMO) with low sensitivity speakers...namely dynamics (both micro and macro)
2) For full disclosure: I have owned IRS Beta, Apogee Caliper Signature, Stax ELS-F81, DIY system with BG planar, AudioStatic RS100, Acoustat 1+1, Acoustat Spectra 2200 and Acoustat Spectra 4400. Had lots of Apogee owner friends, so I am very familiar with Apogee Full Range, Scintilla, Grand, Studio Grand, Centaur Major, Diva and Duetta Signature. Friends also owned Maggie 3.6r, 1.6qr, 2.5r and others I can't remember. Oh and Quads too. Suffice to say, I know planar speakers very well and I will agree with you that they overall sound very good. Where they excel it is not easy to equal or beat them but it is possible to at least equal them with high sensitivity speakers.
3) I have also owned in the past Klipsch La Scala speakers, which at the time I thought were great; however, after now owning and hearing a wider array of horn speakers, I have to conclude that Klipsch is not at the forefront of horn technology. I own as well Odeon horn speakers (La Boheme) and have a pair of DIY horns as a second system. I also own the Horning Eufordite Ellipse speaker, which has horn bass loading but the rest is high sensitivity cones (98dB). All of these speakers are VERY revealing of the source material and demand very high quality electronics behind them. All of my current amps in house (5 in total) are SET of different flavors. Most of my friends who were into planars have moved onward to horns. So, I have experience with Dynamikks, Odeon (other models friends own), hORNs Universum, Acapella, Avantgarde etc. If you haven't heard these brands or others like them, then you are not speaking from broad experience only your own experience with a flawed speaker.
4) I haven't heard the Klipsch Jubilee sound good yet. Not just, "well it's loud and that's ok" but actually sounding poor. It is for that reason I can understand if you think the Maggies sound better...likely they do than the incoherent mess that I heard from that particular Klipsch.
5) There are some very good sounding vintage horns but you have to feed them with truly high end amplification and sources. Fail to do this and you will get exactly what you got...loud but not good. Driving Altecs with NAD SS amps...a big no no in my experience. Those aren't even good SS amps. Good SET or Class A PP tube amplification is mandatory.
What do you think about hORNS Universum, .....I am thinking about their top offering, the one that Bonzo reported favorably on a few years ago?
Thanks...
Horn speakers are a vast many things; horn-hybrids (like they are, most of them), all-horns, large, very large, not so large, bonkers expensive, not so expensive, cheap, well-implemented, not so well implemented, astonishing sounding, good sounding, blah sounding, outright horrid sounding, passively configured, actively ditto, etc. Claiming it comes down to good vs. LOUD (i.e.: essentially low vs high efficiency, which is to say mostly direct radiation vs. horn variations) is hideously reductive and fails to acknowledge that low efficiency speakers can sound like crap (as in dull, lifeless, incoherent, strained, malnourished, etc.) as well as very, very good.
However speaking of the more fully flexed potential of either "camp," to my ears well-implemented and -designed horn speakers, be they hybrids or all-horns, that actually adhere to physics and lets size have its say (and they needn't be bonkers expensive to be so if one goes about it wisely and with an open mind) are in another league compared to the rather vast array of low efficiency speakers I've heard - not least when the horn variations are actively configured with the main speakers high-passed and further horn subs augmented. The presentation is simply more life-sized, uninhibited, effortless and dynamically real by comparison.
Ideally I'd go for an actively configured, large horn-based system. Where many if not most are comprising with horns, and thus fails to experience their fuller potential, is in regards to size and overall implementation. Granted, most can't go with a full-wave horn implementation in the lower octaves for obvious practical reasons, but even 1/4-wave iterations here can be truncated to negatively impact sensitivity, bandwidth and response smoothness. A midrange horn too small doesn't control directivity in its lower range and thus effectively stops acting like a horn here, the same with a lower mids to upper/central bass horn (and where the negative sonic effects with folded horns can be quite audible due to throat constrictions and too high air velocity in an effort to extend bandwidth), and in the subs region even a non-truncated 1/4-wave Front Loaded Horn will be quite large, certainly if the vicinity of 20Hz is to be reached, but as well with a 25-30Hz lower knee. If such sizes can nonetheless be willed in a home environment with quality, non-truncated FLH designs, it's bass reproduction that simply levels any direct radiating counterparts. A close-to-equal option (yet advantageous in the lower end) is using tapped horns instead which shaves off some size, but with a tune below ~30-35Hz it's at the expense of sensitivity and upper bandwidth. The least desirable sub bass horn variation in my mind, though sonically still very capable, is the truncated FLH.
Most main speaker horn users tend to go with smaller, direct radiating (and low eff.) subs for augmentation, but I find that to be a compromise too severe. They just don't blend well, not even as DBA's. Using horn-hybrid main speakers isn't necessarily ideal either, but here dispersion pattern matching at the crossover to the horn above can often be achieved more successfully. Using dual 15" woofer/mids vertically aligned is a good match to a large format horn above, and when you high-pass the woofers fittingly high (~80Hz on up) it frees up the woofers for an even cleaner reproduction in their band, while boosting headroom significantly. A star-quad array of 15" woofers is likely an even better option with the right (and big!) horn combination, while more readily matching the sensitivity of a properly sized midbass horn variant.
With regard to overall implementation I find active configuration to be ideal with horns for precise delay adjustments and notch placements, as well as steep crossover slopes to keep the horns within their "safe" frequency bands. It also provides for much better amp-driver control with the direct amp-to-driver coupling and the passive crossover out of the way between the amp and drivers. There's also the advantage of driver segment independency with separate amps for each driver section; whatever is required of the amp driving the woofers won't impact the rest of the frequency band at all. Some swear by 1st order slopes passively configured, and while it can no doubt provide excellent results as well, not least with lower wattage tube amps, I find the combined options with an active setup + similar SS amps top to bottom (for the best coherency) to be the preferred scenario. I'm sure others may disagree, but I'd be interested to learn whether that stance is supported by actual experience with an active setup as described.
However speaking of the more fully flexed potential of either "camp," to my ears well-implemented and -designed horn speakers, be they hybrids or all-horns, that actually adhere to physics and lets size have its say (and they needn't be bonkers expensive to be so if one goes about it wisely and with an open mind) are in another league compared to the rather vast array of low efficiency speakers I've heard - not least when the horn variations are actively configured with the main speakers high-passed and further horn subs augmented. The presentation is simply more life-sized, uninhibited, effortless and dynamically real by comparison.
Ideally I'd go for an actively configured, large horn-based system. Where many if not most are comprising with horns, and thus fails to experience their fuller potential, is in regards to size and overall implementation. Granted, most can't go with a full-wave horn implementation in the lower octaves for obvious practical reasons, but even 1/4-wave iterations here can be truncated to negatively impact sensitivity, bandwidth and response smoothness. A midrange horn too small doesn't control directivity in its lower range and thus effectively stops acting like a horn here, the same with a lower mids to upper/central bass horn (and where the negative sonic effects with folded horns can be quite audible due to throat constrictions and too high air velocity in an effort to extend bandwidth), and in the subs region even a non-truncated 1/4-wave Front Loaded Horn will be quite large, certainly if the vicinity of 20Hz is to be reached, but as well with a 25-30Hz lower knee. If such sizes can nonetheless be willed in a home environment with quality, non-truncated FLH designs, it's bass reproduction that simply levels any direct radiating counterparts. A close-to-equal option (yet advantageous in the lower end) is using tapped horns instead which shaves off some size, but with a tune below ~30-35Hz it's at the expense of sensitivity and upper bandwidth. The least desirable sub bass horn variation in my mind, though sonically still very capable, is the truncated FLH.
Most main speaker horn users tend to go with smaller, direct radiating (and low eff.) subs for augmentation, but I find that to be a compromise too severe. They just don't blend well, not even as DBA's. Using horn-hybrid main speakers isn't necessarily ideal either, but here dispersion pattern matching at the crossover to the horn above can often be achieved more successfully. Using dual 15" woofer/mids vertically aligned is a good match to a large format horn above, and when you high-pass the woofers fittingly high (~80Hz on up) it frees up the woofers for an even cleaner reproduction in their band, while boosting headroom significantly. A star-quad array of 15" woofers is likely an even better option with the right (and big!) horn combination, while more readily matching the sensitivity of a properly sized midbass horn variant.
With regard to overall implementation I find active configuration to be ideal with horns for precise delay adjustments and notch placements, as well as steep crossover slopes to keep the horns within their "safe" frequency bands. It also provides for much better amp-driver control with the direct amp-to-driver coupling and the passive crossover out of the way between the amp and drivers. There's also the advantage of driver segment independency with separate amps for each driver section; whatever is required of the amp driving the woofers won't impact the rest of the frequency band at all. Some swear by 1st order slopes passively configured, and while it can no doubt provide excellent results as well, not least with lower wattage tube amps, I find the combined options with an active setup + similar SS amps top to bottom (for the best coherency) to be the preferred scenario. I'm sure others may disagree, but I'd be interested to learn whether that stance is supported by actual experience with an active setup as described.
Last edited:
I am finding TQWT bass loading to work exceedingly well with my two-way horn hybrid systems…much better match dynamically and bass texture than a vented box…also gives you very solid bass with high sensitivity drivers that otherwise won’t give much bass or depth…
No, I get very precise imaging with my Odeons and my DIY horns. A bit less from my Hornings and these are only horn bass!
Also my friends Odeons are very precise in imaging and soundstage.
Thanks, for reference can you name a track that delivers 3d imaging via the Odeons?
Cheers!
umm...all tracks that all for such imaging...there are not just a few specific ones...there are lots of good recordings.
Yes, those image very well...I don't still have them. They are only horn with the tweeter, so do they qualify as a horn speaker?
Might you describe and perhaps explain the mechanism behind your “ delivered solid 3d imaging “ and provide examples of non horn topology speakers that have delivered this acoustic effect ?
Try Dusty Springfield, Son of a Preacher Man, you should be able to 'see' an image of Dusty moving up to the mic in the centre and her backing singers off to the left in a separate acoustic space. The version I have is from the Pulp Fiction CD but it may be the same version as the one on Dusty in Memphis.
Similar threads
Members online
- Inline Six
- agencal
- Dunc69
- Rob77
- Beltane_sun
- admin1959
- Johan K
- luca.pelliccioli
- Tbzc
- bonzo75
- SOS
- UEM
- Gregm
- stehno
- dennis h
- horn150
- Aussienut
- jadis
- Don C
- Adelmor
- QuadDiffuser
- morricab
- hopkins
- iaxel
- kennyb123
- ChasFreeland
- Odd Harry
- Król_Artur
- the sound of Tao
- kimurastanley
- NightTiger
- MOTU
- Mamon
- Runing_man
- RussR
- simorag
- best
- tennisod
- hesavary
- Kishore
- Crom
- Michael S.
- Emilzebira
- digit_linn
- son
- fizzletop
- J007B
- waterlelies
- bouncing_noobs
- Streetlife 1962
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |