Horns get a bad rap...

[RGA]

But I often wonder what horns people have actually auditioned. Klipsch made the good the bad and the ugly and for the most part most people experiences with horns are what they heard from Klipsch.


So I would like to know the three BEST Horn speakers you have given a healthy audition to over the years. If you liked a horn speaker at $2k but you heard one at $20k then mention that you auditioned an expensive horn.

They don't have to be full horns - they can be quasi horns or part horns etc

My three horny for horns, speakers would be

Acapella High Violoncello II
From my show report 2010 CES Coverage 17: Acoustic Zen/Triode Corporation Ltd/Orb/DEQX, Ensemble, Kingsound/VAC/Ayon, Acapella/Einstein/Bergman/Ypsilon - Event Reports - Dagogo

Silbatone Aporia Fullrange
From my show report 2010 CES Coverage 18: Lamm/ Wilson, PBN/Edge, Silbatone Acoustics - Event Reports - Dagogo

Trenner and Freidl RA Box
From my show report 2010 CES Coverage 19: Classic Audio, Trenner & Friedl / Heed Audio / Viva Audio amplifiers, Sound Lab / Atmosphere, Gershman Acoustics / VAC, Manley Laboratories / Gershman Acoustics, - Event Reports - Dagogo


Some other good ones but if I had to choose these would be my three.

[Poultrygeist]

There are many excellent DIY folded horn designs that few main stream audiophiles ever experience. Here's one using a Fostex full range single driver.

Tubes & Horn - YouTube

[Poultrygeist]

Here are my Frugal Horn's folded horn build anatomy.

[Ajani]

Does a shallow waveguide count as a Horn?

If so then Revel makes my favourite horns.

In general, I think horns get a bad rap because there are not a lot of horn speakers in home audio, so other than Klipsch, some JBL models and pro audio (outdoor/concert) speakers, most persons (myself included) have not heard many horns.

[recoveryone]

Does a shallow waveguide count as a Horn?

If so then Revel makes my favourite horns.



In general, I think horns get a bad rap because there are not a lot of horn speakers in home audio, so other than Klipsch, some JBL models and pro audio (outdoor/concert) speakers, most persons (myself included) have not heard many horns.

Those are pretty

[RGA]

Poultrygeist

I was interested in the Dalek from the FrugalHorn site - as a Dr. Who Fan I had a nice laugh at the name - it looks pretty interesting.

Problem is I have no way to put such a speaker together with zero tools the investment and time - just can't happen. If they build them for you like AN Kits does as an optional extra - they would be interesting however.

[Poultrygeist]

Folded horns are one of the few designs capable of gaining mechanical efficiency and they really come into their own when paired with tube amps.

Those with a rear terminus like the Frugals and Hornshoppe Horns ( Art Dudley's favorite ) need corner loading to maximize bass response.

[RGA]

You'll get no argument from me - Peter Qvortrup's absolute favorite loudspeaker is Lowther based

"The treble and midrange on the Lowthers was one of the best I have ever encountered, and I have owned pretty much everything over the past 35 years, from Voigt's field coil driven horns, Tannoy's original 1950's Westminster's, Siemens Klangfilm and WE cinema systems to B&W DM70s, stacked Quad 57's, Beveridge System 2's, Acoustats, to Hill's Plasmatronics, Heil's full range AMT, Snell A/IIIs you name it, I have at some time or another had them all and what they all has taught me is not insubstantial. (referring to Lowther PM4 running in a folded horn that measured over 32 meters in length with a massive mouth diameter and that had very good bass, and it was 106dB or so efficient to boot.")

And

I rate the Lowther PM4 system and the Siemens systems as the best overall, but they are domestically almost impossible unless you live in a mansion, and very few of us do, so something smaller is needed."

The link also explains why he hates slim narrow baffles and 3+ way speakers - this probably should go in the thread for Feanor who noted they go against convention - probably because they have actually read the books on acoustics and not the marketing spiel of "corporations like oh never mind - I seem in a bad mood tonight so this is my last post today - gee I need a Baily's.

Re: The Dangers of Convension Slavery - Peter Qvortrup - Speaker Asylum

[Feanor]

...

The link also explains why he hates slim narrow baffles and 3+ way speakers - this probably should go in the thread for Feanor who noted they go against convention - probably because they have actually read the books on acoustics and not the marketing spiel of "corporations like oh never mind - I seem in a bad mood tonight so this is my last post today - gee I need a Baily's.

Re: The Dangers of Convension Slavery - Peter Qvortrup - Speaker Asylum

Humm ... well PQ isn't a convincing audio authority for me. There are several statements there that are at least dubious. A big one being that narrow baffles reduce off-axis response: got other authorities on this subject? In basic physics it's the width of the driver itself that primarily that determines dispersion, and provided the width of the baffle is at least 1/2 the lowest frequency produced, dispersion will be good. Another dubious comment is that high-order crossovers "make matters worse" with respect to driver mismatch; high-order crossovers reduce the driver overlap and thus reduce phase and other mismatch issues -- or at least this the conventional opinion of people with actual acoustic science credentials (which PQ does not have).

[RGA]

Humm ... well PQ isn't a convincing audio authority for me. There are several statements there that are at least dubious. A big one being that narrow baffles reduce off-axis response: got other authorities on this subject? In basic physics it's the width of the driver itself that primarily that determines dispersion, and provided the width of the baffle is at least 1/2 the lowest frequency produced, dispersion will be good. Another dubious comment is that high-order crossovers "make matters worse" with respect to driver mismatch; high-order crossovers reduce the driver overlap and thus reduce phase and other mismatch issues -- or at least this the conventional opinion of people with actual acoustic science credentials (which PQ does not have).

Peter is not an engineer - he hires the best ones to get him what he wants - Andy Grove is the guy that heads their design team - and he has the credentials. And before that was Kondo - and I know cables get a bad rap but at least Kondo had a degree in metalurgy and headed Sony designinf the world's best microphones.

To say that Andy and Peter (and just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean anything - as I'll illustrate below) would disagree with the opinions of people who make MUCH MUCH worse sounding gear is not a surprise. The proof is in the pudding - or in this case the resulting sound. I'll read the white paper after I hear the product - if it sucks - the paper is not going to change that.

As for Degrees.

Ah my dad - at 47 was out of work and we lived in Australia - my dad went to British Columbia to find work while my mom and I moved to Wales waiting for him to land something. He caught on with Veterans Affairs for the Federal government. And he went for a job as a manager in the Finance area.

Back in the good old days where companies wanted the best people rather than just looking at pieces of paper - they had FAIR hiring practices. The job came up which requires applicants to write a test of knowledge in the field of accounting - and various managing questions. But anyone could apply - degree or not.

My dad went up against several fellows with University degrees chartered accountants and or CMAs. My dad was the only person to even pass the test. So much for degrees. He got the job. Now if he was only smart enough to quit smoking earlier but such is life.

I have two degrees and I don't hold a candle to what he knew. I would come home from the first day of University to tell him about the history course I was signed up for and over three hours he basically covered the entire course from memory - and he had the names the dates the events - the players, the social climate of the time the political intrigue.

As one friend who got his CMA at 50 once noted to me - brilliant people don't need degrees - degrees are for the average minds to prove to employers that they're their "pretty smart". Granted that is a sweeping generalization but there is a pretty big fat kernal of truth to it as well. The brilliant people are off being brilliant some place not sitting in classes listening to weaker minds telling them stuff they already know (thinking of the line in Goodwill Hunting where Will notes that absurdity of spending $150k in an education while he can spend $30 in late charges at the public library - or a line along this line.

Peter hires the people to attain what he wants - the top guy from Sonic Frontiers, the top guy from Voyd, Andy - whole bunch of people are after him - Quad hired him.


I can't really answer questions that are put to Peter. And I am no engineer. The way it works for me on these issues is this

1) let me listen to it. If it sounds great - sure I'll read your white papers or reasons for how you managed to make great sound - you probably know what the hell your talking about.

2) if your sound sucks - then I don't care if you finished first at MIT like Dr. Bose or work for a massive speaker maker or your a big name etc - if the sound sucks then your papers are meaningless - aka Dr. Bose with his PHD and his M.I.T degree or the Nuclear fission expert that runs Monster Cable (or whatever it is he's an expert in). Eesh.

Like I say - I have met many brilliant people far more brilliant than I'll ever be - they have no degrees - I have two of them - and I did very well in them too. But I'm not in their class - not even remotely so.

Peter's line in engineering seems to be from the following from his reply to the NHT dealer (and man those speakers SUCK compared to the AN E) which may indicate why they went belly up - the engineer there has gotten around to killing a lot of companies over the years!

Peter suggested that the NHT fellow this:

"Since you are clearly a fully paid up member of current fashion club in speaker design, may I suggest that you go back and study two of the original works on acoustics and speakers, or perhaps 3,

a.) N. W. McLaughlin's Acoustics on McGraw-Hill, I believe it was issued about 1934, McLaughlin was probably the greatest mathematician who ever set foot in acoustics.

b.) L. L. Beranek's Loudspeakers.

c.) Any of Harry Ohlsons books.

These books contain the vast majority of what one needs to understand about sound propagation and acoustics, mostly forgotten knowledge as the industry has "progressed" towards commerciality with all its vagaries."

There is a reason why the integration of AN speaker is IME better than anyone else out there that I have heard.

As a single driver nut on AA who switched from Lowther to the AN E mentioned - the AN E is like a lowther but with bass and treble. It's the main reason in fact that people go from Maggies and Quads and single drivers to AN Es - The gain outweighs the very little bit of loss in cohesion.

So when people come out with white papers about crossovers are coming from people who can't get seamless integration themselves - why would I put stock into them - It makes logical sense to put stock into the guy who comes out with something that actually works, no?

Although I suppose it does make sense in a way - after all if Audio Note viewed it the same way as everyone else and had the same banal lock step view then they would not be able to create the generally much better sounding stuff that they create. Indeed, if you follow the same "wrong path approaches" that everyone else follows you could not possibly create anything that is all that much different. Which is why so much stuff sounds awfully similar to lots of other stuff. I'd prefer to follow the people who make the best sound. As Peter noted they run counter the rest of the industry in the video link - "we do what we do - until the rest of the industry,... Peter Qvortrup @ Hi-Files Show 2009 (part 2) - YouTube

[Feanor]

Yahda, yahda, RGA. I'm not saying the degree-less people can't be brilliant practitioners. I've been in that situation myself, (i.e. degree-less but doing the job, (not necessarily brilliantly), when most around me were degreed. Peter Qvortrup is an example of a unaccredited person who often to say things of a highly subjective nature with which accredited experts disagree based on scientific demonstration. It is one thing to be without degree, another thing to fly in the face of science.

Above all what Qvortrup is, is a clever entrepreneur who exploits an eccentric audiophile niche that is susceptible to his particular variety of snake oil.

For me one of the more stupid stances I've heard from Qvortrup say is that digital audio inherently cannot reproduce sound accurately. This is rubbish as demonstrated decades ago by Nyquist-Shannon theorem. With due regard for the true HF limits of human hearing and various practical considerations sound can be perfectly reproduced from digital samples.

[Ajani]

Above all what Qvortrup is, is a clever entrepreneur who exploits an eccentric audiophile niche that is susceptible to his particular variety of snake oil..

LOL

Qvortrup is in the same category as countless other hifi designers like Antony michaelson of musical fidelity: they all believe their products are the way the truth and the life. Frankly, I ignore all their endless bragging and posturing. I could care less about Qvortrup's "closest tolerances in the industry" or Antony's "near state of the art measurements". All that matters is whether the specific product sounds good and meets my needs.

I also don't see why none of these designers can have "professional disagreements" about design. It's always about how their path is the only one and everyone else is just interested in ripping off the masses with marketing. Is it not possible that someone like Kevin voecks of Revel is as passionately convinced that his speakers sound great as Peter Qvortrup is about audio note?

[Poultrygeist]

Here are the Lowther field coils in a folded horn. Even on crappy pc speakers the purity of sound is evident. I'd kill for a pair.

Field Coil Horn at BAF Show 2011 - YouTube

[Mr Peabody]

I agree horns do get a bad rap and it's mostly Klipsch's fault, and I agree not a lot of good horns in mainstream audio. At one time I sold Electro Voice and wanted to use them in my system, they sounded awesome, it was early in my marriage and the wife didn't think carpet boxes met our decorum though A recent brush with horns which led me to believe they can be done right for home use was the JBL LS series and Array series, the horns sounded great, although I couldn't get the 1400's to image to my satisfaction in my room. Really not much else horn experience. I've heard several Klipsch.

[E-Stat]

I agree horns do get a bad rap and it's mostly Klipsch's fault...

along with Altec, JBL and every other pro system I have ever heard, except for...

One completely different approach to horn design is taken by Danley Labs. While there are neutral sounding horns available, I have yet to hear a large multi-way one that is truly coherent sounding. Tom Danley's horns output the entire bandwidth from a single "mouth" where all frequencies radiate into the room with the same directivity - much like a full range electrostat. Like the larger Sound Lab stats, they are also designed to be used in arrays for greater lateral or vertical coverage.

Danley Synergy Horns

[tube fan]

I just have to disagree: the best Klipisch speakers can compare favorably to 95% of today's best.

[RGA]

I think Mr. P was referring the big box store shopping mall sold Klipsch speakers. Like I said Klipsch made the good the bad and the ugly.

Most people have never heard the K-Horn - what they heard were those $650 floorstanders with ear bleedingly bright or forward tweeters that were unmatched in sensitivity to their woofers. Compound that by connecting them to those early 14bit CD players and junky receivers and it was truly an abysmal mess.

As for still competing with 95% of stuff today - quite true and Klipsch thinks so too as they are now selling 4 of their best older models - but with new upgraded parts and very likely tightened them up to sound even better. I am quite excited to hear the new (or should I say old) Heritage series. The trouble with judging the old models is that they're old and worn down - hearing a fresh pair is rather intriguing.

Heritage Home Audio-Loudspeakers-Klipsch

[E-Stat]

Most people have never heard the K-Horn...

Every one I've heard honks in the midrange and compromises imaging with its corner placement. Which is why the Heresy was created in 1957.

[Mr Peabody]

Klipsch made some fun and acceptable models but sonically not on par with EV or JBL.

E-stat I wasn't in the hobby in Altec's day but I have to wonder if you've heard the Array series in JBL? The horns used in the JBL Synthesis series are outstanding, very smooth. I wasn't a JBL fan until last year hearing the 1400's and much less expensive LS70's.

In audio there are always trade offs and you have to pick your priority. There is a certain liveliness horns bring to the music that I haven't heard matched by other designs. It brings that rawness, for lack of a better adjective, of a live show to the listening room. Well, exceptions to some extent would be the JBL Array or Klipsch Paladium which have almost tamed that aspect out, giving the horns more of refined delivery.

[E-Stat]

I wasn't in the hobby in Altec's day...

I remember how disappointed I was when I first heard A7s. Hollow midrange, steely top end, with no real low end at all. Far from transparent.

but I have to wonder if you've heard the Array series in JBL?

I have not. I did, however, look them up.

Designed to Impress

What you say about preferences is certainly true. As for me, I prefer speakers that are "designed to disappear". My reference point is using no speaker at all. Here you have yet another two way horn stretching the output of a large (14") woofer to reach a horn. The specs illustrate what I find to be their troubling characteristics: inconsistent directivity and poor driver blending at the crossover. Notice how they describe the response:

"Low Frequency Transducer:600 W AES, 50 Hz to 500 Hz
High Frequency Transducer: 75 W AES, 1kHz to 10kHz"

They may be "lively", but who needs the octave from 500 hz to 1khz anyway?

[Joe Roberts]

Here is a pic of the third best horn system I heard last week.

This is a pair of Western Electric 15A with 555 drivers, covering 80hz to 7khz, WE 597A tweeters, and a mono sub with two EV30W and two Altec 515s, cut in below 70hz.

I was in Korea preparing this rig for Silbatone's exhibit at the Munich High End show. We will have to cut the 15As to fit them through the door at the show.

Do you think Paul Klipsch though K-Horns were the best when he had a collection of Western Electric theater gear?

I don't know what Peter Qvortrup was smoking when he said AN E are better than WE and Klangfilm theater gear. I had AN Es and I gave them away. I have no clue what kind of WE gear he had.

No way those AN boxes compete with a properly set up WE system to my taste, but I don't think it is even fair or reasonable to make the comparison.

AN E are OK box speakers but good horns can obliterate them in terms of emotional impact and musical involvement. And when you get into full range horns like the 15A, add coherence to the list.

My own peak audio experience is with pro gear worked into home applications: Large format Altec, WE, and Lansing field coil. It is a lot of work to get this stuff working right in the home and it is never a turnkey approach.

I can't name a modern high end speaker that replaces the pro stuff for me. Heard Musique Concrete horns for a few minutes at Munich last year. They were pretty good.

Most of the "high end audio" horn offerings are not of the top sonic rank, but, in fairness, none of the pro horns will win any home decorating awards! Home speakers are the art of the compromise for most of us, alas.

[RGA]

Joe

I think you read Peter incorrectly - he noted that his all time favorites are not the AN E and noted this

"The treble and midrange on the Lowthers was one of the best I have ever encountered, and I have owned pretty much everything over the past 35 years, from Voigt's field coil driven horns, Tannoy's original 1950's Westminster's, Siemens Klangfilm and WE cinema systems to B&W DM70s, stacked Quad 57's, Beveridge System 2's, Acoustats, to Hill's Plasmatronics, Heil's full range AMT, Snell A/IIIs you name it, I have at some time or another had them all and what they all has taught me is not insubstantial.

I rate the Lowther PM4 system and the Siemens systems as the best overall, but they are domestically almost impossible unless you live in a mansion, and very few of us do, so something smaller is needed.
Which is why we are here!"

and "I still own a Beveridge System II, ESS Transar, Siemens Klangfilm system, several Snell Type A models and one of two more, and have over the years worked on and modified practically every vintage speaker system made."


But as he notes the best of these are domestically not feasible for the VAST VAST VAST majority of audiophiles - even the Altecs are very large and obtrusive for the normal sized apartment or home - the picture you just posted is illustration of that. The AN E Sec Silver Sig in a 200 square meter room (which is the max size room they recommend for the AN E) is as good as I have heard from anyone ever in such a living room. And I think they do better than most in considerably larger rooms as well. They don't compete in the dynamic ease department (though the new hemp higher efficiency alnico versions help immensely) with big horns - but they also don't have that honkiness that E-Stat notes. And that has been an issue with most every horn speaker that comes out. The best horns that I have heard which includes the one I heard from Silbatone at CES (The Aporia) are still BIG. Here in Hong Kong the two would have to touch each other to fit in the living room. So no matter how good the speaker is the room can't support them. So you look at something else that the room can support.

I have often described the AN E has a between the poles speakers - my favorite speakers have tended to be large horns and Panels (and single drivers) because both poles bring certain things to the table (but at the expense of the other) while the E is a compromise of sorts retaining much of what I like about horns and much of what I like about panels (but not to their degree but also not bringing the weaknesses to the fore) Which is a long way to say they're a superb all-rounder and why I can play any music on them - most rooms at shows I noted had a few recordings - play the same ones all day over and over because apparently they're afraid to play real music - just play what their speaker is good at playing.

Some people only listen to one genre of music in a narrow volume level - if the speaker does that well and that's what you listen to then great - but an all-rounder needs to play it all equally well. And I don't hear that from panels or horns - I heard the steely hardness of horns - but I get presence and a jump factor that no panel I have heard remotely captures - but I also get a holographic sound and staging and imaging and openness that arguably is peerless.


Emotional impact and musical involvement is somewhat subjective. Terms that people reading this discussion who have not heard the products in question will roll their eyes at. The system is also more than the loudspeaker - the AN E I have heard in a number of configuration with a number of amps from Audio Note and not from Audio Note (ditto for sources) and in a number of rooms. And IME they have topped the Emotional and musical involvement charts against their competition. But that goes out the window with some amps - and not just SS but some tube amps as well.

Their competition is not speakers designed for massive rooms however - for that you need speakers like the ones you posted.

But Audio Note tends to get a lot of reactions like the one from Wes Philips - over the course of the years I have read many such over the top reactions - and it is disproportionate to AN. I never read such reactions to say an AvanteGarde or B&W for example (I discount some magazines that I find have track records of lies or crookedness mind you).

But this is pretty over the top praise by one of their leading 3-4 reviewers and basically says there was only ONE system in the entire show that was worth listening to and you don't have to read between the lines to figure that out. Ongaku Means Ecstasy | Stereophile.com

[Joe Roberts]

I think you read Peter incorrectly

That could be...in which case the question becomes "What have I been smoking!"

So are we talking about horns or box speakers here? To me, AN E are punk-out speakers for a horn lover. This is not to say that they are bad box speakers...they are definitely decent. And they work well in tandem with Audio Note gear so you can actually get a matched system out of the box. Audio Note makes reasonable stuff and they are ahead of the industry curve taste-wise in my estimation. But horns can best AN Es in my mind and for my ear.

I maintain that horns can work in medium rooms and I have done it successfully, I had 15 cell Altecs with a big Onken cab in an 18x25 room and it worked great. I still miss that system.

A Siemens/Klangfilm Eurodyn will fit in a medium room and provide much more presence and dynamic range than an AN E.

There are many horn solutions for small to medium rooms. No need to punk-out with silk dome tweeters and all that.

Honkiness is a drawback of BAD horns. Good horns have none of it. Honk disqualifies a horn from serious consideration. Move on.

Same with steely or mechanical overtones...junk it. Good horns are very detailed and natural.

I believe that many problems are caused by running the wrong cone high enough to mate with a small horn (like 1500hz) or putting the crossover smack in the middle of the vocal range in addition to pushing the woofer up beyond its optimal range. The LF is more tricky than the horn midrange in many implementations, especially in smaller-sized systems.

Quotes from famous reviewers don't impress me. Hey, I was a reviewer. I know lots of reviewers. Most of these guys don't have a clue as to the possibilities beyond the high end speaker marketplace. I am not trying to be flippant and harsh, but
most reviewers just don't know the world of vintage and pro horn technologies and topologies or the exotic DIY stuff and if they do they have to hide it for the job.

Some of the best reviewers seem to like all kinds of audio gear well enough to give it a shot. I used to but I can't do it anymore. I am a man of strong preferences and opinions, less so in real life than in print, but life is too short to traffic in inferior audio.

Is is true, at least, that the vast number of speaker products out there today tend to represent a narrow slice of possible technologies. Part of it is the need to have good looking, shippable products that can be sold to normal people. The other side is that success breeds success and copycat design is prevalent.

I will admit that I am totally spoiled by big setups that put all or most of the vocal range in one horn. This is not easy to pull off for a "product" but the alternative is super tricky as regards mating the drivers into a convincing musical whole. Rare is the woofer that will play smooth up to 1500 and hand off seamlessly to a compression midrange.

I think that the place to look for horn solutions is not Stereophile or Hot Springs, AR but DIY forums. Lots of guys are running horns in domestic spaces, good ones, and they are happy as clams.

The snobbish position of the DIY horn crowd is that high end audio is for beginners. The real story is that manufacturers work under constraints that the DIYers have abandoned or rejected. It is not an even playing field. DIY has the upper hand.

There seem to be a number of small manufacturers trying to do things right with horns and I am probably not giving these warriors due credit but that is only because I haven't heard their stuff.

Perhaps high end designers get too artistic with horns. Maybe they have to be industrial ugly to some degree in order to work!

I'll still stand by what I said when I started writing about horns 20+ years ago...most horns are bad horns, but a good one is the best speaker you can get.

Here is a pic of the best horn system heard last week. This is a WE 12A/13A system in Silbatone's new listening room. This is the FIRST generation of cinema speakers, c.1928. Super super rare. Probably worth more than my house, especially now that a dozen rich Korean audio madmen have heard it.

Aside from no bass below 80hz, this system truly sounds like a concert hall. I never heard anything like it. Jaw dropping. Riveting.

No, it is not practical in any way and barely possible to put together, but it has been accomplished.

The useable answer is somewhere between "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and "Don't settle for a Bose mini system."

I am certain that most listening rooms can accommodate some form of good horn system, but you might not be able to go out and buy it. It will probably take some creativity and work and/or a large pile of cash. You have to be the type that will love the journey of research, exploration, and learning by doing.

Think of something like a Heresy but built with really good parts...then start inching bigger and bigger...and bigger...

[frenchmon]

Sibatone Acoustics Reference 300....Silbatone Acoustics




Made in Korea....and cost 30K

[frenchmon]

When I worked in the industry of commercial heating and cool, some of the heating/cooling blowers looked just like those horns. To me for audio....its a bit over kill. Just my opinion.