Horn vs AMT tweeter difference

In your experience, what is the practical difference between a horn and an AMT tweeter, which is better?


Is there an actual reason you are asking? or is this just a general conversation starter?

Horn Tweeter:

  1. Directivity: Horn tweeters are known for their controlled directivity. They can be designed to have a narrow dispersion pattern, which means that they focus sound more directly towards the listener. This can reduce the impact of room reflections and improve imaging and soundstage precision.

  2. Efficiency: Horn tweeters are often highly efficient, which means they require less power to produce the same sound output as other tweeter types. This efficiency can be an advantage in high-power or professional audio applications.

  3. Characteristics: Horn tweeters are typically associated with a certain sound character, often described as "dynamic," "forward," or "energetic." Some people prefer this sound, while others may find it less natural or harsh.

AMT Tweeter:

  1. Diaphragm Technology: AMT tweeters use a different diaphragm technology than traditional dome or cone tweeters. They feature a folded diaphragm that squeezes air in and out, creating sound. This design allows for a large, lightweight diaphragm area, which can result in low distortion and high sensitivity.

  2. Extended Frequency Response: AMT tweeters often have a broader frequency response compared to horn tweeters. They can reproduce high frequencies with great detail and accuracy.

  3. Sound Character: AMT tweeters are often praised for their natural and detailed sound reproduction. They are known for their ability to articulate high-frequency content with clarity.

  • If you prioritize controlled directivity and are in a room where room reflections are a concern, a horn tweeter may be more suitable.

  • If you value natural and detailed high-frequency reproduction, an AMT tweeter may be preferable.

  • Both technologies can be found in high-quality speakers, and the overall design and engineering of the speaker, including the crossover network and cabinet design, play a significant role in the final sound quality.


@tokushi - Great reply.  We often want audio solutions to be in absolute terms, but that's rarely the case...there are pros and cons with every choice.  😎

erik_squires  i am buying new speakers , i had AMT twitter so far ,

now I'm tempted to go to the horn.

@ortodox Wrote:

erik_squires  i am buying new speakers , i had AMT twitter so far ,

now I'm tempted to go to the horn.

What speakers?



Get what you like! It depends a great deal on the AMT and horn though, so a general description is hard. There are very popular makers with AMTs I hate (Golden Ear) and some I love ( Monitor Audio ). I wouldn’t be able to say "You should buy a speaker with AMTs!"

Same for horns. The best AMTs vanish. You stop listening for their characteristics, have high dynamic range and sound equally good played loud.

The best horns have extremely good dynamic range and help work with a variety of rooms.

AMT drivers are cheap and very beamy. If a horn is designed and used correctly it can be very natural. Their efficiency is a big plus widening your choice amplifier. May I suggest the Klipsch Heritage collection. The Cornwall 4 is an exceptional speaker at its price.

I had AMT based speakers for at least ten years. I loved them. While I moved on to ribbon, I was never inclined to go to horns from my auditioning. 

I suspect the transition can be effective if you simultaneously switch to horns and upgrade your amp (lower power, but much higher quality sonically).


But like most choices, listening should be your guide. AMT would create an emotional connection with me, horns not so much.