Change to Horns or stay Dynamic

To Gerrum6
You are right about "merry-go-round"

Horns, dynamics, planars are like cars. How can you compare Lamborgini to a Hummer? People tend to replace SUVs with Corvette for no reason. Is there a need for a car to drive 200 mph?

Is there a need for an audio system to produce 120 db peak?

Symphony orchestra is playing one flute, but in the next second the orchestra barks with the whole power.
Most of the brass instruments can alone produce 120 db. There are 120 or so different instrumens in the orchestra.

You are sitting at row 20, a flute is about 40-45 db. The orchestra BARKS. It is about 120 db at the row 20.
The difference is 80 db.
CD can record 90 db of a difference (called dynamic range). Recording engineer has to compress the sound. Some engineers can hide compression better though, but all sounds are too BIG to fit on CD.
No matter what it is, Jazz you name it. I bet to record a girl with the guitar some 6 db of compression is still needed.

Thanks for the mention Manga, and the clarification, Kana813. The ones that got the award are indeed bipolar, kinda like their designer....

The subject of fullrange horns came up. Well, the Edgarhorn (with Seismic sub) and Classic Audio Reproductions Hartsfield are in my opinion excellent examples of fullrange horn systems. And I bet JohnK has some highly competitive offerings of his own in this arena.

As one who builds hybrid horn systems, my vote on "dynamics vs horns" is totally predictable - but probably not for the reason you'd think.

In my opinion the single most important benefit of a good horn is not increased dynamic contrast, but improved radiation pattern control (though it's nice to have both). The radiation pattern of most loudspeakers narrows and blooms and narrows again very significantly across the spectrum. The result is that the reverberant energy - mostly composed of off-axis radiation - has a different tonal balance from the on-axis sound. Since the ear/brain system is constantly analyzing incoming sounds as either first-arrivals or reflections, and using spectral contant to do so, a large discrepancy in the spectral balance of the first-arrival and reverberant sound makes correct classification more difficult for the ear/brain system; in effect, CPU usage goes up. Often the the result over a half-hour or so is listening fatigue - literally, a head-ache because the ear/brain system is having to work harder to correctly classify the reverberant energy whose spectral balance is unnatural.

But, don't get the idea that reflections are bad - early ones often are, but late-arriving ones are usually beneficial. A dense, late-arriving, highly diffuse, slowly decaying, spectrally correct reverberant field is what makes a good concert or recital hall sound so delicious. Indeed, much of the appeal of a good omni or quasi-omni or dipolar system is because of the relatively large amount of beneficial reverberant energy such a system puts out into the room when set up properly.

Some people talk about a good horn system as having a natural-sounding tone, and when you consider that most of the sound that reaches your ears is actually reverberant energy, a good horn's superior off-axis (reverberant field) performance starts to seem like a good idea.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer

GerryM5,

I am curious what horns you have tried that lead you to your conclusions. I wouldn't say all are equal. That would apply to most speakers. You and I are in a similar place but mybe coming on different paths but I would love to know more. I have heard many a horn that didn't do it. But a few that did.

AudioKinesis,

I am a little confused about horns. Do they actually have a more diffuse reverberant field than dynamic speakers? Does this apply to all horns or to some? I would love a bit more of an explanation in terms of design and what the different benefits are. Thanks.

Dgad,

Thanks for asking for clarification - it sounds like I was giving an incorrect impression.

Horns don't ordinarily give a more diffuse reverberant field than direct-radiator dynamic speakers. If anything, their typically narrower pattern results in a less-diffuse reverberant field; but that narrower pattern often makes it easier to "aim" the horns to minimize early-arrival reflections.

You see, reflections arriving before 10 milliseconds (corresponding to a path length of about 11 feet) are usually detrimental, whereas reflections arriving later than that are usually beneficial, assuming good spectral balance. This is why Maggies and such sound great 5 or 6 feet out from the wall, but have coloration and poor clarity when pushed back against the wall. Likewise, when you see MBL demo'ing their omnidirectional Radialstrahlers they are positioned well away from all walls, again to avoid detrimental early reflections.

A highly diffuse reverberant field arises from a combination of wide loudspeaker radiation pattern and diffusive room surfaces - like book cases and plants and furniture, or even diffusion panels, instead of bare walls or Sonex-lined walls.

In my opinion most loudspeakers don't put enough reverberant energy out into the room, hence my top-of-the-line speaker is a bipole - but if it can't be positioned properly then its monopolar little brother sounds better. My reason for using horns is to control the spectral balance of that reverberant field; the bipolar pattern is where I get my additional diffusion from, and then I like a fairly "live" room as opposed to a "dead" room.

Let me know if this doesn't answer your question.

Duke

Duke-

Congrats on the TAS GEA!

Seems like you're saying the radiation pattern of horn speakers are just as important as their increased dynamic contrast. Less negative room interaction = better
spectral balance.

I note that you're a Gradient dealer. Their new Helsinki 1.5, which are designed to reduce room interactions, seems like the ticket to a more natural-sounding spectral balance.