Change to Horns or stay Dynamic

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.

the radiation pattern of horn speakers are just as important as their increased dynamic contrast

That was my point to Dgad early on.

Horns are great for dynamics/detail - especially with TAD drivers - just be careful of extremely long throw horns with tightly narrow dispersion as these will beam at you like a spotlight - get a "floodlight" design instead. If you look at pro studio horns (Westlake's, Augspergers and many others) - generally you will always find wide dispersive horns rather than long "victrola" type narrow designs - there is a good reason for this as Duke has pointed out => the reverbernat field needs to match the primary direct signal reaching your ears to a chieve a relaxed pleasing and natural sound. (as per Dr Floyd's many many listening tests that confirmed this in the 70's)

So Change to horns or stay with cones?

I guess this is the right answer not in my words:

Your argument about home audio listening is valid if you listen at fairly low average spl levels of lets say, around 75db. Because for a good sense of dynamics a loudspeaker must be able to easily handle 20db peaks above the average level with no compression. That is the minimum requirement and unfortunately the Scan-dinavian favorites (the drivers used in most high end dynamic speakers) fall short of this target at anything above mid 90's db. So if you want to listen at realistic average levels of say 95 -100 db you will need the speaker to handle a not-so-unrealistic 120db peak levels and that's at the listening position no less.

For audiophile drivers core size and voice coil size are of secondary importance. Contrast this with the pro drivers' big voice coils and oversized and vented magnetic cores that can sustain prolonged periods of abusive power (read 400-600 watts) with just maybe 2db of thermal compression while playing at around 120db average level. There really is no comparison! Thermal compression is real and one of the most important as well as overlooked parameters in loudspeaker performance. It's perhaps not surprising that this is the case for the audiophile speakers as the driver core is the most expensive part of the assembly and the designers using the same logic consciously chose this set of compromises.

But make no mistake, as excessive as these db levels might seem at first, for the person that wants realistic reproduction at the home this is what will be required of the system. (Manga)

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 instruments 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. (Yurmac)

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 constant 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 result over a half-hour or so is listening fatigue - literally, a head-ache because the ear/brain system 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.

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. (Audiokinesis)

Wonderfully put by this fellow audiogoners....

Horns sure have their fans, but to my ears, they sound nasty. To each his own, YMV, etc.,etc..