2. speakers
  3. 138583-20253

Horns: Why don't they image well?

Anyone have a theory?

\\\\\\
o| O O |o
  \ . ^ . /
erik_squires
erik_squires OP
16,021 posts
 
I guess my main gripe comes with questioning the usefulness, in some instances at least, of knowing about minutiae design "tech details" and how these are convertible into or relate to actual perceived sound. The designer/developer him- or herself should have a closer bearing perhaps, but oftentimes I feel such knowledge presented to the end user, illuminating it may be as a field and entity in itself, has a tendency to produce disciples almost or followers of a brand/principle rather than
critical, informed individuals that would seek not to equate too easily.
@phusis

Very well put. There’s a chasm between theory and measurements vs. perception and desirability.

Some companies, like JBL, Bose and Harman, make perception and desirability a hallmark of their research in addition to the speaker physics they are so well known for.

I also agree, a lot of this is a lot of fun to talk about, but perception may be a whole other story. The late Linkwitz was one of many experienced engineers and audiophiles who also promoted this view.

My recommendation for every audiophile: Build at least 1 pair of loudspeakers in your hobby career. You’ll be a much better informed consumer than everyone who has not.

Best,

E
erik_squires OP
16,021 posts
 
To give an example of this, there's time coincident speakers like old Thiel and current Vandersteen. 

Despite the technical claims made for them, the overall design has not overwhelmed the speaker industry. 

Lots of fun to talk about, and an interesting engineering challenge, but the final result has mixed reviews.  This one concept does not seem to have convinced the market. 

Best,

E
unsound
7,329 posts
 
^ I suspect the reason the design philosophy has not caught on with many other manufacturers is that they’re not up to the challenge. It’s a lot easier to ignore the time element than to execute it correctly.
Intetestingly, both companies have been amongst the most successful high end US manufacturers.
audiokinesis
2,734 posts
 

@phusis wrote (in a reply to me):

"my main gripe comes with questioning the usefulness, in some instances at least, of knowing about minutiae design "tech details" and how these are convertible into or relate to actual perceived sound. The designer/developer him- or herself should have a closer bearing perhaps, but oftentimes I feel such knowledge presented to the end user, illuminating it may be as a field and entity in itself, has a tendency to produce disciples almost or followers of a brand/principle rather than critical, informed individuals that would seek not to equate too easily."

Erik’s thread is entitled, "Why don’t horns image well?", and the entire text of his opening post is, "Anyone have a theory?".

In asking for theories, it seemed like Erik was inviting "tech details" as well as how they "relate to actual perceived sound".

My mistake. I don’t wish to impose anything unwelcome on you or on anyone else.

Duke

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,772 posts
 
Duke has made some great comments addressing the topic, answering it to its fullest.
If you don't get the nerdy part of it, it translates as:
"A well designed horn images as well as any other speaker".
Having made a good number of my own recordings, I can attest to that fact, by using those same recordings. Its not just theory- horns have been some of the most musical and involving speakers I've heard (Duke's amongst them, and his are unusually good deals on top of that), including their ability to image and play depth.



More to discover