@audiokinesis --
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
Such was not my impression of your replies in this thread (i.e.: that you're imposing something "unwelcome" on any of us), nor have I - from what I'm able to recollect - thought so at an earlier juncture of your post contributions. Please don't let me stop your efforts here, efforts I'm sure many appreciate.
When do we ever not let us be affected, at least occasionally, by technicalities and design principles in regards to what we may be "preaching" or decides to invest in? Really some of the worst theory-laden approach in my mind tends to be the person with an engineering degree who opposes this or that scenario - like power cords and their argued effect on sound with reference to "science," without giving the slightest hint at ever having listened instead of solely theorized. Utter bollocks (pardon my language).
Currently I'm in the process of having a pair of tapped horn subwoofers build to my all-horn main speakers, though I've never heard these TH monsters - quite intimidating to ponder.. I'm doing a lot of theorizing on this, at times even desperately, in the hope these particular iterations will integrate successfully. They take up some 20 cubic feet per horn (read: there are two of them for a moderately sized listening room), tuned at ~22Hz, and by all accounts they'll weigh in the vicinity of 250lbs (incl. the driver) a piece with the Baltic Birch ply chosen. Insanity potentially abounds, so (note to self) let's have some positive theorizing on their supposed advantages.
To reiterate: I find horns can image excellently, but perhaps they do so differently, not least influenced by their sonic "signature" in general.
