Horns: Why don't they image well?

Extremely wide dispersion

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

Judging by the title of this thread, that hasn't done you much good.

@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.

I’ll try to make this short.
Lusted after Klipschorns since I was in college (70’s), bought a pair used years ago , struggled w loving the sound, turning up the the volume, finding the sound harsh, turning the volume down, found the Volti website, bought the full upgrade, spent a couple of weekends doing the upgrade, spent more on the upgrades than the speakers, thought I must be crazy, did 1 at a time- the difference was huge- played w adjusting the crossovers- realizing I must have some high frequency loss, got input from my kids ( who were very insightful in their comments), still have them- love them- without the upgrades, probably would have sold them & moved on- some of you will say I shoulda, maybe I’m crazy, but I’m happy crazy.

Mostly a speaker that has a narrower highs and upper mids "hot spot" (beaming) is the better at imaging eg: quads (especially 57’s), ML’s, Acoustat most esl’s, ribbons tweeters and Maggie longer full length ribbon ones.

Horns tend to give a wall of sound, but rarely can image pinpoint in the horizontal and vertical and depth like the above ones mentioned can.

Image masters were the Acoustat 1+1 and the 1’s also 57 Quads, because of their narrow trebble/mid panel, which were all a one man speaker for the hot spot, and your head had to be in a vice.

Acoustat 1+1 https://img.ukaudiomart.com/uploads/large/260124-accoustat_11_with_medalion_interface_mk_121c.jpg

Acoustat 1 http://img.usaudiomart.com/uploads/large/1496795-acoustat-1-1-electrostatic-speaker-pair-plus-medall...

Cheers George