Why not horns?

MIcrojack, I can't fully include you as a horn guy if you don't use bass horns. :-) Hybrids are for cowards. :-)

Just kidding here. I almost gave up and went the box route for the bass. I'm not quite ready to do that yet. I may have to a some point if the vintage pro drivers I use become any harder to find in good condition.

I am also in disagreement with the use of digital filtering. I understand the issues that digital processing can address, but it simply doesn't sound better to me. Different, yes. I would rather live with a little shout or whatever, than lose information. Matter of fact, I would rather go back to using passive speaker level xovers than use DSP.

Bill has indeed revived the conical horn. From what little I know on this subject, the conical was studied a bit back in 50's or 60's but then most turned to other approaches. The claims regarding the lack of phase distortion with conicals is interesting. Thus my desire to model that at some point. But for those who think building a conical is easy, think again. Those 16 or so slats have to identical or there will be un-eveness, which defeats the reason that the conical does what it does.

I would say, however, that tractrix is still the more preferred approach at this point.

I think the advice I was given by Ralph when I asked him if he prefers a horn system or electrostatic speaker when using his electronics and all else being equal fits 100% into this thread and his response was "it really depends on the speaker rather than the technology. Its the 'all else being equal' part that prevents an answer beyond that. Either one can be awesome or suck really bad." I some day do wish to explore a horn system and this thread has given me some of the understanding needed to do so.

I'm not seeking inclusion. My horns are made of 12 identical cherry wood panels. Dan is right about the need for uniform perfection in the horn. The use of non-conical designs has as much to do with a desire to increase horizontal dispersion as it does any other consideration.
Please - please - please read what Bill has to say about his reasons for choosing the conical approach before offering any more of your uninformed preferences.

Over and over there come these statements of preference without any justification or explanation. Maybe you actually know what you are talking about but aside from Duke or Ralph, I don't recall hearing from anyone who has actually done any of this. Before you ask, I have not either. But if you read what I have had to say, you will notice that I make no pretense at expertise.

Merely saying "I loathe horns" offers nothing useful. Claiming that a conical is not a real horn is just stupid, and having heard a lousy sounding horn 18 years ago at a concert or in a Cerwin Vega frat house system doesn't really serve as the basis for bashing an entire category.

Little is known about horns by the general public and I will stand by my belief that there is a lot more to be discovered as we strive to do so.

DSP does not deprive us of info. I find mine provides exceptional detail in concert with the horns. Micro dynamics are downright amazing. Just hearing the crowd noise in the background at televised sporting events is a thrill.
There may be legitimate reasons for digiphobes to shun DSP but loss of information is not one of them.

There is not way to go from analog, to digital, and back to analog without losing information. That is just a physical fact.

I think Dan_ed is correct as the signal reproduced is a approxmation of the original,close but not exact.
As far as being able to hear a difference is probally based on how well the whole process performs and what the ear can detect.