Why not horns?

Weseixas, bold but interesting assertion!

The custom horns I heard (110db efficiency) at the audio show were powered by a very expensive ($50000+) Audio Note tube amp, perhaps 20 some watts per channel or so yet quite substantial physically. the size would not indicate the power level to most.

My OHM 5 omnis at home (87 or so db efficiency) are powered by two 500w/ch Icepower Class D monoblocks. Their size do no not indicate the power delviered either, but they go for about 1/10th the cost of the AN tube amp and are highly regarded in their category by many.

Now I know power levels and sound quality are not always bed partners yet the Class D amp delivers 20 times the power for 1/10th the cost, based on known specs.

Now how do the two compare? That was the question I started working on answering last night listening at home.

My assessment so far is that my setup though totally on the opposite end of the design spectrum, can probably almost match the dynamics of the horn system at any listening volume I would care to ever experience and is quite competitive and possibly superior in most every other regard. Fatigue factor is also quite low.

Go figure!

BTW, as most know I am a big fan of teh Walsh driver approach and OHM speakers in general. The Walsh driver is a big part of the sound equation on my system. I don't think most conventional box designs can match these or the dynamic strengths of the horns. Planars have their own set of constraints that are not insurmountable but significant in the dynamics department.

I would have to hear the two systems side by side with the same source material playing in order to make a more detailed comparison of the two. In lieu of that, so far I;d assert that my setup can at least compete in the same league as the megabuck setup I heard basedon comparitive listening. Same true with other more conventional setups I heard running some big time players like Magico V3, mbl, and YB Acoustics among others.

Bottom line, I think that horns can sound like live music and at least convey certain kinds of recordings accurately, but it seems like one must practically be a millionaire rocket scientist to accomplish it. When you do though, the results can be quite rewarding. Nothing really good ever comes cheap or too easily I suppose....

The fact that there is a horn connected has nothing to do with the power requirement of the driver. My seismic horn subs go down to ~25Hz and use 18", 400watt pro drivers. They need a certain amount of power just to move that much air, let alone do justice to a good bass note.

I tried the SET route on my horns for a while. They can certainly play, but the SET doesn't have the damping control to make a kick drum snap your chest like it should. This is why I'm running my 110+ dB horns with 50 w/ch, PP amps.

But I don't like spam! Or SET. :-)

Herman,

The complexities of music reproduction always seems to favor power. We could discuss this at length, macro/micro dynamics, resistive load power vs reactive load yady yada, but my typing is poor and I'm lazy !

So i will take the easy way out and say after 40 yrs of fighting this demon , without reservation, big un's sound more like live music than likkle un's ...

( academic about the quality )

Nothing against the 2 or 3 watt crowd , it just does not work for me ..

Mapman:

I will reserve comment for now on the class-d stuff , as I'm still in training on there particular sound , which I'm not in favor of currently, and admit i have not heard what you have recommended regarding such, so my verdict (condemnation or approval) is not yet out ....

In your home environment , i would not be surprised that a conventional speaker would have better results vs a horn speaker.

I have personally participated at 2-3 hi-fi shows and dependent on room location , traffic , floor noise a horn speaker can have an advantage during demonstration vs conventional speakers... It's projection of sound is a big advantage here, not so in quite home settings were it's high coloration, and time domain deficiencies say " hello " here I'am !

From my perspective, the coloration is just too high, size and power of instruments out of proportion irrespective of the venue or recording and a 2 much and unnatural in your face presentation.

Those are my observations and of those from my corner, it apparently works for others and since there is no absolute lock on "it " by any of the current topology of today we should just group hug and recognize it's just another cup of tea ..... No thank's ! ....

How many different ways do I have to say this?
A) the fact that a speaker HAS a 250watt amplifier attached to it does not mean that it NEEDS 250 watts.
The reason for using this much is simple. (though arguable) The more power an amp has the greater it's power supply. The greater it's power supply the (usually) more linear it's first watt is. Read up on Nelson Pass and his theories for more on this subject.
For reference, this same guy with the Trios went from one 75 watt stereo amplifier to two 150 watt monos for just the top three horns. And it sounded better! Why, when he only needed 1watt?? For reasons OTHER than headroom.
One of the basic points of those little, low watt, SET amps is the linearity. But that linearity is not exclusive to low watt SETs. It just takes a whole lot more power supply (amoung other things) to make a bigger amp the same.
Trust me, I have all of the fun little tech toys to measure these beasts in every conceivable way. And the bottom line is that the sensitivity of three basshorns nearly matches that of the rest of the system. Period.

Second, I am not simply a casual, some of the time, listener with my friends system. We've been working on it together for about 10 years. He is retired and has the time and resources. I and a couple others have the expertise. So I say, yet again, I am fully confident that if there is a technology or any other way to make his horns sound better, we have explored it.

As far as time alignment goes, we've tried both electrical and physical. Trust me, we've tried it all.

Still don't like 'em long term!

Dan,

The fact that there is a horn connected has nothing to do with the power requirement of the driver.

Is that really what you meant to say? It has very much to do with it. The very reason we use horns is to raise efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_loudspeaker

Are you saying that seismic sub is 110dB efficient? I can't find anything on the web, his site is down for construction. I saw where he recommends 100-200 watts. If true it is hard to believe it is 110 dB efficient.

If you had a front loaded horn that was sufficiently long you could get those bass notes with very little power. Sorry if that irritates you but it is the truth.

Prez, so there is nothing you could possibly do to improve the sound of that system? If it is optimized that is what you are saying. Optimal is as good as it gets.

How do you figure the efficiency of the "basshorns" given it is an active system?

For reference, this same guy with the Trios went from one 75 watt stereo amplifier to two 150 watt monos for just the top three horns. And it sounded better! Why, when he only needed 1watt?? For reasons OTHER than headroom.

I agree it wasn't headroom, so what was it? You are comparing 2 amplifiers that obviously have differences other than max power and saying it is definitely because they have more power. It seems you jump to a lot of conclusions.