Why not horns?


I've owned a lot of speakers over the years but I have never experienced anything like the midrange reproduction from my horns. With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, it seems like a no-brainer that everyone would want this performance. Why don't you use horns?
macrojack
Mapman, the DDD appears to be full range till it reaches well into the bass region. After that the DDD driver would need to be augmented with a woofer/sub-woofer for full range classification. Those lower frequencies have less apparent directional ques, and probably maintain the illusion of omni directional presentation well. Keeping the cross-over away from alternate drivers at higher frequencies where our ears are most sensitive and usually are have the narrowest directivity would seem to be preferable. Again the DDD doesn't have the mechanical cross-overs that the original Walsh driver had. Of course the catch is; they're pretty darn expensive.
Yes horns and omni drivers are a unique combo for sure.

I've heard an omni-horn system. Sits on top of the local firehouse. Very clear, loud sound, but only one frequency. THAT gets boring in a hurry =;)
"Again the DDD doesn't have the mechanical cross-overs that the original Walsh driver had. Of course the catch is; they're pretty darn expensive."

no, but with teh exception of the Unicorn, it is not full range and supplemental drivers with electronic crossover are used.

I suspect the "mechanical crossover" of the original Walsh behaves better from a coherency perspective in that crossovers tend to work against coherency in general it seems.

DDD covers higher and mid frequencies and crosses over toward the low end of the audio spectrum. OHM CLS covers lower and mid frequencies and crosses over higher (about 10khz I believe). Most, particularly as they age into their 40s or so, cannot hear above 14 khz or so, so that is the argument for the CLS approach.

All Walsh drivers operate via wave bending at higher frequencies and transition gradually to more pistonic motion to produce lower frequencies. That would indicate DDD produces more frequencies using wave bending than OHM and OHM more using pistonic motion to cover bass, however my understanding is that both apply the Walsh driver principle however differently in these ways. That is how it has been explained to me.

So we all can chose our preferred designs and sounds. OHMs in general will cost a lot less than GP however, that much seems certain.
I have a question for the horn guys.

A complex musical signal has both compression and rarification components of it's pressure wave. I can see how the compression component interacts with the horn.
How does the rarification component react with it, if at all?

Thanks!
Mapman, the original Walsh Drivers had 2 such mechanical cross-overs. I suspect that there was some cross-over in the lower than the extreme upper frequencies as well. The DDD doesn't have any such mechanical cross-overs.