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
If anyone is so deaf as to not be able to hear or comprehend differences in amplifiers, a new hobby is in order posthaste.

That is MHO, and worth exactly what it cost you......

Shakey
Regarding Mr. Aczel, I think it is worth noting that there were vast differences in his views following and prior to the approximately seven year lapse in publication of "The Audio Critic" that occurred between early 1981 and late 1987, while he was involved with the Fourier loudspeaker company.

The later Mr. Aczel, consistent with what has been said above, believed that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria (high input impedance, flat frequency response, low output impedance) sound the same. The low output impedance criterion, btw, excludes most tube amps.

On the other hand, here are some quotes extracted at random from Volume 2 Number 3, published in 1980. These pertain to solid state amplifiers, which certainly meet those criteria:

Re a revised version of the Bedini 25/25:
The sound is, if anything, even better; the silkiness of the highs and the transparency of the midrange are unsurpassed in our experience, except possibly by some -- not all -- versions of the Futterman tube amplifier and one or two solid state prototypes. The bottom end of the Bedini is very impressive for a 25/25 watt stereo amplifier with a single power supply, but of course there are many large amplifiers with all-out dual power supplies that will give you firmer and subjectively deeper bass.
Re The Leach Amp:
We find it beautifully transparent in the midrange, very well controlled on the bottom end, but a bit overbright and glassy on top (our bench tests won't tell us why).
And this comment in the preamplifier review section of the same issue:
Regardless of your methodology, you can't escape from judging subjectively which one of two sounds appears to sound more like music. Or at least more like what you believe to be the true sound of the input. And such a belief can be formed only by listening first to the output of a familiar reference system driven by that input. Which is where we came in.
Mr. Aczel was someone who's reviews and opinions I **wanted** to like and respect. He wrote in what was stylistically an extremely persuasive manner, and his writings always seemed to convey an impression of an intelligent and disciplined approach to component evaluation. Ultimately, though, I found it impossible to reconcile much of what he had to say with my own experiences, and those of others for whom I had respect. Especially in his later period.

Which is not to say that I believe investing $10K in a pair of wires generally makes much sense. In audio, as with most things in life, IMO the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle ground between the extremes.

Regards,
-- Al
Slight correction to my previous post: "who's" should be "whose" :-)

Regards,
-- Al
Almarg, thank you for the history lesson; fascinating, and should be very interesting for those too young (or uninterested) to remember. You may also recall that it was Aczel who gave Fourier speakers some of their first positive reviews. It was then revealed that Aczel was one of the owners of the company. Hmmm. What that says about the integrity of the reviews (and the reviewer; at least, at that point in his career) is fairly obvious. What it it says about Aczel's sudden change of opinion (and it's motivation) about the sound of amplifiers I find far more interesting and mysterious; and, I know you are too much of a gentleman to surmise. I am not nearly as much of a gentleman, and am still ruminating the possibilities ....
Interesting read this thread, particularly the last part concerning reviewers and their motivations. While Harry Pearson may have been a guiding beacon to many readers of TAS he never was to me. More a pompous know it all although I occasionally was amused by his writing style. In the context of the history of subjective review and reviewers I always felt more drawn towards JGH and what I perceived in him a real integrity in his often attempts to correlate measurements with what he heard. Don't know if anyone recalls in the mid/late 80's when there was a blind listening session performed with the reviewers of the magazine when the ARC SP-9 was compared to the SP-11. JGH was the ONLY one of the reviewers that participated that could consistently hear the difference between the two. The thing about Gordon that seemed to ring true, to me at least, is that he didn't ever seem to have an agenda and that he reported what he heard and always attempted to be honest concerning that. He was my hero in that I felt I could trust what he heard and reported.