Why did you choose a horn based loudspeaker?
I got the power I need I wouldn't mind a better/nicer speaker. This system is at a mountain cabin so placement/listening position is not the best but it sounds pretty good. I can understand why they might not be the best klipsch but I got them cheap. No room for K-horns or even Cornwalls. My main home system is a Decware Mini Torii at 4 watts into Ref3A De Capos. This is where I want to really upgrade speakers to get some more volume. |
"I wouldn't mind a better/nicer speaker." For the record, I was not implying that the Klipsch Quartet(96dB) was not a quality speaker(owned two pair and absolutely loved them), just not the best to be powered by a flea amp. I own and have owned many a Klipsch speaker but just not any of the big 100dB+ Heritage(KHorns, LaScalas, Belles, Cornwalls). Bill |
Johnk -- Thank you for initiating this thread. In response to some of the comments above: horn and waveguide-based speakers span many varieties and combinations, just like direct radiating speakers, perhaps even more so; it would seem rather ignorant and unfair to generalize on their sonic shortcomings under simple banners going by the wide field they represent. These last years I've concentrated solely on waveguide-based speakers, at first via dome tweeters (Amphion and eventually S.P. Technology/Aether Audio) and now from compression drivers through conical OSWG waveguides. Waveguides, particularly in the (exponential) shape of S.P. Tech and not least the 12" conical Earl Geddes-based OSWG's (from a Polish manufacturer) now in use for some years in my setup, bring along a much needed "fullness," coherency, and stress-free imprinting that makes direct radiating alternatives appear strained and thin - even malnourished. This is a very general imprinting, indeed. Add in a compression driver instead (of a dome tweeter) and the very important sense of effortlessness kick's in in spades; it's at once a sound more relaxed and fast, more true to tone, clearer, more saturated, and with a very addictive "fill." Reading this review from 6moons of the British Harbeth M30.1 made me see, at least in the written description, some striking similarities in how I perceive the overall sonic imprinting of the waveguide-based speakers in mention: I once mentioned how Harbeth speakers interface differently with the listening room than traditional boxes. Because their enclosures resonate to play an important role as acoustic generators, their sound emits across a fairly wide field more so than usual. The result is a type of sphere or warm sound bubble with us at the center. There is no high selectivity or detail as those terms are commonly understood. The sounds are clear, fluid and rounded rather than pointy and angular. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/harbeth5/3.html It would seem the sheer envelope of air displacement (i.e.: its radiating area) and radiation pattern (via Constant Directivity) plays a vital importance here, but also the fact that, in this combination, only one cross-over point is used, fairly low at that (some 1.3kHz), to a 12" rather lightweight paper cone mid/bass unit. In tandem with a 12" conical OSWG waveguide this makes for excellent energy coherence, and hence a sound many has described to emulate closely that of electrostatic speakers (notably Quad's). I never experienced shouty or beaming tendencies from my speakers (what many find to be the typical negative side-effects from this realm of speakers), but it's definately more direct (yet still relaxed) than your typical "hifi" speakers. I can understand why some would find this "type" of sound taking some time getting used to, if they even do, when ones reference is mainly of direct radiating alternatives. I guess it boils down to taste in some respect, not least going by the overall mode of sonic presentation. To each their own.. |
Phusis, I found your post deeply insightful. and one of the most thought provoking that I have read in a long time. I think it is fascinating to consider not just the good, better best of linearity, imaging, box resonance etc. as we often do, but also the differing effects of waveguides, resonating enclosures, horns etc. and how they shape our perception of the reproduced music and how, over time, we conciously or subconciously form a preference for one of these design philosophies as what sounds "real" to us as individuals. Thanks for the great input. |
Phusis and others thanks for the thoughtful replies. True many different horn flares driver combinations available and I do see some the the DIY crowd having a bit of trouble sorting it out. I find with horns matching radiation patterns and using full horn loading combined with care in alignments. Yields the best results in horns. I have yet to design or hear a ported woofer that does full justice to a horn loaded system. You miss much when you attenuate or padd down mid tweeter to match bass systems a way arround this a bit is to bi or tri amp. I also tend to end up with 3-5 way front horns depending on range this tends to cause gigantism in end result but if pursuing the best that horns can do this is where you end up. I have been messing about with a more waveguide approach that sort of splits the difference between loading and depth thus saving space but this reduces output by -3db not a big issue still ends up over 100db 1 watt 3 meter but with a 58in bell. lol |
