MarkF Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Does a multicell horn image poorer than a single cell horn? If one was going to have a set listening position and did not need wide dispersion, which horn images the best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 My official answer is I don't know. That said, I was once talking to a guy who's opinion I respect and he made the comment that the multi cell horns (do/will/might? I don't recall) act as seperate outputs and you can get some kind of interaction between them since you now have multiple sources of the same signal. His opinion was fewer is better. I was once talking to an audio engineer and don't want to put words into his mouth but the implication of what I think he was saying (over my head) was he also preferred to stay away from them. That said, people have them & love them so they can't be "bad". I think we're talking on the outer fringes above when you are talking to the technical guys. I suppose there are good multi cell horns just as there are bad open horns. Regarding imaging, I'd suspect your room might be 50% or more of that conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I think that you need to read on horn theory a bit. Also there are horn+driver tests out there,e.g., http://forums.melaudia.net/attachment.php?aid=1760. You really cannot separate horn performance from driver performance (...one of the "horn laws" of Roy Delgado), so consideration of the driver with the horn should be made at the same time. I'd stay away from any horn profile that results in non-constant polars such as the Le Cléac'h profile. You really will prefer constant coverage horns, I believe. Certain conical horn profiles with preferred flare rates and flared mouths tend to have the least amount of "horn sound". Multicelluar horns, such as the Altec 811B, and sectoral horns suffer from diffraction problems and from "horn sound". I'd also see some of the topics discussed by Bill Woods, although his horns are a bit pricey. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arash Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I've tried tons of horns but at the end came up with this: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=260-090 I badly recommend it ... used it in Scala, Cornwall, Cornscala... all beyond audiophile use... will be usable in Klipschorn and belles and etc... good to my ear, cheap price and worths to try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 If one was going to have a set listening position and did not need wide dispersion, which horn images the best?I believe that there is a misconception that, if one sits in one spot to listen to your stereo or multichannel speakers, you don't need controlled-coverage horns. This is only true if your room is like an anechoic chamber and is completely damped wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor. Otherwise the off-axis energy from the speakers' horns and their reflections in-room will change the timbre of the sound that you are listening to. Non-controlled-coverage horns produce band-passed reflected energy off walls, ceiling, and floor of your listening room. These reflections are delayed relative to the direct path acoustic energy, which creates both timbre and stereo/multichannel imaging issues that are really not able to be EQed-out. Diffraction-slot-type constant-directivity horns will result in a frying pan sound that should really be avoided for hi-fi's. The original JBL and EV "Constant Coverage" horns were actually developed for PA use, not hi-fi use. I recommend the Klipsch K-510 (small horn) or the K-402 (large horn) if you are thinking about changing midrange horns. Bill Woods makes the AH-300 horn or the AH-500 horn, which are also very good, but more expensive. Upgrading the horns and drivers will have as much effect on your hi-fi experience as anything else that you could do (except maybe room acoustics) - especially expensive electronics like amplifiers, preamps, DACs, etc. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arash Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Chris you posed some interesting issues... got me think... maybe that's why I preferred Goldwood Horn (which is smaller than others Klipschophiles use) can you make your point of view a bit wider? or gimme some source to study this thanks buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 This is the most "intuitive" discussion that I've seen. More articles: http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~ps/Horn1.pdf http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~ps/Horn2.pdf http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Horn%20Theory%20reply.pdf http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storage/3/999868/A%20Theoretical_and_Experimental_Investigation_-_CD_Horns.pdf More articles are available upon request. Enjoy! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvrazvan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I will try my luck with an iwata profile. The "imaging" is amazing anyway. ) The stereo imaging....i don't know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I will try my luck with an iwata profile. The "imaging" is amazing anyway.By now, I hope that you see that horn imaging isn't really the driving issue in horn profile selection. It's more related to:1) Timbre shifts due to SPL polar control issues vs. frequency - with particular emphasis on both vertical and horizontal polar patterns that are bandpassed due to loss of polar control. (e.g., check the vertical polar pattern on the Iwata profile horn that you propose, not just the horizontal pattern), and 2) Freedom from "horn coloration", which itself is a function of impedance discontinuities/reflections within the horn due to internal diffraction slots, horn expansion (flare) rates that are too aggressive, and curved horn walls. Go listen to curved profile horn, such as Oris or Le Cléac'h profiles, then listen to a conical horn profile. You will hear a big difference. Also pay particular attention to the vertical polars of the horn: loss of vertical dimension polars puts unwanted bandpassed energy on your ceiling and floor that will need to be diffused or absorbed. This is related to the shorter dimension of the horn's mouth in the vertical direction relative to its horizontal direction. I think it's easier and better to use a horn that avoids that issue--YMMV. The Klipsch K402 horn controls its polars in both the vertical and horizontal directions down to the lower crossover frequency band. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Listen to as many horns as you can. Hell own as many horns as you can [] I've heard two big true multicell horns and they were very interesting. I'd like to spend more time with them as my initial impression was woah that is not what I expected. I'd like to hear one of the really really big rca multicells. Are they better than new state of the art horns... I don't know but there is only one way to find out.... Good luck.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BE36 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Tried 4 differt horns, all sounded different but as far as "imaging" crossovers had more of an impact than horns. (Assuming room has refections under control) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Regarding imaging, I'd suspect your room might be 50% or more of that conversation? Bingo! One simply cannot divorce the room and it's effect on reproduced sound from the discussion. The speakers and room have to work together for best results. Put any loudspeaker into a highly reflective room (think echo chamber) and the results will be sonic garbage. If you put any loudspeaker into an anechoic chamber and listen to music in that environment the music will not sound natural at all. Somewhere between these extremes is a good sounding room, and that room will be different depending on the loudspeaker used. One size does not fit all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arash Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I will try my luck with an iwata profile. The "imaging" is amazing anyway. ) The stereo imaging....i don't know... welcome to forum dude I think we had conversation about Scala in DIYaudio back then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Non-controlled-coverage horns produce band-passed reflected energy off walls, ceiling, and floor of your listening room. These reflections are delayed relative to the direct path acoustic energy, which creates both timbre and stereo/multichannel imaging issues that are really not able to be EQed-out. And if you use constant directivity horns in a room with frequency dependent reflective surfaces a similar condition occurs. The reflected sound does not sound like the direct sound thus changing the timbre of the sound. For best imaging, kill early reflections <6 ms or so but keep the room diffused toward the rear. You do not want excessive room modes or long reverberation times either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 [Y][Y] Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanedaK Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I use Electro-Voice SM120A on my LaScalas, with K55 drivers, beyma CP25 tweeters, and ALK universal networks. I didn't compare with anything else than the stock K400 horns but I have to say they sound like heaven and image very well in my set-up, even when listening almost "near field". They fill the room (combined with the wide directivity of the beyma tweeters) with a wide, enveloping image while still allowing for a very good placement of voices and instruments; the sweet spot is also much bigger than with the K400. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.