What is more accurate horns or cones

[mdross1]

Thinking about mid range wondering what is more accurate horns or cones particularly in vocals or is it personal preference.

Gearing up to build sub base horns thinking ahead a little to the mid-range and try to be setup to build cabinets for whichever way I go.

Considering horns does the size of the driver make a big difference in sound example 1" or 2"?

[jcmusic]

I would say horns are more accurate and yes driver size will make quite a difference!!!

[JJkizak]

I have never heard them but I would like to have three of those big a-- horns on the Jubilees if I win the lottery.

JJK

[moray james]

I have never heard them but I would like to have three of those big a-- horns on the Jubilees if I win the lottery.

JJK

If you own a set of Klipsch then you hear this every time you listen to them. You can read about it below. Best regards Moray James.

http://www.elpee.info/Documenten/KlipschVervorming.pdf

[Don Richard]

Horns rule when considering efficiency, low audible distortion, output , pattern control, reproduction of dynamic passages, etc. The downside is large physical size and cost.

As far as vocal quality, most speech only PA systems use horns nearly exclusively.

2 inch throat horn drivers have lower distortion, and may have a lower cutoff frequency than a 1 inch driver but the polar pattern narrows above 9 kHz or so. 1 inch drivers have a more consistent high frequency dispersion pattern. For the sound pressure levels used in the home, 1 inch may be sufficient, particularly if crossed around 1 kHz or higher.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Don Richard

[Chris A]

Considering horns does the size of the driver make a big difference in sound example 1" or 2"?

See section 6 0 of this article that discusses the relative harmonic distortion levels of 1" vs. 2" compression drivers: https://www.jblpro.com/pub/technote/tn_v1n08.pdf

[derrickdj1]

What speaker are you talking about in particular. A great sound can be done with horns or cones. Depends on the setup.

[CECAA850]

horns or cones

A cone is a horn. Are you asking about the difference between rectangular and round horns?

[Chris A]

On 7/4/2014 at 5:28 AM, mdross1 said:

Thinking about mid range wondering what is more accurate horns or cones particularly in vocals or is it personal preference.

Gearing up to build sub bass horns- thinking ahead a little to the mid-range and try to be setup to build cabinets for whichever way I go.

"Accurate" means different things to different people unfortunately. If your definition is "sounds most like the real thing", then I believe that the answer to your question will inevitably drift toward "horn-loaded", instead of "cone" (direct radiators). The reason for this is the relative absence of modulation distortion with the horn-loaded system. This means that you can play your music back even at concert levels without it sounding loud or compressed, unlike direct-radiator loudspeakers.

 

Your comment about horn-loaded subwoofer that you are building is actually the most difficult part of going horn-loaded, based on size and complexity. Horn-loaded subs exhibit much lower modulation distortion and compression distortion than direct radiating subs, and you can hear this difference clearly. Mr. Klipsch (PWK) used to say: "Anything that moves--distorts."

 

The use of horn-loaded drivers dramatically reduces the amount of motion that the driver is required to move in order to reproduce sound at the same sound pressure level (SPL) as that driver being used as a direct radiator. Horns require much less driving amplifier power due to this dramatic increase in driver acoustic efficiency, so you will be able to use much smaller amplifiers to accomplish very high SPL, while avoiding high modulation distortion levels that you have with direct radiators.

 

Chris

[Turbox]

I'd never go back to antyhing other than horns.

[eth2]

Thinking about mid range wondering what is more accurate horns or cones particularly in vocals or is it personal preference.

Gearing up to build sub bass horns- thinking ahead a little to the mid-range and try to be setup to build cabinets for whichever way I go.

"Accurate" means different things to different people unfortunately. If your definition is "sounds most like the real thing", then I believe that the answer to your question will inevitably drift toward "horn-loaded", instead of "cone" (direct radiators). The reason for this is the relative absence of modulation distortion with the horn-loaded system. This means that you can play your music back even at concert levels without it sounding loud or compressed, unlike direct-radiator loudspeakers.

Your comment about horn-loaded subwoofer that you are building is actually the most difficult part of going horn-loaded, based on size and complexity. Horn-loaded subs exhibit much lower modulation distortion and compression distortion than direct radiating subs, and you can hear this difference clearly. Mr. Klipsch (PWK) used to say: "Anything that moves--distorts."

The use of horn-loaded drivers dramatically reduces the amount of motion that the driver is required to move in order to reproduce sound at the same sound power level (SPL) as that driver being used as a direct radiator. Horns require much less driving amplifier power due to this dramatic increase in driver acoustic efficiency, so you will be able to use much smaller amplifiers to accomplish very high SPL, while avoiding high modulation distortion levels that you have with direct radiators.

Chris

Chris I always love your responses. They are specific without adding too much technical complexity to lose the non-engineers in the group.

Thanks.

[ClaudeJ1]

Horns rule when considering efficiency, low audible distortion, output , pattern control, reproduction of dynamic passages, etc. The downside is large physical size and cost.

As far as vocal quality, most speech only PA systems use horns nearly exclusively.

2 inch throat horn drivers have lower distortion, and may have a lower cutoff frequency than a 1 inch driver but the polar pattern narrows above 9 kHz or so. 1 inch drivers have a more consistent high frequency dispersion pattern. For the sound pressure levels used in the home, 1 inch may be sufficient, particularly if crossed around I kHz or higher.

Great summary. Also wanted to point out that if you read Part II of PWK's papers, the direct radiator in fig. 3 and beyond he refers to is the Bose 901, which he told me he improved the gross distortion it produces normally, by turning it backwards into a corner and reducing the EQ at low frequencies, thereby reducing the cone motion.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[Chris A]

Chris I always love your responses. They are specific without adding too much technical complexity to lose the non-engineers in the group...Thanks.

Thanks! In my experience most readers find that trait to be invisible when reading.

That writing style is probably not an accident. Readers usually respond better, giving you higher marks on your proposal than when using techno-geek writing styles

Edited July 4, 2014 by Chris A

[ClaudeJ1]

When they are big enough and done right, nothing touches the realism of horns.

[garyrc]

Thinking about mid range wondering what is more accurate horns or cones particularly in vocals or is it personal preference.

Gearing up to build sub base horns thinking ahead a little to the mid-range and try to be setup to build cabinets for whichever way I go.

Considering horns does the size of the driver make a big difference in sound example 1" or 2"?

IMO, good horns are more accurate than good cones. The problem is that they tend to be less forgiving of poor &/or harsh recordings than cones. Cones tend to sound more veiled, and the instruments sound less "there" when using cones. I play good recordings, and love horns. When I happen to get a bad recording, I play with the EQ to see if I can make it less offensive, and if not, put it on the shelf and ignore it. A few times, but only a few, I've found that a recording that was unplayable would be O.K. after upgrading players, preamps of amps.

[pzannucci]

What speaker are you talking about in particular. A great sound can be done with horns or cones. Depends on the setup.

A most accurate statement.

Just talk about k-horns for one, why does half this forum have a different horn for the mids?

[cradeldorf]

What speaker are you talking about in particular. A great sound can be done with horns or cones. Depends on the setup.

A most accurate statement.

Just talk about k-horns for one, why does half this forum have a different horn for the mids?

Because that's how they came from the factory... Or did you mean why have most here swapped out their Mid range horns on their K horns?

Edited July 5, 2014 by cradeldorf

[pzannucci]

What speaker are you talking about in particular. A great sound can be done with horns or cones. Depends on the setup.

A most accurate statement.

Just talk about k-horns for one, why does half this forum have a different horn for the mids?

Because that's how they came from the factory... Or did you mean why have most here swapped out their Mid range horns on their K horns?

The latter. I'm not sure who would have changed the horn just because they wanted to modify the dispersion. K400s did the job but... It all depends on the implementation.

[Chris A]

What speaker are you talking about in particular. A great sound can be done with horns or cones. Depends on the setup.

...Just talk about k-horns for one, why does half this forum have a different horn for the mids?

Even I will agree that when done badly, either horn-loaded or direct radiators can sound poor. With horn-loaded, more things can be done badly, it seems.

Having had a little time to discuss the topic of acoustic horn design and implementation with Roy Delgado (Klipsch co-inventor of the Jubilee bass bin and the sole inventor of the K-510 and K-402 horns), I've subsequently seen a great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation on the subject.

Note that the K-400/401 horn used on the Khorn and La Scala is one of those areas where today, we can do better than the 1961 state of the art (SOTA). Many folks can and do change them out with other midrange/tweeter horn designs. But I've seen issues with the horns that people use to replace them - notably in replacement horn "constant coverage" issues and lack of adequate coverage angles. I'd recommend using the K-402 horn first as a replacement horn, then, if visual aesthetics interfere with that alternative (and it's really odd to me that people choose visual aesthetics over acoustic performance when choosing loudspeakers), I'd recommend the K-510 horn for the La Scala, i.e., a JubScala configuration, by a wide margin over any alternative horn designs. The reasons are many, not the least of which what my ears tell me.

Having said all of the above, nothing here changes the basic physics of horn-loaded vs. direct radiators in terms modulation distortion differences, which is non-harmonic distortion of the most objectionable type - much worse than any real-world aliasing filter issues on digital sampling that people like to talk about with CD players and disc formats. Apples for apples, I think that horn-loaded loudspeakers have real inherent sonic advantages over direct radiator designs of any type. YMMV.

Chris

Edited July 5, 2014 by Chris A

[John Warren]

The use of horn-loaded drivers dramatically reduces the amount of motion that the driver is required to move in order to reproduce sound at the same sound power level (SPL) as that driver being used as a direct radiator.

Chris

And this comes for free? No downsides?