What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???

[AudioHR]

Well, well, well, look at this thread crawling back from the forum crypt like a dusty 100 Year old Cinema Horn, yearning for its moment in the spotlight! All the relentless tone-chasers, still wants to know: What’s the best horn loudspeaker in the world? As if there’s a single answer that won’t spark an audiophile cage match!
I'm still thinking about, how to give the correct answer. Will be back soon.
Best Regards Swen.

And include the appropriate amplifier choice (s)! lol!

 

[tima]

Modern horns, if designed by a larger company like JBL, will be designed for amps that can behave as a Voltage source so despite their efficiency they, may not be suitable for SETs. The JBL Everest is an example.

Pls say what counts for you as 'modern'. JBL Everest goes back to the mid-80s. That's modern relative to Peter's VitaVox.

The Everest DD55000 has a nominal impedance of 8 ohms and an overall sensitivity of 100db across three drivers. A very low wattage SET, say 2 watts, may not be appropriate but otherwise one should work fine with a quality SET with a bit more power. K2 - a follow-on project to the Everest - goes back to late '80s. The K2 M9500 is a bit easier to drive than the S9500.

If modern means something like the JBL DD66000 or DD67000, then yes, likely a voltage source is more appropriate.

I read your comments about SETs and bass. Canna speak to all SETs but my ears belie the generalization with my own system. Not meaning to stir but there are exceptions.

 

[Kozak170]

Please provide links to these tests, we can comment on them. All I know about were carried with pink noise or similar, not with music signals - the standard tests.



Horns sound different from box speakers, known since long. There are many known and accepted reasons why. The same way some people now say that a few horn speakers don't sound like "horns". Please note that I really like some horn speakers - I addressed it since long in WBF. But I can't understand why some horn lovers need the support of false myths to feed their love. This is an hobby of preference. I we want to support preference on science we must do it correctly with facts, not with fantasy.



No, it just shows that this effect does not kill dynamics as you say. Great mastering engineers of the past used this effect to enhance recordings.

Several independent studies and tests have shown that even at domestic levels, the voice coil can heat up and cause a measurable output loss (typically 1–2 dB). This effect has been documented consistently, starting with Henricksen (1987) and confirmed by multiple AES and academic works through the 2000s. Some studies (e.g., Howard 2006) explicitly demonstrate it at home listening SPLs (~80–90 dB). I’ll provide links when I have the time. But the main point still stands: it doesn’t matter whether the test is done with pink noise or with music signals, the coil still heats up, resistance rises, and dynamics compress. The only difference the stimulus makes is in how fast or how much it happens, not in whether the effect exists.

Nobody is saying horns only sound different because of thermal compression. Of course there are many reasons, and they have been known for decades. But thermal compression is not a “false myth” or “fantasy.” It is a measurable physical effect. The point is that in low-efficiency boxes it can already show up at domestic levels, and that contributes to why horns often feel more lively and uncompressed. Preference is fine, but let’s not pretend the physics does not exist.

That’s a different context. Mastering engineers may have creatively used cutter head limits as part of their art, but that doesn’t mean the physics of voice coil heating in loudspeakers is irrelevant. One is a production choice, the other is a playback limitation. The fact remains: when the coil heats, resistance rises and dynamics are compressed. Whether you want to call it “killing” or just “reducing,” the effect is still there.

 

[Kozak170]

I am using an 18 watt SET into my 105 dB/16 ohm corner horns, so there is that. I am not using a 2-3 watt SET. My point is that we see vintage horns with lower watt SETs and modern horns often with more powerful tube or SS amps. They seem to be much more difficult loads.

As far as I know, the lowest-power models in Lamm’s lineup are the ML2 / ML2.1 / ML2.2, which deliver about 18 watts into 8 ohms. You haven’t tried a SET amp based on a 2A3 or 300B on your horns, have you? With that kind of efficiency, it seems they could easily be driven with as little as 3.5 to 10 watts without the amp ever breaking a sweat. In that case, why not take advantage of the magic of low-power SET designs?

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

Several independent studies and tests have shown that even at domestic levels, the voice coil can heat up and cause a measurable output loss (typically 1–2 dB). This effect has been documented consistently, starting with Henricksen (1987) and confirmed by multiple AES and academic works through the 2000s. Some studies (e.g., Howard 2006) explicitly demonstrate it at home listening SPLs (~80–90 dB). I’ll provide links when I have the time. But the main point still stands: it doesn’t matter whether the test is done with pink noise or with music signals, the coil still heats up, resistance rises, and dynamics compress. The only difference the stimulus makes is in how fast or how much it happens, not in whether the effect exists.

Nobody is saying horns only sound different because of thermal compression. Of course there are many reasons, and they have been known for decades. But thermal compression is not a “false myth” or “fantasy.” It is a measurable physical effect. The point is that in low-efficiency boxes it can already show up at domestic levels, and that contributes to why horns often feel more lively and uncompressed. Preference is fine, but let’s not pretend the physics does not exist.

That’s a different context. Mastering engineers may have creatively used cutter head limits as part of their art, but that doesn’t mean the physics of voice coil heating in loudspeakers is irrelevant. One is a production choice, the other is a playback limitation. The fact remains: when the coil heats, resistance rises and dynamics are compressed. Whether you want to call it “killing” or just “reducing,” the effect is still there.

Everything we perceive acoustically has a physical cause. If there’s no measurable physical difference, that difference simply doesn’t exist. We can measure things like temperature, speed, airflow, vibration, distortion, sound pressure level (dB), efficiency, phase, group delay, directivity (horizontal and vertical dispersion), room influences, echo, reverberation time (RT60), resistance, noise, or hum, among others. If someone believes they can hear something that cannot be measured, they’re free to think so. However, I personally don’t take such claims too seriously, as they lack a measurable basis.

Best Regards S

 

[tima]

As far as I know, the lowest-power models in Lamm’s lineup are the ML2 / ML2.1 / ML2.2, which deliver about 18 watts into 8 ohms. You haven’t tried a SET amp based on a 2A3 or 300B on your horns, have you? With that kind of efficiency, it seems they could easily be driven with as little as 3.5 to 10 watts without the amp ever breaking a sweat. In that case, why not take advantage of the magic of low-power SET designs?

The ML2 series deliver 18 Watts into 4, 8 or 16 ohms. Have you heard any one of them?

 

[Kozak170]

Everything we perceive acoustically has a physical cause. If there’s no measurable physical difference, that difference simply doesn’t exist. We can measure things like temperature, speed, airflow, vibration, distortion, sound pressure level (dB), efficiency, phase, group delay, directivity (horizontal and vertical dispersion), room influences, echo, reverberation time (RT60), resistance, noise, or hum, among others. If someone believes they can hear something that cannot be measured, they’re free to think so. However, I personally don’t take such claims too seriously, as they lack a measurable basis.

Best Regards S

I fully agree that everything we hear must have a physical cause. That’s exactly my point: thermal compression is a measurable physical effect. Voice coil heating, resistance rise, and the resulting output loss have been documented in AES papers and tests since the 1980s. We’re not talking about some unmeasurable “audiophile imagination,” but about a well-established physical phenomenon.

 

[Kozak170]

The ML2 series deliver 18 Watts into 4, 8 or 16 ohms. Have you heard any one of them?

I once heard Lamm’s 110W hybrid model, but I’ve never heard any of their SET amps.

 

[PeterA]

As far as I know, the lowest-power models in Lamm’s lineup are the ML2 / ML2.1 / ML2.2, which deliver about 18 watts into 8 ohms. You haven’t tried a SET amp based on a 2A3 or 300B on your horns, have you? With that kind of efficiency, it seems they could easily be driven with as little as 3.5 to 10 watts without the amp ever breaking a sweat. In that case, why not take advantage of the magic of low-power SET designs?

My ML2 is my first pair of SET amplifiers. I have two pairs. I love the sound and have no itch to experiment further. Thank you for the suggestion though.

 

[microstrip]

Several independent studies and tests have shown that even at domestic levels, the voice coil can heat up and cause a measurable output loss (typically 1–2 dB). This effect has been documented consistently, starting with Henricksen (1987) and confirmed by multiple AES and academic works through the 2000s. Some studies (e.g., Howard 2006) explicitly demonstrate it at home listening SPLs (~80–90 dB). I’ll provide links when I have the time. But the main point still stands: it doesn’t matter whether the test is done with pink noise or with music signals, the coil still heats up, resistance rises, and dynamics compress. The only difference the stimulus makes is in how fast or how much it happens, not in whether the effect exists.

Some reports show that SOME domestic speakers have poor performance in this aspect. The fact that SOME have this problem does not prove anything for the whole class - the same way that the fact that more than 99% of horn speakers have a performance that is not acceptable for some WBF horn aficionados does not not prove anything.

You are simply addressing some implementation properties , not a characteristic of box speakers. If you have proofs measured according to modern measuring methods relying of proper signals, please show them. I will not loose my time with internet rumors. I do not listen at 110 dB.

Nobody is saying horns only sound different because of thermal compression. Of course there are many reasons, and they have been known for decades. But thermal compression is not a “false myth” or “fantasy.” It is a measurable physical effect. The point is that in low-efficiency boxes it can already show up at domestic levels, and that contributes to why horns often feel more lively and uncompressed. Preference is fine, but let’s not pretend the physics does not exist.

The point is you are believer that saying an hundred times an hypothetical "can show" impresses people. Not me and wise audiophiles, surely.

That’s a different context. Mastering engineers may have creatively used cutter head limits as part of their art, but that doesn’t mean the physics of voice coil heating in loudspeakers is irrelevant. One is a production choice, the other is a playback limitation. The fact remains: when the coil heats, resistance rises and dynamics are compressed. Whether you want to call it “killing” or just “reducing,” the effect is still there.

Yes, the earth turns around its axis ...

 

[microstrip]

My ML2 is my first pair of SET amplifiers. I have two pairs. (...)

You could have bough an ML3 for the price of two ML2. Didn't you consider it?

 

[PeterA]

You could have bough an ML3 for the price of two ML2. Didn't you consider it?

Not true. The ML3 that you were selling cost more than twice what I paid for my two pairs together according to your WBF ad. I considered the ML3 for a while. I like having a second pair of ML2 for a future subwoofer project or as a spare backup.

 

[Kozak170]

AG uses active bass. If it is too loud simply turn it down. If it is too quiet, turn it up. A big advantage if AG is the bass can be tailored to your liking.

Hello Todd, did you get a chance to hear AG’s new Twin Sub with Trio and compare it to the SpaceHorn?

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

I fully agree that everything we hear must have a physical cause. That’s exactly my point: thermal compression is a measurable physical effect. Voice coil heating, resistance rise, and the resulting output loss have been documented in AES papers and tests since the 1980s. We’re not talking about some unmeasurable “audiophile imagination,” but about a well-established physical phenomenon.

That is absolutely correct, and moreover, about twelve years ago we conducted laboratory measurements on precisely this topic. Our goal was to document that, in a field-coil driver, the internal temperature gradually increases during operation – starting at around 18 °C and rising to well above 50 °C – and to examine how this affects the sound.


A key aspect was, of course, the rise in temperature of the voice coil and, even more importantly, that of the surround. Even the most skeptical observer must ultimately acknowledge that the frequency response changes when the surround becomes softer due to higher temperatures.

We had to demonstrate measurable differences in order to substantiate our reasoning for not building a field-coil driver. I would prefer not to elaborate further, as it would otherwise lead to yet another round of overly esoteric debates.

Best Regards S

 

[mtemur]

By the way, I have a question for you. You said that measurements like impulse/step response ultimately show whether a speaker is phase-coherent or not. Now, from these graphs of three different high-end speakers, can you guess which one is truly phase-coherent?
View attachment 157672
View attachment 157673
View attachment 157674

You’re in no position to test my knowledge—especially when you can’t even read a phase/impedance-frequency graph properly, yet make bold statements about phase based on it.

For the record, I know exactly what those impulse response graphs mean. If you’d like to learn, feel free to send me a PM.

That said, a high-powered SET amp is generally more desirable than a low-powered one, particularly with full-range horn speakers. But far more important is the build and design quality. @tima already raised the right question about your comment on @PeterA ’s Lamm SET amps, but I’d also like to know: what makes you think other low-powered SETs would be superior to the 18-watt Lamm ML2.1? That’s especially puzzling given that you haven’t even heard the ML2.1 yourself.

 

[bonzo75]

That said, a high-powered SET amp is generally more desirable than a low-powered one, particularly with full-range horn speakers.

I disagree with this, unless the drivers require more power to move. Thomas Mayer has a good write up on this in the Power section of this blog. https://vinylsavor.blogspot.com/2011/01/gain-headroom-and-power.html

Also, it is less expensive to make a higher parts quality lower watt amp than a higher watt amp, and the circuit is simpler. All that is explained in the above article well.

The Mayer 46 is easily the best amp I have heard, and that is on a full range horn speaker.

 

[PeterA]

As far as I know, the lowest-power models in Lamm’s lineup are the ML2 / ML2.1 / ML2.2, which deliver about 18 watts into 8 ohms. You haven’t tried a SET amp based on a 2A3 or 300B on your horns, have you? With that kind of efficiency, it seems they could easily be driven with as little as 3.5 to 10 watts without the amp ever breaking a sweat. In that case, why not take advantage of the magic of low-power SET designs?

First, I hear magic with the Lamm ML2 on my speakers. It is an interesting question, but it seems you have not heard the ML2 or my horn speakers. I understand that some people like to keep experimenting and trying new things. Second, I am quite happy with my system as it is, and I have no plans to try anything different at this time. Thank you for the suggestions.

 

[mtemur]

I disagree with this, unless the drivers require more power to move. Thomas Mayer has a good write up on this in the Power section of this blog. https://vinylsavor.blogspot.com/2011/01/gain-headroom-and-power.html

Also, it is less expensive to make a higher parts quality lower watt amp than a higher watt amp, and the circuit is simpler. All that is explained in the above article well.

The Mayer 46 is easily the best amp I have heard, and that is on a full range horn speaker.

I totally disagree because even if you have the most efficient speaker to drive it’s always good to have some power in reserve.

More importantly and aside from the quality of the parts a 2 watt amp working almost at full power cannot deliver the relaxed, impactful sound that 18watt amp can do. Additionally a 2 watt amp doesn’t have the headroom that 18 watt amp has. I’m talking in general and I don’t aim specifically Mayer 46.

BTW I like the sound of 45 tube as well as VT52 and prefer 2A3 over 300B any day but I know the limitations.

 

[bonzo75]

I totally disagree because even if you have the most efficient speaker to drive it’s always good to have some power in reserve.

More importantly and aside from the quality of the parts a 2 watt amp working almost at full power cannot deliver the relaxed, impactful sound that 18watt amp can do. Additionally a 2 watt amp doesn’t have the headroom that 18 watt amp has. I’m talking in general and I don’t aim specifically Mayer 46.

BTW I like the sound of 45 tube as well as VT52 and prefer 2A3 over 300B any day but I know the limitations.

It can, depends on the speaker. If you need the 18watts, it is a different speaker. If you do 18w Mayer or anything else vs the 46 on that Pnoe, you will lose nuance, speed. It depends on the speaker of course.

Same while compaaring with Devore and Cessaro Wagner in same room, it was quite clear the Wagner needed higher reserve, would compress on lower reserve, while putting the same amps on the O96, the lower watt amp was quite superior to the higher watt amp without any compression (at that time it s Airtight 300b vs Airtight El34)

Or comparing Devore to Lansche in same room with variety of amps, a similar case was true.

if your speaker is showing more headroom with the 18w than the 2w, that is true for that speaker, not for others. Cube audio is quite poor quality compared to Pnoe AER BD4/5

 

[Kozak170]

You’re in no position to test my knowledge—especially when you can’t even read a phase/impedance-frequency graph properly, yet make bold statements about phase based on it.

For the record, I know exactly what those impulse response graphs mean. If you’d like to learn, feel free to send me a PM.

That said, a high-powered SET amp is generally more desirable than a low-powered one, particularly with full-range horn speakers. But far more important is the build and design quality. @tima already raised the right question about your comment on @PeterA ’s Lamm SET amps, but I’d also like to know: what makes you think other low-powered SETs would be superior to the 18-watt Lamm ML2.1? That’s especially puzzling given that you haven’t even heard the ML2.1 yourself.

I wasn’t trying to “test” you, only to illustrate a point. As you said earlier, impulse and step response are the real way to judge phase coherence, not just looking at horn geometry or coil alignment. That was exactly why I posted those graphs: to show that even well-regarded high-end speakers don’t exhibit ideal phase coherence, even with impulse and step response testing. That was my only point, nothing more.

I wasn’t trying to suggest that a 2A3 or 300B SET is inherently “better” than a Lamm ML2.1, since I haven’t heard the ML2.1 myself. My point was more general: with 105 dB/16 Ω horns, even very low-power SETs can provide plenty of drive, and sometimes listeners actually prefer what those amps bring to the table.

I’ve personally heard AG Duo driven by VAC 200iQ, 211 and 300B SET amps, and in that session I found 300b monos more appealing. They offered a nuance, intimacy, and naturalness in tone that felt more engaging to me, even compared to higher-power designs. Of course, others may value the extra headroom or tighter bass of an 18W SET like the Lamm. Ultimately, it’s a matter of synergy and personal preference, not absolutes.