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

[mtemur]

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

Cube Audio is not a great speaker, but with the right amps it can sing. The O/96 isn’t very different in that regard. Both have strong character—I know because I’ve owned them both.

I don’t listen to them either, put them aside. Stenheim Alumine Five is far better than those and also more efficient which is surprising.

Last but not least: the higher the efficiency, the harder it becomes to keep a speaker’s tonal balance under control. Yes, it gets easier to drive, but the frequency response often tilts to one side, becomes harsh, or exaggerates its own character. At that point, the smallest details matter—wiring, parts quality, driver matching, everything.

Some people try to “fix” these issues by creating a new problem: using low-quality, old, or overly long cables. The bottlenecks such as resistance from those parts may mask the anomalies of high efficiency, but then you’re just left with the character of bad cables and poor parts instead. Of course a properly made and well balanced high efficiency speaker is great but is hard to achieve.

 

[mtemur]

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.

Ok, thanks for the response and explanation.

 

[Kozak170]

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.

You can check this source yourself. It shows that this is not just an “internet rumor,” but a documented and measurable physical effect.

https://share.google/8PXlRkZY3pk5Bpf1I

 

[bonzo75]

Cube Audio is not a great speaker, but with the right amps it can sing. The O/96 isn’t very different in that regard. Both have strong character—I know because I’ve owned them both.

I don’t listen to them either, put them aside. Stenheim Alumine Five is far better than those and also more efficient which is surprising.

Last but not least: the higher the efficiency, the harder it becomes to keep a speaker’s tonal balance under control. Yes, it gets easier to drive, but the frequency response often tilts to one side, becomes harsh, or exaggerates its own character. At that point, the smallest details matter—wiring, parts quality, driver matching, everything.

Some people try to “fix” these issues by creating a new problem: using low-quality, old, or overly long cables. The bottlenecks, resistance from those parts may mask the anomalies of high efficiency, but then you’re just left with the character of bad cables and poor parts instead.

I was referring to Cube Audio vs Pnoe becuase you mentioned full range driver. The enclsoure also matters for full range driver.

As for Stenheim, I was possibly the first on the forum back in 2016 or so to say it is a good speaker, and since then have heard it more and also two Ultime 2s, all with different amplifiers.

I think the issue your are mentioning of frequency response tilting to one side, harshness, etc are all either poor speakers or not propely driven. And yes, there are extremely few efficient speakers that are good and properly driven. That said, I would always find the a low watt DHT if possible, which is going to be very rare, and that is why something like GM70 seems to be a good cross between low watt tubes and higher watt 211s.

The lower watt tube have less voltage requirements, hence less parts, hence simpler circuits, less iron requirements than for bigger tubes, and you will get a purer signal for less money. Implementing it will be very difficult as more speakers won't qualify, and therefore higher watts would be required.

 

[Kozak170]

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.

David and Romy have always spoken very highly of the Lamm ML2.1, and they regard it as something of an “end-game” tube amplifier. I completely respect that, and it’s clear why there is such appreciation for this design. Vladimir Lamm is a great and highly skilled designer.

Personally, I would really like to hear the ML2.1 paired with modern high efficiency horns like AGs. I think it would be fascinating to experience its qualities in that context. My point isn’t to question anyone’s choices, but simply my own curiosity about how different SET designs interact with horns.

 

[PeterA]

Regarding high or low powered SET amplifiers on sensitive speakers with easy loads, Ralph has posted that you really want to use 10% of the available power or less to keep distortion down. I figure I use one or 2 W maximum in my small room when I played loudly. That is within the 10% available power used. I appreciate that different amplifiers will sound different and people will have their preferences on these types of speakers. I like the fact that easy to drive speakers opens up amplifier choice. In my case, I chose the amplifier first and then bought the speakers that they could drive. Others choose speaker first then amplifier.

I also appreciate that others here have a keen interest in trying many alternatives and that is part of the fun. I suppose I could be criticized for lacking curiosity.

 

[PeterA]

David and Romy have always spoken very highly of the Lamm ML2.1, and they regard it as something of an “end-game” tube amplifier. I completely respect that, and it’s clear why there is such appreciation for this design. Vladimir Lamm is a great and highly skilled designer.

Personally, I would really like to hear the ML2.1 paired with modern high efficiency horns like AGs. I think it would be fascinating to experience its qualities in that context. My point isn’t to question anyone’s choices, but simply my own curiosity about how different SET designs interact with horns.

I respect that. If you ever get a chance, you should try to compare my original ML2 and Tim’s ML2.2 to the ML2.1. Apparently they all sound a little bit different.

 

[bonzo75]

In my case, I chose the amplifier first and then bought the speakers that they could drive. Others choose speaker first then amplifier.

Choosing an amp implies comparing it to different amps that was only done with pass.

Also, choosing an amp vs choosing a type of amp are two very different things. I would never choose an amp, only a type of amp, e..g SET, OTL, SS are types and within them you will have subtypes.

 

[Kozak170]

I respect that. If you ever get a chance, you should try to compare my original ML2 and Tim’s ML2.2 to the ML2.1. Apparently they all sound a little bit different.

That’s true, and in fact Romy commented on these differences as well. Romy loved both the original ML2 and later the ML2.1. He often wrote that the original ML2 was “magical” on very high-efficiency horns like his Macondo system. When the ML2.1 came out, he replaced the original and used it for years, praising its lower noise and more refined sound. Regarding the ML2.2, he acknowledged it as an excellent amplifier but felt it lacked some of the “spirit” of the original ML2.

 

[Salectric]

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 haven’t heard the Mayer 46 but I have much experience with the 46 in my own designs. The 46 sounds better than any of the many 300B circuits I tried. With my speakers, the 46 doesn’t have quite enough power. After building PP amps based on the WE 124, I have had no desire to return to any SE amps, but if I did I would use the 46.

 

[Kozak170]

It can, depends on the speaker. If you need the 18watts, it is a different speaker.

Do you think the upper models of Cessaro and also hORNS Universum actually require 18W or more?

 

[bonzo75]

Do you think the upper models of Cessaro and also hORNS Universum actually require 18W or more?

Yes most horns do. For a larger usage, Lamm, KR audio, Kondo Kagura, etc are definitely more suitable

 

[PeterA]

Choosing an amp implies comparing it to different amps that was only done with pass.

Also, choosing an amp vs choosing a type of amp are two very different things. I would never choose an amp, only a type of amp, e..g SET, OTL, SS are types and within them you will have subtypes.

Yes, I chose an amp, not the type of amp. I compared the ML2 in my own system to the Lamm M1.1, the pass XA 160.5 and the Pass Aleph3. Admittedly, all with the Magico Q3 and not extensively. This is all documented on my system threads. Even though the SET could not drive the Q3, I heard the same magic that I heard in Utah with this amplifier on three different speakers, two horns, and one cone speaker.

You are correct, I have limited experience and for me the hobby is more about setting up a system and enjoying my music than it is about exploring and listening to and comparing and testing lots of different audio components.

 

[microstrip]

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.

It was the price if sold in Europe, that adds 23% VAT to the price I paid to Mike. Unfortunately for me I only managed to sell the Lamm's for much less than what I paid, although I got nice deals on them when buying.

Anyway this means that you could get the ML2 at bargain prices ...
Congratulations - it seems you are now suffering from collector symptoms!

 

[microstrip]

You can check this source yourself.

An excellent 44 page theoretical paper on thermal effects in voice coils.
Not a single figure or measurement of high-end speakers.

It shows that this is not just an “internet rumor,” but a documented and measurable physical effect.

https://share.google/8PXlRkZY3pk5Bpf1I

Again , not relevant to our particular discussion. You are just trolling.

 

[Kozak170]

An excellent 44 page theoretical paper on thermal effects in voice coils.
Not a single figure or measurement of high-end speakers.



Again , not relevant to our particular discussion. You are just trolling.

If the papers aren’t convincing, the best proof is listening. I never noticed it with my Wilsons, but once I heard AG horns it became obvious: low-efficiency boxes start to sound flatter and less lively as the voice coil heats up, while the AGs kept their openness and real-world dynamics. That’s exactly what the physics predicts, not an “internet myth,” but both a documented effect and a repeatable listening experience. Of course, it all comes down to priorities: if live dynamics and a sense of realism don’t matter to you, and you’d rather prioritize precise imaging, layering, delineation, and micro-details, then thermal compression may not be of much concern in your case.

 

[AudioHR]

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

Generally I agree with you. Audible differences should be able to be measured.

However I would add the idea of ""measured yet". So I would allow that there is the possibility that the test for an audible physical difference has not been developed or properly interpreted at this point.

 

[PeterA]

It was the price if sold in Europe, that adds 23% VAT to the price I paid to Mike. Unfortunately for me I only managed to sell the Lamm's for much less than what I paid, although I got nice deals on them when buying.

Anyway this means that you could get the ML2 at bargain prices ...
Congratulations - it seems you are now suffering from collector symptoms!

No idea what you’re talking about. Whatever discount you want to say, I could not buy an ML3 for the same price I paid for my two pair of ML2 as you claimed. I looked at ML3 prices and you don’t know what I paid. Even if I could, I’m not convinced it would sound better. It would sound different, but certainly adds complication and extra boxes.

 

[microstrip]

If the papers aren’t convincing, the best proof is listening. I never noticed it with my Wilsons, but once I heard AG horns it became obvious: low-efficiency boxes start to sound flatter and less lively as the voice coil heats up, while the AGs kept their openness and real-world dynamics.

Again, nice to know about your subjective opinion. Surely I will not discuss subjective preferences. But they are interesting information to understand others biases.

That’s exactly what the physics predicts, not an “internet myth,” but both a documented effect and a repeatable listening experience.

You remember me of the joke of the scientist and frog.

Of course, it all comes down to priorities: if live dynamics and a sense of realism don’t matter to you, and you’d rather prioritize precise imaging, layering, delineation, and micro-details, then thermal compression may not be of much concern in your case.

Yews, live dynamics and sense of realism at 115 dB are not my priority. But I enjoyed listening to the Trio G3 at such levels during a few minutes. It is like going out after leaving our ophthalmologist when he uses eye drops to dilate the pupils of our eyes - light and details become intoxicating.

 

[Atmasphere]

That is my point. Later JBLs need power. My speakers are more sensitive than yours and they are older. They don’t need 18 watts but I want them limping along as you say. It seems newer horns need more power.

The Everest doesn't need that much power. A low powered tube amp like our 5 Watt Gen can drive it properly since the Gem is capable of acting as a Voltage source (within limits of course, but within those described by the Everest). I think most would agree that 5 Watt isn't a very powerful amp.

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.

'Modern' means anything after about 1980 when the Voltage rules finally dominated amplifier and loudspeaker design. The Everest has a dual woofer array which is essentially 4 Ohms while the rest of its impedance curve occurs due to 8 Ohm drivers. So what is happening is the designer expects the amp to make 2 Watts into the 4 Ohm load if 1 Watt into the 8 Ohm portions. So it is designed to be driven by a Voltage source.

I read your comments about SETs and bass.

Its all a matter of scale. Its well known with designers that bass is the Achilles heel of SETs, (sorry to repeat myself) since building a gapped output transformer (the gap being there to prevent the transformer saturating with the power tube's DC current put through it) that also has high inductance at bass frequencies requires an outsized large transformer to accomplish the feat. For example, to make 7 Watts at 20Hz the transformer would be nearly the size of one of those small hotel room refrigerators. Obviously such a transformer would have no high frequency bandwidth.

It is for this reason that most SETs ever made can't make full power at 20Hz. At frequencies well above that its still a problem and because the inductance is so much lower, the load line (which is an engineering concept that defines the distortion and operating point of the tube) becomes elliptical, thus causing quite a lot of distortion. The best solution if you want the most out of the amp is to simply prevent bass getting into it in the first place. The increase in clarity (due to the reduction of distortion) is usually quite audible.

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?

It might be the issue of bandwidth; with no feedback, phase shift cannot be corrected. To prevent phase shift in a zero feedback design, you need bandwidth. Additionally, DHTs tend to be more linear than the 6C33 so you might get less distortion too. I've often marveled at SET designs based on the 6C33 since that tube needs a lot of current to bias it to class A and that DC current has to flow through the primary winding of the output transformer (unless its a parafeed design, which I'm pretty sure the Lamm is not). That means the OPT has to be gapped and quite sizable. To also get HF bandwidth the transformer designer has quite a challenge!

It is bandwidth that is likely the reason that lower powered SETs are traditionally regarded as better sounding than higher powered ones.