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

[microstrip]

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

The key issue in this subject is that in order to measure something cause and effect should be clear and repeatable and the method of measuring must be accepted. A measurement is a lot more than a single figure with units. The measurement carries an whole story behind it.

There are an immense number of things I can do to degrade the performance of my system that can't be measured in realistic conditions.

 

[microstrip]

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.

The amps and prices were advertised and public. I am addressing the order of magnitude of price, not exact cents.

I looked at ML3 prices and you don’t know what I paid.

Surely. But I can imagine they were not given away.

Even if I could, I’m not convinced it would sound better. It would sound different, but certainly adds complication and extra boxes.

Just two extra boxes and you already have four, what is the difference? And the ML3 is less complicated than the ML2 . Just one adjustment.

How could you be convinced if you have not listened to it in your room?
I only compared the ML2.1 (not the ML2) with the ML3 , but it was a night and day difference at any sound level.

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

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.

The human ear perceives sound through physical properties like frequency, amplitude, phase, and spatial characteristics. These properties correspond to measurable parameters such as sound pressure level, frequency response, distortion, or room effects. Modern audio measurement equipment—such as microphones, analyzers, and software—can detect these properties with far greater accuracy and sensitivity than the human ear. For example:


• Frequency differences: A spectrogram can reveal subtle changes in pitch or timbre that a human might notice.


• Volume changes: Sound level meters measure sound pressure levels (dB) down to fractions of a decibel, finer than human perception.


• Distortion or noise: Audio analyzers detect harmonic or intermodulation distortion and background noise (e.g., hum) that might color the sound.


• Spatial effects: Tools like goniometers or impulse response systems measure how sound behaves in a room, capturing echoes or reverb that influence perception.


Since every audible sound difference results from physical phenomena (e.g., vibrations, air pressure changes), and since current technology can measure these phenomena with high precision, any difference the human ear can detect is quantifiable. Even subtle nuances, like the “warmth” of a speaker or the “clarity” of a recording, can be traced to measurable factors like frequency response, phase alignment, or harmonic distortion. While subjective terms (e.g., “airy” or “muddy”) are often used to describe sound, these always correlate with objective, measurable parameters when analyzed properly.

Best Regards S

 

[Kozak170]

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

Fair enough. I respect that you don’t want to get into subjective preferences. At the same time I’d just point out that listening experience is not meaningless “bias,” it’s the very reason this hobby exists. Measurements matter, but so does how music actually feels in a real room. Both perspectives can inform each other.

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

The frog lost legs, but it wasn’t deaf.
The speaker lost dynamics, but it wasn’t magic.

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.

In the end, priorities define the magic. For some it’s live dynamics, for others it’s micro-detail and precision. What matters is what moves you.

 

[microstrip]

Fair enough. I respect that you don’t want to get into subjective preferences. At the same time I’d just point out that listening experience is not meaningless “bias,” it’s the very reason this hobby exists. Measurements matter, but so does how music actually feels in a real room. Both perspectives can inform each other.

Who said bias is "meaningless"? Without bias the high-end becomes audio.

The frog lost legs, but it wasn’t deaf.
The speaker lost dynamics, but it wasn’t magic.

In the end, priorities define the magic. For some it’s live dynamics, for others it’s micro-detail and precision. What matters is what moves you.

All magic comes with a price, as said Rumplestiltskin.

 

[Argonaut]

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.

Why are you merely parroting the considerations of a fairly narrow and not entirely not self interested personal perspective … in Karmeli’s case actually being a dealer for Lamm … when you have zero personal exposure to the electronics that you mention ?

 

[Kozak170]

Why are you merely parroting the considerations of a fairly narrow and not entirely self interested personal perspective … in Karmeli’s case actually being a dealer for Lamm … when you have zero personal exposure to the electronics that you mention ?

I mentioned Romy’s comments simply because his long-term use of both the ML2 and ML2.1 is well documented and often referenced in this community. It wasn’t meant as “parroting,” just as context from someone who actually lived with those amplifiers. I’ve also been transparent that I haven’t personally heard every version, which is why I framed it as sharing what’s been written rather than presenting it as my own direct experience.

 

[Atmasphere]

There are an immense number of things I can do to degrade the performance of my system that can't be measured in realistic conditions.

A customer of ours placed a microphone at his listening position and then did distortion measurements and bandwidth measurements based on the mic's output, before and after a change. He was able to show that there were changes in the system distortion at certain frequencies based on a change of a capacitor.

 

[Kozak170]

Who said bias is "meaningless"? Without bias the high-end becomes audio.

True. Bias, preference, and personal taste are part of what makes this hobby so engaging. My only point was that listening impressions shouldn’t be dismissed as if they’re irrelevant. They’re what give the numbers and measurements context and meaning.

All magic comes with a price, as said Rumplestiltskin.

That’s exactly right. Every choice in audio comes with a trade-off. The “price” just depends on what each listener values most.

 

[bonzo75]

Romy have always spoken very highly of the Lamm ML2.1, and they regard it as something of an “end-game” tube amplifier.

You are mistaken, Romy liked ML2 and not 2.1: “The ML2.1 is not really good amp and Art Dudley was wrong to use it. It mish be any other reason why he got rid of it – but who cares why he did it? I feel that if person was damn enough to buy ML2.1 after the ML2.0 then any further observation of this person should not be considered.”

That was his comment. He has written more about the other differences too

 

[Argonaut]

I mentioned Romy’s comments simply because his long-term use of both the ML2 and ML2.1 is well documented and often referenced in this community. It wasn’t meant as “parroting,” just as context from someone who actually lived with those amplifiers. I’ve also been transparent that I haven’t personally heard every version, which is why I framed it as sharing what’s been written rather than presenting it as my own direct experience.

The content of your response merely compounds the point that I made , Really … If you are looking to involve yourself in the world that is Karmelli and his cult customer members present on this forum , do yourself a favour and spend a little time reading some of the considerable back copy posted by these people . As for Romy’s community contingent ( and I quite like his off beat style sometimes ) you are talking about less toes than a sloth !

 

[Urowolf]

My example of what base sounds like with low powered SET

 

[microstrip]

I mentioned Romy’s comments simply because his long-term use of both the ML2 and ML2.1 is well documented and often referenced in this community. It wasn’t meant as “parroting,” just as context from someone who actually lived with those amplifiers. I’ve also been transparent that I haven’t personally heard every version, which is why I framed it as sharing what’s been written rather than presenting it as my own direct experience.

You should take a strong anantihistamine and do a search on Lamm and Valdimir Lamm at Romy site before commenting on such subject.

Unfortunately when I was trying to sell my Lamm's it happened that people googling about them easily found his site - the information on Lamm is limited - and gave up based on his hateful comments and denigration of the brand.

 

[Kozak170]

You are mistaken, Rony liked ML2 and not 2.1: “The ML2.1 is not really good amp and Art Dudley was wrong to use it. It mish be any other reason why he got rid of it – but who cares why he did it? I feel that if person was damn enough to buy ML2.1 after the ML2.0 then any further observation of this person should not be considered.”

That was his comment. He has written more about the other differences too

You’re right. Romy’s clear favorite was the original ML2, and he was critical of the ML2.1. In the same way I mistakenly tied Romy to the second version of the ML2, you once tied David to the second version of the Sasha lol

 

[Kozak170]

The content of your response merely compounds the point that I made , Really … If you are looking to involve yourself in the world that is Karmelli and his cult customer members present on this forum , do yourself a favour and spend a little time reading some of the considerable back copy posted by these people . As for Romy’s community contingent ( and I quite like his off beat style sometimes ) you are talking about less toes than a sloth !

I’m not looking to side with any camp or “cult.” My only goal here is to share context on how these amps have been written about and experienced. For me it’s about the technical and listening side, not forum politics.

You should take a strong anantihistamine and do a search on Lamm and Valdimir Lamm at Romy site before commenting on such subject.

Unfortunately when I was trying to sell my Lamm's it happened that people googling about them easily found his site - the information on Lamm is limited - and gave up based on his hateful comments and denigration of the brand.

No antihistamine needed, the only thing I’m allergic to is bad physics IoI

Fair point. I haven’t checked Romy’s forum in a long time, so I misunderstood his stance on the later ML2 versions. And yes, I see how his harsh comments could put people off, given how little info on Lamm is out there.

 

[microstrip]

(...) No antihistamine needed, the only thing I’m allergic to is bad physics IoI

Sorry to say, little physics is needed to understand the high-end. What you are addressing is almost children physics. High-end is mostly engineering, that surely benefits from knowledge of physics and mathematics. And from time to time tweak manufacturers and pseudo experts refer to Maxwell equations and quantum physics to blow people.

And then surely - psycho acoustics, this damn subject! A good knowledge of experimental physics and its methods only helps us to see our limitations in getting proper explanations in this do diverse hobby.

Fair point. I haven’t checked Romy’s forum in a long time, so I misunderstood his stance on the later ML2 versions. And yes, I see how his harsh comments could put people off, given how little info on Lamm is out there.

I suggest you read directly from the original sources before posting others opinions.

 

[Kozak170]

Sorry to say, little physics is needed to understand the high-end. What you are addressing is almost children physics. High-end is mostly engineering, that surely benefits from knowledge of physics and mathematics. And from time to time tweak manufacturers and pseudo experts refer to Maxwell equations and quantum physics to blow people.

And then surely - psycho acoustics, this damn subject! A good knowledge of experimental physics and its methods only helps us to see our limitations in getting proper explanations in this do diverse hobby.

Personally I have always been drawn to the simple physics and straightforward paths of sound rather than the overly complex engineering marvels that sometimes seem more about marketing than music. Of course good engineering matters, but when brands hide behind layers of pseudo science or needlessly complicated designs to justify high prices I lose interest. For me the most convincing products are those that let the basics such as efficiency, clean design and natural dynamics speak for themselves.

 

[microstrip]

(... ) For me the most convincing products are those that let the basics such as efficiency, clean design and natural dynamics speak for themselves.

An horn speaker is intrinsically a "non clean" design for knowledgeable audiophiles ... Challenging, interesting, complex to design, but surely not "clean".

 

[Kozak170]

An horn speaker is intrinsically a "non clean" design for knowledgeable audiophiles ... Challenging, interesting, complex to design, but surely not "clean".

I see your point. By “clean” I didn’t mean minimalist or free of challenges, but rather designs that don’t rely on unnecessary complications or pseudo-science. Horns are indeed complex, but their complexity serves a clear acoustic purpose, which to me is very different from adding layers of marketing-driven “engineering."
Take Avantgarde for example. Their spherical horns are complex to design and build but the purpose is clear. The geometry and dimensions themselves act almost like a natural high pass filter controlling dispersion lowering distortion and maximizing efficiency. That is what I mean by purposeful complexity. It is very different from a design that piles on extra crossover sections or exotic add ons just to look “advanced” without offering real acoustic benefits.

 

[tima]

You are mistaken, Rony liked ML2 and not 2.1: “The ML2.1 is not really good amp and Art Dudley was wrong to use it. It mish be any other reason why he got rid of it – but who cares why he did it? I feel that if person was damn enough to buy ML2.1 after the ML2.0 then any further observation of this person should not be considered.”

Romy wrote about Lamm gear but he has no special insight. He had a falling out with Vladimir Lamm and expressed it in his opinion. Dudley had it right in his review.