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

[AudioHR]

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

No debating what you have said above. Apparently I would disagree with your view that audio measurement equipment and the science it represents will not evolve further and offer new insights into what we hear. Which is what I was commenting on with the not measured yet reference.

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

No debating what you have said above. Apparently I would disagree with your view that audio measurement equipment and the science it represents will not evolve further and offer new insights into what we hear. Which is what I was commenting on with the not measured yet reference.

Of course, measurement technology will continue to develop. But it will always remain the case that no device can tell you what the final sound will be like. There will always just be individual measurements, and then it takes someone to interpret them correctly. That said, this interpretation will soon be possible with AI as well.


So in that sense, I think our opinions are actually not that far apart.

Best Regards S

 

[LL21]

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.

I was going to say the same...when I was considering Lamm for the old X1s, I spoke with a number of Lamm owners and read the comments including the ones you reference above. There certainly seems to have been a lot of commentary about the original ML2 being superior and then ultimately while different I 'think' perhaps the consensus is that the new ML2.2 is an improvement again over the 2.1? Not really sure as have not followed.

 

[Kozak170]

I was going to say the same...when I was considering Lamm for the old X1s, I spoke with a number of Lamm owners and read the comments including the ones you reference above. There certainly seems to have been a lot of commentary about the original ML2 being superior and then ultimately while different I 'think' perhaps the consensus is that the new ML2.2 is an improvement again over the 2.1? Not really sure as have not followed.

I think in the end it all depends on the listener and their priorities. Just as you moved from the Wilson X1s to the newer Wilsons and gained improvements in imaging, transparency, and resolution, someone else might still prefer the older X1s for their greater sense of dynamics and flow, even if on paper they lag behind the newer models in certain hi-fi metrics. It’s the same story with Lamm, according to the experiences of its owners: the choice between the original ML2, the 2.1, and the 2.2 ultimately comes down to which presentation resonates more with the individual listener—some may prefer the natural and warm sound of the ML2, or conversely, the more precise and transparent sound of the ML2.2.

 

[bonzo75]

I think in the end it all depends on the listener and their priorities / listening experience

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

For me, it feels a little strange how tube amplifiers – especially in combination with horn loudspeakers – are often discussed. Once you’re dealing with sensitivities of 100 dB, and even more so at 110 dB, the main issue isn’t really about tonal character anymore, but first and foremost about the ability to be completely free of noise and hum.

A truly “black” background is the basic prerequisite for being able to enjoy microdynamics at all.

I personally ended my phase of experimenting with tube preamps, tube phono stages, and tube power amps almost ten years ago. At some point, I simply felt my time was too valuable. By then, I had gone through around 30 preamps, 15 phono stages, and at least 50 different tube power amps in my system – often running two or more in parallel for direct shootouts. In the end, only three of them were really satisfactory in terms of being hum- and noise-free, one of which was a DIY amp with just 0.5 watts of output.

As for power: in my own system, peaks rarely exceed 0.3 watts. That’s why I find some of the statements about “necessary power reserves” a bit overstated. Of course, it’s always nice to have more than you strictly need – but with horns, I think it’s much more important to focus on absolute silence in the background than on excess power.

Of course, tubes and horns are closely connected – if only for historical reasons. And naturally, there are some wonderful combinations out there. But let’s be honest: a horn doesn’t need tube electronics to fully unfold its immense strengths.
If anything, it’s the other way around – tube amplifiers often need horns, and sometimes even full-range drivers, in order to really show their advantages.

That’s not to say I consider tubes the “wrong” choice per se. Not at all – they’re beautiful to look at, they keep you warm in winter, and in just the right combination, they can make truly wonderful music.



Best Regards S

 

[microstrip]

For me, it feels a little strange how tube amplifiers – especially in combination with horn loudspeakers – are often discussed. Once you’re dealing with sensitivities of 100 dB, and even more so at 110 dB, the main issue isn’t really about tonal character anymore, but first and foremost about the ability to be completely free of noise and hum.

A truly “black” background is the basic prerequisite for being able to enjoy microdynamics at all.

I personally ended my phase of experimenting with tube preamps, tube phono stages, and tube power amps almost ten years ago. At some point, I simply felt my time was too valuable. By then, I had gone through around 30 preamps, 15 phono stages, and at least 50 different tube power amps in my system – often running two or more in parallel for direct shootouts. In the end, only three of them were really satisfactory in terms of being hum- and noise-free, one of which was a DIY amp with just 0.5 watts of output.

As for power: in my own system, peaks rarely exceed 0.3 watts. That’s why I find some of the statements about “necessary power reserves” a bit overstated. Of course, it’s always nice to have more than you strictly need – but with horns, I think it’s much more important to focus on absolute silence in the background than on excess power.

Of course, tubes and horns are closely connected – if only for historical reasons. And naturally, there are some wonderful combinations out there. But let’s be honest: a horn doesn’t need tube electronics to fully unfold its immense strengths.


If anything, it’s the other way around – tube amplifiers often need horns, and sometimes even full-range drivers, in order to really show their advantages.



Best Regards S

What is the sensitivity (or efficiency and impedance) of your own system?

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

What is the sensitivity (or efficiency and impedance) of your own system?

112dB. Bass 16Ohm. Mid 15Ohm, Tweeter 16Ohm

 

[microstrip]

112dB. Bass 16Ohm. Mid 15Ohm, Tweeter 16Ohm

So, around 109 dB sensitivity?

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

mine is 110dB + and 300B poweramps are 160µVAC "noise" on shorted inputs(selfnoise)
AVC "preamp" adds no noise......riaa is dead quiet too

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

So, around 109 dB sensitivity?

My bass section has 112 dB sensitivity, the midrange 118 dB, and the tweeter 114 dB. The whole system is run fully active with FIR filters in front, and of course the two more efficient horns are attenuated to match the bass. Because of that, even a 1-ohm difference in impedance isn’t an issue.

so, like I said in my last post, 112dB

Besser Regards S

 

[Kozak170]

I think in the end it all depends on the listener and their priorities / listening experience

Indeed, experience reveals the landscape of music, and priorities highlight the peaks that matter most.

 

[DasguteOhr]

For me, it feels a little strange how tube amplifiers – especially in combination with horn loudspeakers – are often discussed. Once you’re dealing with sensitivities of 100 dB, and even more so at 110 dB, the main issue isn’t really about tonal character anymore, but first and foremost about the ability to be completely free of noise and hum.

A truly “black” background is the basic prerequisite for being able to enjoy microdynamics at all.

I personally ended my phase of experimenting with tube preamps, tube phono stages, and tube power amps almost ten years ago. At some point, I simply felt my time was too valuable. By then, I had gone through around 30 preamps, 15 phono stages, and at least 50 different tube power amps in my system – often running two or more in parallel for direct shootouts. In the end, only three of them were really satisfactory in terms of being hum- and noise-free, one of which was a DIY amp with just 0.5 watts of output.

As for power: in my own system, peaks rarely exceed 0.3 watts. That’s why I find some of the statements about “necessary power reserves” a bit overstated. Of course, it’s always nice to have more than you strictly need – but with horns, I think it’s much more important to focus on absolute silence in the background than on excess power.

Of course, tubes and horns are closely connected – if only for historical reasons. And naturally, there are some wonderful combinations out there. But let’s be honest: a horn doesn’t need tube electronics to fully unfold its immense strengths.
If anything, it’s the other way around – tube amplifiers often need horns, and sometimes even full-range drivers, in order to really show their advantages.

That’s not to say I consider tubes the “wrong” choice per se. Not at all – they’re beautiful to look at, they keep you warm in winter, and in just the right combination, they can make truly wonderful music.



Best Regards S

Small Class A amps can be very quiet. They sound excellent, for example, the Omtec ca 25 watts with horns.general overhaul even cleaner

 

[microstrip]

My bass section has 112 dB sensitivity, the midrange 118 dB, and the tweeter 114 dB. The whole system is run fully active with FIR filters in front, and of course the two more efficient horns are attenuated to match the bass. Because of that, even a 1-ohm difference in impedance isn’t an issue.

so, like I said in my last post, 112dB

Besser Regards S

Ok, you are quoting sensitivity of drivers and ruining active - unless we know it all your comments can't be understood and will be misleading. As you run active, noise is determined mainly by the midrange drive 118 dB. Surely very few amplifiers will be able to drive it without noise problems.

But your system is very particular and unusual - IMO your interesting comments should not be considered as applying to horns in general.

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

Ok, you are quoting sensitivity of drivers and ruining active - unless we know it all your comments can't be understood and will be misleading. As you run active, noise is determined mainly by the midrange drive 118 dB. Surely very few amplifiers will be able to drive it without noise problems.

But your system is very particular and unusual - IMO your interesting comments should not be considered as applying to horns in general.

My comment referred to horns because this thread is about horns, and the specific issue I mentioned is particularly pronounced with horn speakers. To clarify or correct your statement about midrange horn issues, the biggest challenge actually arises with the high-frequency range. The high-frequency driver kicks in at 1.3 kHz, and in over 20 years, I’ve only come across three amplifiers that truly manage to deliver a noise-free performance at a distance of two to three meters. Of course, I’ve tested this not only with FIR filters but also with IIR and passive analog crossovers.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide for themselves where to set their priorities. In my experience, there’s no such thing as a perfect all-in-one solution. It’s always about making compromises, big or small. In other words, “You always have to pick your poison.”


That’s why, after more than 20 years, I’ve turned to other concepts. When it comes to electronics, I’ve never been dogmatic. Still, I always enjoy hearing a good tube amplifier at a client’s place or in a demo room—especially in winter!


Best regards,


S

 

[LL21]

I think in the end it all depends on the listener and their priorities. Just as you moved from the Wilson X1s to the newer Wilsons and gained improvements in imaging, transparency, and resolution, someone else might still prefer the older X1s for their greater sense of dynamics and flow, even if on paper they lag behind the newer models in certain hi-fi metrics. It’s the same story with Lamm, according to the experiences of its owners: the choice between the original ML2, the 2.1, and the 2.2 ultimately comes down to which presentation resonates more with the individual listener—some may prefer the natural and warm sound of the ML2, or conversely, the more precise and transparent sound of the ML2.2.

Very very interesting. Thank you. For my own personal tastes and priorities, I was instantly impressed with the X1/Grand SLAMM from the very first time I heard it. It had been very well set up and after several years, found my way towards a pair that had been in storage for nearly 20 years after the owner moved countries and left them behind in a storage facility.

Over time, I moved from midpowered tubes to investigate alternatives in amplification (higher powered tubes to give more 'thrust' to the speakers during really dynamic passages with serious scale. I also considered going the other way which was lowered powered by exceptionally pure lowered powered designs. I opted for higher powered pure Class A amplification (Gryphon) because the higher powered option gave me exactly what i wanted at that time...plus it also gave me long term flexibility to drive other speakers (like the Rockport Arrakis).

During that time, the Alexandria Series was also already moving into its Series 2...and for some reason, I never found myself inspired to make a change. I could hear where the designs had clearly evolved but the overall package was not for me. I respect others would differ here.

Then came the XLF and I found this speaker had taken a different direction...a direction where I felt that its voices now retained more of the original nuanced organic qualities of the original X1 but now with the much finer grain of what was clearly the goal of the Alexandria series ...plus also now with a much more resolute and resolved delivery. Relative to the then-17 year old design of the X1, the XLF definitely definitely felt like a more SOLID sound. By contrast, I had spent years with the X1 trying to identify areas where the speaker was vibrating, shaking and upon treatment of those elements, the X1 clearly showed its sound became more resolute, more solid...but still with quite a ways to go.

On the flip side, the XLF also felt to me like signal flowed less easily thru it than the X1...I remember telling my dealer it felt like there was a filter in the XLF...the best way I could put it. However, overall, I also told him the ultimate sound was far more resolved, with far finer grain and both more nuanced and also more solid at the same time. It seems to have less intrinsic 'mechanical noise' in the system. The signal felt like it had to get thru more in the XLF to come out the other side...but once it came out the resulting sound did get me further forward than the X1.

And today after many years of owning the XLF, I still feel that way today relative to our old X1s -- both that it feels harder to get signal thru but that the end game result of what does come thru is far superior. Fortunately, both the Gryphons and now the Robert Kodas make passing signal thru the XLF effortless (and pure in the case of the Robert Koda)...and thus, the end game result of the sound of our system today is overall a big step change for me which I prefer because of its greater resolution, resolve and plain solidity of sound that the wonderful original X1 could not match.

 

[Kingrex]

Small Class A amps can be very quiet. They sound excellent, for example, the Omtec ca 25 watts with horns.general overhaul even cleanerView attachment 157913View attachment 157914

Is that a small attenuator on the signal?

 

[microstrip]

My comment referred to horns because this thread is about horns, and the specific issue I mentioned is particularly pronounced with horn speakers. To clarify or correct your statement about midrange horn issues, the biggest challenge actually arises with the high-frequency range. The high-frequency driver kicks in at 1.3 kHz, and in over 20 years, I’ve only come across three amplifiers that truly manage to deliver a noise-free performance at a distance of two to three meters. Of course, I’ve tested this not only with FIR filters but also with IIR and passive analog crossovers.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide for themselves where to set their priorities. In my experience, there’s no such thing as a perfect all-in-one solution. It’s always about making compromises, big or small. In other words, “You always have to pick your poison.”


That’s why, after more than 20 years, I’ve turned to other concepts. When it comes to electronics, I’ve never been dogmatic. Still, I always enjoy hearing a good tube amplifier at a client’s place or in a demo room—especially in winter!


Best regards,


S

Thanks for clarifying - interesting to see such a low frequency crossover in the treble. So, an amplifier with a signal to noise ratio suitable for 114 dB sensitivity is needed - I accept that it is not an easy task.

 

[microstrip]

(...) On the flip side, the XLF also felt to me like signal flowed less easily thru it than the X1...I remember telling my dealer it felt like there was a filter in the XLF...the best way I could put it. However, overall, I also told him the ultimate sound was far more resolved, with far finer grain and both more nuanced and also more solid at the same time. It seems to have less intrinsic 'mechanical noise' in the system. The signal felt like it had to get thru more in the XLF to come out the other side...but once it came out the resulting sound did get me further forward than the X1. (...)

Some people used to say the same when they listened to ESL63 after listening to JBL's or ProAc's. Speakers with less coloration can sound more "filtered". However when we get used to them we notice that they have more detail, nuance and music. The XLF's need an adequate amplifier - in my case I found nirvana with the VTL Siegfried II - it manages to takes all the filters from the way of music!

IMO no comparison with previous Alexandria's, Maxx or Grand Slamm.

 

[Kozak170]

Very very interesting. Thank you. For my own personal tastes and priorities, I was instantly impressed with the X1/Grand SLAMM from the very first time I heard it. It had been very well set up and after several years, found my way towards a pair that had been in storage for nearly 20 years after the owner moved countries and left them behind in a storage facility.

Over time, I moved from midpowered tubes to investigate alternatives in amplification (higher powered tubes to give more 'thrust' to the speakers during really dynamic passages with serious scale. I also considered going the other way which was lowered powered by exceptionally pure lowered powered designs. I opted for higher powered pure Class A amplification (Gryphon) because the higher powered option gave me exactly what i wanted at that time...plus it also gave me long term flexibility to drive other speakers (like the Rockport Arrakis).

During that time, the Alexandria Series was also already moving into its Series 2...and for some reason, I never found myself inspired to make a change. I could hear where the designs had clearly evolved but the overall package was not for me. I respect others would differ here.

Then came the XLF and I found this speaker had taken a different direction...a direction where I felt that its voices now retained more of the original nuanced organic qualities of the original X1 but now with the much finer grain of what was clearly the goal of the Alexandria series ...plus also now with a much more resolute and resolved delivery. Relative to the then-17 year old design of the X1, the XLF definitely definitely felt like a more SOLID sound. By contrast, I had spent years with the X1 trying to identify areas where the speaker was vibrating, shaking and upon treatment of those elements, the X1 clearly showed its sound became more resolute, more solid...but still with quite a ways to go.

On the flip side, the XLF also felt to me like signal flowed less easily thru it than the X1...I remember telling my dealer it felt like there was a filter in the XLF...the best way I could put it. However, overall, I also told him the ultimate sound was far more resolved, with far finer grain and both more nuanced and also more solid at the same time. It seems to have less intrinsic 'mechanical noise' in the system. The signal felt like it had to get thru more in the XLF to come out the other side...but once it came out the resulting sound did get me further forward than the X1.

And today after many years of owning the XLF, I still feel that way today relative to our old X1s -- both that it feels harder to get signal thru but that the end game result of what does come thru is far superior. Fortunately, both the Gryphons and now the Robert Kodas make passing signal thru the XLF effortless (and pure in the case of the Robert Koda)...and thus, the end game result of the sound of our system today is overall a big step change for me which I prefer because of its greater resolution, resolve and plain solidity of sound that the wonderful original X1 could not match.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It’s interesting that, despite the advancements in the XLF, you felt the signal flow was more restricted, which could be due to the characteristics of the 6/12 dB crossover and the third-order slope in those speakers. The difference between the effortless signal flow of the X1 and the greater resolution of the XLF is understandable. Your choice of powerful and fluid amplifiers like Robert Koda makes sense, as it helps ease signal flow and improves quality. Ultimately, it seems these choices come down to personal preference and system requirements, with each person’s experience differing.