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

[Ron Resnick]

I listed six systems above which all disappeared and allowed me to focus on the music rather than the system. I did not say each system sounds the same. Nor did I say I liked each system equally or that each presented the music with the same degree of naturalism.

We all make our choices and I chose to buy the system that presents the music as closely to my favorite system on that list.

Hi Peter,

Again, it is very interesting to me that those systems have quite a lot of diversity. (I wasn't giving you enough credit. I thought you were mainly going to say horns and SET.)

Are you able to generalize for us what it is that each of those systems did that made you feel that they disappeared sonically, leaving you immersed in the music?

In other words how did each of these systems place you on the same indifference curve (even if each of these systems were at a different point on that indifference curve), even though they used such radically different speaker topologies -- dipole planar and small stand-mount cone speaker and horn?

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

Again, it is very interesting to me that those systems have quite a lot of diversity. (I wasn't giving you enough credit. I thought you were mainly going to say horns and SET.)

Are you able to generalize for us what it is that each of those systems did that made you feel that they disappeared sonically, leaving you immersed in the music?

In other words how did each of these systems place you on the same indifference curve (even if each of these systems were at a different point on that indifference curve), even though they used such radically different speaker topologies -- dipole planar and small stand-mount cone speaker and horn?

Your question reveals a misunderstanding of natural sound and why I think my system thread was so contentious. There were many comments suggesting that natural sound is all about typology. Vinyl, SET, horns. That is not it. I listed on the first page of that thread what I heard from each of the natural sounding systems in Utah. This was a list of common attributes that made each system sound a particular way, and I and others describe that as natural sound. I never once mentioned components or typologies in that list. But people claimed I was talking about vintage sound, or only vinyl, and SETs and horns.

One aspect of natural sound is the ability for the system to disappear. It disappears because it does not draw attention to itself. It does not emphasize anything. There is a sense of balance. Edit: I should add that there needs to be a sufficient amount of clarity and energy so that you turn to the realism of what you’re hearing rather than thinking, something is missing from the presentation.

The six systems I just described here disappear precisely because they did not draw attention to themselves. It doesn’t have anything to do with typology. These are examples that I’ve heard of different typologies that all share this characteristic.

I am not suggesting, nor did I write anywhere, that those same components, configured differently in different combinations and rooms would disappear the way they did in those specific cases. I’m not speaking in generalities. I am describing something very specific because you asked me for specific examples. I am not drawing any conclusions about the dealer, the brands, the set ups, the typologies. I do not think in those terms anymore. I only listen to the result. And there are different ways to get that result.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

it´s all about balance that doesn´t distract you from "hearing" the music

 

[microstrip]

It's a "state of mind".

We have discussed several times this subject using an appropriate descriptor, "suspension of disbelief", resulting in very interesting and participated debates. Reducing it just to "system disappearance" drives us in a bottleneck.

IMO stereo sound reproduction is a complex subject that can't be discussed just with childish language and music.

 

[hopkins]

We have discussed several times this subject using an appropriate descriptor, "suspension of disbelief", resulting in very interesting and participated debates. Reducing it just to "system disappearance" drives us in a bottleneck.

IMO stereo sound reproduction is a complex subject that can't be discussed just with childish language and music.

Suspension of disbelief is something entirely different.

 

[PeterA]

Suspension of disbelief is something entirely different.

I agree. It is very strange that Micro conflates the two. Ron likes to use the suspension of disbelief to describe a state in which the listener no longer thinks he is listening to an audio system playing music and instead believes he is listening to the real thing. At least I think that’s what he means. I never use the phrase to describe my listening experience. I find it clumsy and confusing.

 

[morricab]

Sure, Ron. Six systems, excluding my own.

1. David Karmeli's main system with the Bionors and ML3 with JBL subs on ML2s, Neumann DST, vintage wires.
2. David Karmeli's demo system with the small Mitsubishi Diatones (rare 16 ohm version) and ML2s, rest same as main system.
3. Lloyd Walker's exhibition system at RMAF 2010 with his turntable, TAD CR1 speakers, Bilboa (sp) amps
4. Leonardo da Vinci panels (predecessor to Allysivox) with Galibier turntable, 14 watt tube amps, at NYC show 2012
5. Sound By Singer, Magico original wood M5 speakers, Basis or Brinkmann turntable, SS amps, can't remember
6. Goodwin's High End, Magico Mini 2, Spectral electronics, Basis turntable

All of these systems presented a natural sound with clarity and energy. No flaws or issues drew attention to themselves. Different rooms, different gear, all with minimal to zero system sound. My mind went right to the music each time. Notice the lack of SET/horns.

Nr.1 is SET/horn, I also thought the old wood cabinet Magicos sounded better…I guess those are what built the reputation. They wouldn’t be on my list like this though…

 

[bonzo75]

Sure, Ron. Six systems, excluding my own.

1. David Karmeli's main system with the Bionors and ML3 with JBL subs on ML2s, Neumann DST, vintage wires.
2. David Karmeli's demo system with the small Mitsubishi Diatones (rare 16 ohm version) and ML2s, rest same as main system.
3. Lloyd Walker's exhibition system at RMAF 2010 with his turntable, TAD CR1 speakers, Bilboa (sp) amps
4. Leonardo da Vinci panels (predecessor to Allysivox) with Galibier turntable, 14 watt tube amps, at NYC show 2012
5. Sound By Singer, Magico original wood M5 speakers, Basis or Brinkmann turntable, SS amps, can't remember
6. Goodwin's High End, Magico Mini 2, Spectral electronics, Basis turntable

All of these systems presented a natural sound with clarity and energy. No flaws or issues drew attention to themselves. Different rooms, different gear, all with minimal to zero system sound. My mind went right to the music each time. Notice the lack of SET/horns.

Most of this list was from when you owned Magico and thought they were natural.

 

[tima]

Most of this list was from when you owned Magico and thought they were natural.

I thought the Magicos fell under Peter's 'Sublime Sound' thread.

 

[microstrip]

I agree. It is very strange that Micro conflates the two. Ron likes to use the suspension of disbelief to describe a state in which the listener no longer thinks he is listening to an audio system playing music and instead believes he is listening to the real thing. At least I think that’s what he means. I never use the phrase to describe my listening experience. I find it clumsy and confusing.

In fact IMO they are strongly related, unless we are addressing by disappearing system an extremely diffuse and ambiguous sound.

"Disapearing" in high-end stereo is not just a system property. It is a system and listener property. Two different listeners can have a very different opinion on the same system. Many audiophiles under valuate the importance of listening preference and bias in the high-end.

You are a senior audiophile, with very large listening experience. How can you explain that in a lifetime you only find half a dozen experiences of systems that " truly disappeared when I sat down to listen to them", more than half or them strongly related to your own systems? All else systems were intrinsically flawed or their owners needed systems where they wanted to listen to the gear , not the music?

Ron is correct when he refers to the importance of the "suspension of disbelief" - it is the supreme objective of the hobby for many of us. And we love to talk about our path to it.

 

[Al M.]

In fact IMO they are strongly related, unless we are addressing by disappearing system an extremely diffuse and ambiguous sound.

"Disapearing" in high-end stereo is not just a system property. It is a system and listener property. Two different listeners can have a very different opinion on the same system.

Agreed on both counts.

Many audiophiles under valuate the importance of listening preference and bias in the high-end.

Hence a lot of futile discussions. But hey, there is an "objective truth", isn't there?

 

[bonzo75]

Hence a lot of futile discussions. But hey, there is an "objective truth", isn't there?

Objective truth is many "over valuate" the limited systems they heard in their own room, and over valuate their extrapolation ability on the basis of that, and over valuate their ability to gain insights using digital or poor recordings and bad music.

 

[bonzo75]

Two different listeners can have a very different opinion on the same system.

usually the differences come because one listener is listening, other is commenting on a forum without listening. Or sometimes, one has poor music and recordings not allowing him to gain any insight.

 

[wil]

I agree. It is very strange that Micro conflates the two. Ron likes to use the suspension of disbelief to describe a state in which the listener no longer thinks he is listening to an audio system playing music and instead believes he is listening to the real thing. At least I think that’s what he means. I never use the phrase to describe my listening experience. I find it clumsy and confusing.

The term “suspension of disbelief“ should be permanently suspended! YMMV

 

[microstrip]

(...) Hence a lot of futile discussions. But hey, there is an "objective truth", isn't there?

Semantics apart, "objective truth" can exist. Sound reproduction being a perceptual science, the "objective truth" is simply a statistically determined preference under unbiased conditions. Surely it carries an error bar, and is strongly influenced by the conditions used in its determination. As such the "objective truth" can surely be contested and debated.

Audiophiles are supposed to hate statistics - it exposes the limitations and fragility of our individualism.

 

[microstrip]

The term “suspension of disbelief“ should be permanently suspended! YMMV

Next we suspend "enjoyment". Emotion, just emotion!

 

[bonzo75]

I agree. It is very strange that Micro conflates the two. Ron likes to use the suspension of disbelief to describe a state in which the listener no longer thinks he is listening to an audio system playing music and instead believes he is listening to the real thing. At least I think that’s what he means. I never use the phrase to describe my listening experience. I find it clumsy and confusing.

I don't mind that phrase, I do mind the silly thread that was started to intellectualise it. All of us have a balance of attributes based on which we are willing to accept the reproduction does not seem forced mechanical, and is good enough, or more than good enough, to sit down and enjoy - that is what you describe as there is nothing calling attention to itself, so you can enjoy the music, which is suspension of disbelief. Ron should have left it at that.

 

[Al M.]

Semantics apart, "objective truth" can exist. Sound reproduction being a perceptual science, the "objective truth" is simply a statistically determined preference under unbiased conditions. Surely it carries an error bar, and is strongly influenced by the conditions used in its determination. As such the "objective truth" can surely be contested and debated.

"Unbiased" conditions that can be contested and debated? Sounds very much like "objective truth" to me, indeed.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't mind that phrase

Good. Karen Sumner likes that phrase, so I am in very good company.

I do mind the silly thread that was started to intellectualise it.

I admit to enjoying the intellectual aspects of this hobby.

All of us have a balance of attributes based on which we are willing to accept the reproduction does not seem forced mechanical, and is good enough, or more than good enough, to sit down and enjoy

Yes; those "attributes" which achieve the reproduction you describe are close to -- if not identical to using a different word -- what I call sonic cues.

- that is what you [PeterA] describe as there is nothing calling attention to itself
, so you can enjoy the music, which is suspension of disbelief.

"Nothing calling attention to itself" is a little ephemeral as a sonic cue. But, for Peter, it qualifies as a sonic cue.

 

[bonzo75]

Good. Karen Sumner likes that phrase, so I am in very good company.


I admit to enjoying the intellectual aspects of this hobby.


Yes; those "attributes" which achieve the reproduction you describe are close to -- if not identical to using a different word -- what I call sonic cues.

Why are you reading my posts? Please stay out of class, students like you are not allowed back in.