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

[Lagonda]

Fwiw, this a generously polite interpretation of ddk's reply.

Yes David probably added a x-rated video to specify his response !

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

with both my Trio and present system, the advantage of hornloading didn´t reveal itself before I went fullrange...then the coin dropped and everything snapped into focus.....
one of those; why didn´t I do this years ago

 

[Lagonda]

Are these audiophile terms? Stereo terms? How do you get emotional connection to the music when you are paying attention to these terms - instead of the music?

He doesn't, it's not his objective, he analyzes so he can discuss !

 

[Amir]

From what I have heard I do not agree with this.

Ron, did you listen to Steve’s Wilson XLF or Alexandria?
Those are a bit different.

If true, this was an anomaly or a malfunction. It is silly to develop a hypothesis on the basis of this one subjective observation.

Maybe you are right but My point is those companies who try to show better specification (like AC) sound worse.

Not all horns are great.

Yes, in current market I just like Living Voice Vox Olympian.

 

[Amir]

I’ve been reading this thread and there’s been a lot of talk about time alignment, phase, and the physical placement of driver voice coils. Some members even post photos of drivers and draw a line through the voice-coil centers to “prove” phase irregularities. That kind of armchair analysis shows a misunderstanding: you cannot judge a speaker’s phase coherence, time alignment, or driver integration from photos or from isolated graphs.

Full measurements — most importantly a step response (or impulse response) alongside frequency/phase and near-field data — are required to assess time alignment and integration. Many three-way designs deliberately wire the midrange with reversed polarity to reduce cancellations in the crossover region; in some designs the bass or tweeter may be reversed while the mid is normal. Those wiring choices are deliberate and cannot be evaluated reliably from a photo or a single phase/impedance trace.

A phase trace or an impedance/frequency plot alone is usually insufficient — especially if you don’t even know which trace is which. And crucially, phase behaviour is a specification (like frequency response): it tells you about the speaker’s behavior, not whether it will sound good. So don’t over-obsess about unlabeled specs or pictures or technical debates in search of fame. Instead listen thoroughly and decide if you like the speaker. That’s what matters.

+1

 

[Lagonda]

a well executed horn system nukes any monkey coffin out of the waters IMNSHO

Monkey coffins ? Are those the DeVore models you refer to ?

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

any box speaker

 

[bonzo75]

Curiously that people do not address the real differences between horns and other speakers, mainly the distortion and the dispersion, and focus on sorcery.

Has been addressed numerous times

 

[andromedaaudio]

The best is a gold painted triangle shaped box.
Driven by some rectangular shaped solid state boxes

 

[Kozak170]

I’ve been reading this thread and there’s been a lot of talk about time alignment, phase, and the physical placement of driver voice coils. Some members even post photos of drivers and draw a line through the voice-coil centers to “prove” phase irregularities. That kind of armchair analysis shows a misunderstanding: you cannot judge a speaker’s phase coherence, time alignment, or driver integration from photos or from isolated graphs.

I’m not claiming a photo proves phase coherence, I’m saying it can falsify it. If there’s a large, uncompensated physical offset between acoustic centers, visibly, like in the photo of the old AG Mezzo I posted, and no stepped geometry between the horns from the front, like on the Magico Ultimate horn where it’s visibly apparent, perfect time alignment is off the table unless DSP/all-pass is used, and that usually results in a less natural sound because the alignment is forced through filters. The placement of the voice coils in a vertical alignment is not equivalent to the exact acoustic center of the drivers, agreed, but at least it shows that the overall physical time alignment has been respected. And if a designer really wants to nail the exact acoustic centers of his drivers, he must rely on step/impulse measurements to get those sub-millimeter alignments right.

I listened to old AG Trio and Duo omegas many times with SET, parallel SET, push pull, SS, 211, 300B, 2A3 and even with AG’s own SS amps. The result is; they sound plastic, shouty and bad. Total crap.

I also listened new AG Trios and Duos with their active amplification. They sound good and cannot be compared to old AGs in my opinion.

The reason you perceived the older Avantgarde models as shouty and in fact it confirms what I’ve been saying earlier is because the tweeter driver was positioned too far forward relative to the midrange. This lack of physical time alignment, as I mentioned, is also obvious on photo. That’s why many owners of the older Avantgardes solved this shouty and unnatural character by making structural modifications, essentially by moving the tweeter horn back about 20 cm and aligning it with the midrange.

 

[Atmasphere]

The reason you perceived the older Avantgarde models as shouty and in fact it confirms what I’ve been saying earlier is because the tweeter driver was positioned too far forward relative to the midrange.

That's not the only reason, and I doubt very much the major reason too.

The older Avangarde Trios didn't have chokes in the crossovers. So the lower frequency units were still operating at higher frequencies. This means the higher the frequency the lower the impedance (since the lower frequency driver is in parallel with the higher frequency driver) and also means that comb filtering was present.

SETs would not have been happy about that load which meant you probably had to use the 4 Ohm taps to run that speaker, meaning the bass wouldn't be the right load (impedance too high, so the amp wouldn't make proper power). The designer intended it to be used with a solid state amp that didn't have the load impedance problem (although you'd still have the comb filtering problem, which is perceived as harshness).

Its my surmise that he sorted out that lower powered tube amp owners was actually his main market and so installed chokes in the later versions. This would have the effect of eliminating the comb filtering (which would also make it sound more relaxed and realistic with solid state amps) as well as causing the load impedance to be higher and more linear, something the tube amps would like a lot.

 

[mtemur]

That's not the only reason, and I doubt very much the major reason too.

The older Avangarde Trios didn't have chokes in the crossovers. So the lower frequency units were still operating at higher frequencies. This means the higher the frequency the lower the impedance (since the lower frequency driver is in parallel with the higher frequency driver) and also means that comb filtering was present.

SETs would not have been happy about that load which meant you probably had to use the 4 Ohm taps to run that speaker, meaning the bass wouldn't be the right load (impedance too high, so the amp wouldn't make proper power). The designer intended it to be used with a solid state amp that didn't have the load impedance problem (although you'd still have the comb filtering problem, which is perceived as harshness).

Its my surmise that he sorted out that lower powered tube amp owners was actually his main market and so installed chokes in the later versions. This would have the effect of eliminating the comb filtering (which would also make it sound more relaxed and realistic with solid state amps) as well as causing the load impedance to be higher and more linear, something the tube amps would like a lot.

My experience with old AGs is in line with yours, as the best results we achieved with them were using Mark Levinson 33H monos. We also noticed the impedance issue of AGs and their incompatibility with SETs, but I wouldn’t have been able to explain it as technically as you did

 

[Kingrex]

I like a horn myself. I would like to investigate them further. It is odd anyone would drop into a horn thread and pitch Wilson?????? Who cares what the performance spec of a Wilson is. Or if some Wilson are bla bla bla. The OP wants to investigate horns and see what that they have to offer. I want to hear about the different horn offerings and how people are setting them up for best performance. If I wanted to read about Wilson or Magico, would go to that thread.

 

[microstrip]

I’m not claiming a photo proves phase coherence, I’m saying it can falsify it. If there’s a large, uncompensated physical offset between acoustic centers, visibly, like in the photo of the old AG Mezzo I posted, and no stepped geometry between the horns from the front, like on the Magico Ultimate horn where it’s visibly apparent, perfect time alignment is off the table unless DSP/all-pass is used, and that usually results in a less natural sound because the alignment is forced through filters. The placement of the voice coils in a vertical alignment is not equivalent to the exact acoustic center of the drivers, agreed, but at least it shows that the overall physical time alignment has been respected. And if a designer really wants to nail the exact acoustic centers of his drivers, he must rely on step/impulse measurements to get those sub-millimeter alignments right.

The reason you perceived the older Avantgarde models as shouty and in fact it confirms what I’ve been saying earlier is because the tweeter driver was positioned too far forward relative to the midrange. This lack of physical time alignment, as I mentioned, is also obvious on photo. That’s why many owners of the older Avantgardes solved this shouty and unnatural character by making structural modifications, essentially by moving the tweeter horn back about 20 cm and aligning it with the midrange.

You are ignoring the delays caused by phase changes in the crossover - things are much more complex than simple visual.

Each designer has its preferences and ways to get a sound type - there is no real proved evidence that time alignment is needed for top sound quality. Surely it is critical for some particular speakers.

 

[microstrip]

That's not the only reason, and I doubt very much the major reason too.

The older Avangarde Trios didn't have chokes in the crossovers. So the lower frequency units were still operating at higher frequencies. This means the higher the frequency the lower the impedance (since the lower frequency driver is in parallel with the higher frequency driver) and also means that comb filtering was present.

SETs would not have been happy about that load which meant you probably had to use the 4 Ohm taps to run that speaker, meaning the bass wouldn't be the right load (impedance too high, so the amp wouldn't make proper power). The designer intended it to be used with a solid state amp that didn't have the load impedance problem (although you'd still have the comb filtering problem, which is perceived as harshness).

Its my surmise that he sorted out that lower powered tube amp owners was actually his main market and so installed chokes in the later versions. This would have the effect of eliminating the comb filtering (which would also make it sound more relaxed and realistic with solid state amps) as well as causing the load impedance to be higher and more linear, something the tube amps would like a lot.

Thanks for telling me that my never carried project of buying an used pair of used of cheap AG Trio's, geting rid of the passive crossover and building a system using an array of Bottlehead SETs and an active crossover was probably a good idea!

BTW, the idea came from reading about Paul Stubblebine own system based om Magico M6 speakers. See: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-magico-speaker-is-this.11663/post-210825

 

[bonzo75]

The older Avangarde Trios didn't have chokes in the crossovers.

Hi by older, till which year are you referring to

 

[Kozak170]

That's not the only reason, and I doubt very much the major reason too.

The older Avangarde Trios didn't have chokes in the crossovers. So the lower frequency units were still operating at higher frequencies. This means the higher the frequency the lower the impedance (since the lower frequency driver is in parallel with the higher frequency driver) and also means that comb filtering was present.

SETs would not have been happy about that load which meant you probably had to use the 4 Ohm taps to run that speaker, meaning the bass wouldn't be the right load (impedance too high, so the amp wouldn't make proper power). The designer intended it to be used with a solid state amp that didn't have the load impedance problem (although you'd still have the comb filtering problem, which is perceived as harshness).

Its my surmise that he sorted out that lower powered tube amp owners was actually his main market and so installed chokes in the later versions. This would have the effect of eliminating the comb filtering (which would also make it sound more relaxed and realistic with solid state amps) as well as causing the load impedance to be higher and more linear, something the tube amps would like a lot.

What you said applies to the first generation of Avantgarde, and yes I’m aware of those issues such as the weak crossover and the midbass horn not being low-passed, which overlapped with the 2 kHz midrange and compromised the overall efficiency, causing many problems including harshness. I’m referring to the second generation and the XD models, before the G3, where those problems you mentioned had already been solved; that’s when Avantgarde owners still addressed the excess tweeter energy which could easily turn into harshness when paired with the wrong amp by moving the tweeter horn further back.

 

[Kozak170]

You are ignoring the delays caused by phase changes in the crossover - things are much more complex than simple visual.

Each designer has its preferences and ways to get a sound type - there is no real proved evidence that time alignment is needed for top sound quality. Surely it is critical for some particular speakers.

I understand your point about crossovers adding phase shifts and delays, but in the case of Avantgarde that’s not really applicable. Their crossovers are first order so they don’t introduce the kind of significant phase rotation and group delay you see with higher order networks. That’s exactly why the physical alignment of the horns matters so much in this design because the crossover isn’t masking it with complex phase shifts.

 

[Atmasphere]

What you said applies to the first generation of Avantgarde, and yes I’m aware of those issues such as the weak crossover and the midbass horn not being low-passed, which overlapped with the 2 kHz midrange and compromised the overall efficiency, causing many problems including harshness. I’m referring to the second generation and the XD models, before the G3, where those problems you mentioned had already been solved; that’s when Avantgarde owners still addressed the excess tweeter energy which could easily turn into harshness when paired with the wrong amp by moving the tweeter horn further back.

You may have noticed in a prior post that I mentioned that speakers that are meant to be used by amplifiers of high output impedance (such as most SETs) must have level controls in the crossover. If they do not, the speaker can't be adjusted to the power response of the amplifier used. So the result can be a frequency response error. SETs are what I call Power Paradigm technology in that neither the amps nor speakers used with them are Voltage driven; instead they are power driven and the amp acts more like a power source than a Voltage source.

If you mix the two technologies you usually get a tonal aberration of some sort (like brightness or no bass). More info.

 

[Kozak170]

You may have noticed in a prior post that I mentioned that speakers that are meant to be used by amplifiers of high output impedance (such as most SETs) must have level controls in the crossover. If they do not, the speaker can't be adjusted to the power response of the amplifier used. So the result can be a frequency response error. SETs are what I call Power Paradigm technology in that neither the amps nor speakers used with them are Voltage driven; instead they are power driven and the amp acts more like a power source than a Voltage source.

If you mix the two technologies you usually get a tonal aberration of some sort (like brightness or no bass). More info.

Yes, I understand your point about SETs and the Power Paradigm. That’s exactly why the first generation Avantgardes were not SET-friendly and needed at least 50 watts or more to be driven properly. But from the second generation onwards, after those crossover and impedance issues were corrected, they became much easier to drive with low-power tube amps like the 300B or 2A3 without running into the tonal aberrations you described.