Unfortunately the thing in audio is people expect an upgrade moving from older to newer model or lower priced to higher priced, and once in, it is very difficult to get out. This is compounded by the fact that often a model that comes is not optimised before they move on to the next “upgrade”. All these keep the newbie linear in his approach..
What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Hi Micro...thank you. As always, I enjoy reading about your experiences, and in particularly about Wilson speakers given that you own them and know them well.
Regarding 'filtered'...I actually do not mean in any way in terms of the color of the sound...more like I felt that the sound seemed to be 'pushing' through the speaker more than through the X1s where it seemed music could flood thru unimpeded. Like the difference between breathing clearly and openly and trying to breath thru a fine cloth.
That said, I absolutely preferred what came thru the cloth of the XLF than what came thru the 'cloth-less' X1 because the X1 signal was 'weaker' in terms of intrinsic noise floor, less resolute and less resolved, even perhaps a touch of mechanical distortion thru vibration, lesser resolution from the upper cabinets for treble and mids, and reduced ability to handle dynamic scale and micro nuance at the same time...all kinds of things. The XLF is the more confident, capable speaker overall.
And yes, I could well imagine the VTL being a brilliant companion. I have often found that many Wilson speakers respond well to high quality high power when it comes to macro dynamics, ability to handle complex orchestral passages where you can find a range of dynamic expression at once almost pianissimo and fortissimo at the same time.
Thank you...it was an impression when I first heard them which has stuck with me...and as I have learned more about them and things like what you say about their design, it does all seem to fall into place. And yes, from a personal preference perspective, the XLF was the first big Wilson since the original X1 that I really really liked. (I passed thru the X1 upgrades (the Series III was excellent) and the Alexandria I and 2.)
In fact, I have also heard the wonderful XVX...and while there is quite a lot to like in them as well...I was not inspired to investigate them further. Price had a part in that but not everything. I absolutely know and respect owners who passed over the XLFs and/or had other great speakers (Rockport Arrakis)...and went to XVX as the ultimate upgrade. I get it. It does do certain things remarkably well. It has Daryl Wilson's signature sense of nuance and intimacy in a way that the XLFs do not do as well...it has a remarkably quiet/low noise floor...and I think it probably is much more precise in its ability to be adjusted in-room. I am told its low end response is far superior...we tested it but not exhaustively when I heard them and I could believe it. Whereas with the Alexandria, its package of characteristics did not add up to a package I preferred over the original X1s, I would say the XVX has a package of characteristics I would say is superior to the XLF but not to the degree that inspired me to move forward on them.
If anything, it inspired me to look elsewhere for comparison and competition. And by complete happenstance, I came across the AG Trio G3s around the same time and was supremely impressed. And since then there appears to have been an enormous level of production in the high end in cones, panels and horns. Caravaggio XX, Clarysis Auditorium, Zellaton Ultra, Stenheim, Marten, MBL Extreme II (mainly the bass towers), etc
True, it's like chasing an illusion of progress. Every 'upgrade' feels like a step forward, but sometimes you're just running in a loop. Only the gear changes, not the journey!
Yes, newer definitely not always better...often different (though not always!)...but not necessarily better and quite often not 'worth the price' of any upgrade.
Between 2010 and 2019, Wilson released three flagship models: the Alexandria X2 Series 2, XLF, and XVX (roughly every 3 years). On the other hand, Avantgarde took 14 years to move from the second-generation G2, introduced in 2008, to the G3, which was introduced in 2022. I believe if you choose the simpler route with AG/SET, you’ll get caught less in the loop of changes, and instead, you’ll just listen to more music.
I think it’s a smarter strategy to upgrade your line every 8 to 10 years.
Thank you. I have been very impressed with the AG Trio G3. It takes up a LOT of floorspace, but it is definitely at a level of rarified performance for me. Not necessarily in point for point technical comparisons, but in terms of overall quality performance, it ranks with the Genesis 1s and the Rockport Arrakis for me which are in their own class of performance. Genesis 1 for all-out effortless scale...something I have never experienced before. And the Arrakis for such a seamlessly balanced performance where its technicals across the board are so fluidly and effortlessly performed. I have not yet established the full measure of the AG Trio but it certainly combines the technical proficiency of nuance of the Arrakis with a scale that probably lies somewhere between the simply massive Genesis 1s and the Arrakis. The key is I suspect of all 3 the AG Trio is by far the most difficult to physically set up and the most specific on the rest of the system.
Let us write down the facts.
The Alexandria X-2 was released in 2003. It was upgraded to Series 2 in 2010. The Alexandria Series 2 only lasted for two years and in 2012 the XLF was released and the XVX in 2019. The XVX is not exactly a XLF replacement - it is a speaker between the XLF and the WAMM.
IMO Avantgarde should have upgraded the Trio G2 much earlier. Due to its limitations and problems it never got the acceptance that such speaker deserved. I considered it several times, but the harsh treble put me away.
Not at all. And it is not that Rockports and Wilsons compare on SQ at all, set up all you want. Haven’t heard Arrakis, but heard other models including Lyra (set up by Stirling).
My point was more general. For example, in the case of the Sasha model, Wilson has introduced three versions over 9 years: Sasha 2, DAW, and V. As for the Alexandria model, Wilson upgraded it to Series 2 in 2010, but only kept it for two years before releasing the XLF in 2012, followed by the XVX in 2019. While low efficiency speakers like these typically require more power to achieve the desired sound levels, placing additional strain on drivers and electronics, this leads to higher heat and distortion over time, ultimately affecting performance. As a result, they require more frequent upgrades. High efficiency speakers, on the other hand, require less current, resulting in less distortion and a more stable, long-lasting performance with fewer upgrades needed over time.
In general, older Avantgarde models, when paired with the right amplifier, such as Viva, Audiopax, or Thomas Mayer, did not suffer from harshness in the tweeter. This was the experience of Jim Smith, as well as many other Avantgarde owners, where the right amplifier setup made a noticeable difference in performance, eliminating harshness. It shows how the synergy between the speaker and amplifier can significantly affect the sound, resulting in a more refined and enjoyable listening experience. However, with the new G3 generation, sensitivity in matching and the potential for harshness in high frequencies have been significantly minimized, expanding the range of amplifier options available for Avantgarde users.
Hornsolutions Swen
Well-Known Member
The Trio from Avantgarde Acoustic, like any other horn loudspeaker with spherical horn geometry, has a direct sound component of approximately 20–23%. This applies from the frequency range where the largest spherical horn becomes effective. While I am not an Avantgarde specialist, this is likely to occur around 160–200 Hz, although the full 6 dB efficiency gain is not yet achieved at this point. Due to this high direct sound component, placement is significantly less complicated than with conventional loudspeakers, which typically have a direct sound component of around 2%. The higher the direct sound component, the less one needs to account for negative room influences.
To make it even simpler: A headphone has nearly 100% direct sound, and even the least skilled person can put it on correctly.
This advantage applies to all horn-loaded loudspeakers, regardless of the horn contour—whether conical, Tractrix, exponential, hyperbolic, or other derived forms.Even the so called CD horns.
Best Regards S.
Last edited:
...Swen, is the direct sound element distributed equally among the drivers (tweeter, mid, woofer), in box speakers? Or horns for that matter.
I find most guidance info on speaker placement, toe-in, etc. seems (to me) to treat the speaker output as if it is a laser-beam, coming directly from the center of the speakers. I see some dispersion pattern info, but the concept of "direct" sound, and its approximate amount is of interest (to me). Thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to explain in technical terms...that also enable even a non-techie like me to understand! That is super super interesting.
Thanks...just saw Swen's post explaining why. The dealer said it was an extremely difficult speaker to set up perfectly, and I took him at his word. And when I heard how exacting the speaker was with musical information, I connected the two points. To be honest, this is a very very good point to learn from you and Swen. There is a reason why I have never ventured to panels despite really liking them...the space required behind the speakers can be significant making it an even greater consideration for a home.
Regarding Wilson XLF to AG Trio, I absolutely agree...the AG Trio is another class well above the XLF. That said, I also think the Arrakis is also in another class level above the XLF (not heard the Lyra). In the 2 times I auditioned the Altairs (Rockport is basically 2 Altairs stacked), I definitely found its scale and effortless delivery seemed to be far more than '2 Altairs'.
From my listening notes the Trio's presentation is more open, even more 'free'...but I genuinely like how Andy Payor has voiced his speakers even all the way back to the Merak Sheritan IIs. Just a rich musical experience for me,d and aside from the fact that the Arrakis requires 2 sets of everything for its active crossover (just not something I could take on size/room-wise) I would already happily own them. And their footprint is remarkably efficient being only slightly larger than the Wilsons.
Dealers say that to stop you from buying used and giving themselves a mystical set up artist halo. You have to judge when it is true and when not
Hornsolutions Swen
Well-Known Member
Hello Markus. I don't know if I understand your question correct. But I will try to answer as good as possible.English isn't my native language, therefore misunderstandings are possible.
Horns, Especially Exponential Horns but also other contours, have a Significantly Higher Direct Sound Component
It is undisputed that horns, particularly exponential horns, produce a much higher proportion of direct sound compared to conventional loudspeakers. The geometric design of horns, especially exponential horns, focuses sound propagation, particularly in the mid- and high-frequency ranges, resulting in a pronounced directional effect. This bundling increases the direct sound component relative to the room sound (reflected sound), as shorter wavelengths at higher frequencies allow the horn structure to control sound dispersion more effectively. For example, horns can achieve 10-20 dB higher direct sound efficiency compared to direct radiators, reducing interference from room reflections. This is why horns are often optimized for mid- and high-frequency ranges, where directivity is most effective. At lower frequencies, the bundling effect diminishes due to larger wavelengths, requiring significantly larger horn dimensions (e.g., an exponential horn for 20 Hz with a 15” woofer and a 10x10 cm throat would be approximately 8 meters long with a 2.5x3 meter mouth). This principle is supported by academic work, such as the TU Berlin thesis “Entwicklung eines Hornlautsprechers im Hinblick auf eine für akustische Reinigungsvorgänge optimierte Schallabstrahlung” by Nils Tesmer, which highlights the superior directivity of horns for controlled sound radiation.
2. Conventional Loudspeakers Have a Decreasing Direct Sound Component at Lower Frequencies
In conventional loudspeakers (e.g., dynamic box speakers), the direct sound component decreases as frequencies get lower. Low-frequency sound (bass) has longer wavelengths, which makes it less directional and more prone to diffraction around obstacles. This leads to a stronger influence of room reflections, increasing the proportion of room sound (reflected sound) relative to direct sound. In typical room scenarios, measured at the listening position, the direct sound component for conventional loudspeakers can be as low as 2% in the overall or bass range, though it may reach 20–30% in the high-frequency range where sound is more directional. This aligns with findings from Sengpiel Audio’s resources, such as the PDF “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen,” which notes that direct sound diminishes with distance and frequency due to the dominance of reflections in reverberant spaces. Similarly, TU Berlin’s exercise collections on acoustics (e.g., “Nahfeld und Fernfeld” and “Diffuses Schallfeld”) explain how direct sound dominates in the near field but drops significantly in the far field, especially for low frequencies, due to diffuse sound fields in typical rooms.
3. Supporting Evidence from TU Berlin and Sengpiel Audio
Research from the Technical University of Berlin’s Audio Communication Group, partially mirrored on Sengpiel Audio, supports these claims. The site sengpielaudio.com hosts relevant materials, such as problem sets from TU Berlin’s Kommunikationstechnik courses, which analyze loudspeaker directivity and sound fields. For instance:
• The document “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen” explains how direct sound decreases with distance and is overtaken by room reflections, particularly for bass frequencies.
Link: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/DirektschallUndDeckenreflexionen.pdf
• TU Berlin’s thesis by Nils Tesmer (available via DepositOnce)
Best Regards S.
Last edited:
Swen,
Thank you (on behalf of myself, but I imagine many others here)...this is a fascinating thread and your posts (for me) have been a very meaningful part of the reason why. Ever since the AG Trio G3s I have really become more interested in horns after several not so inspiring experiences.
That said, there is much to learn on how they work and why...still from a rough, non-technical perspective...and of course ultimately there is the listening. The ultimate proof is in the listening.
Looking forward to reading more. See questions below!
Hornsolutions Swen
Well-Known Member
Since we are already about to argue with physics, I would like to come back to one of my posts from last week, which was ridiculed by this TAD user.
The Role of Direct Sound in Reducing Listening Fatigue: Why Horns Outperform Conventional
When listening to music or audio through loudspeakers, the experience can vary significantly. Some speakers feel fatiguing over long sessions, while others remain comfortable. Something, nearly every listener already experienced.
This treatise argues that a higher proportion of direct sound—the sound traveling straight from the speaker to the listener’s ears—makes it easier for the brain to process audio, leading to a clearer soundstage and less listening fatigue. Specifically, horns, particularly exponential horns, excel in delivering high direct sound, while conventional loudspeakers lose direct sound at lower frequencies, increasing mental effort. This is supported by psychoacoustic principles and audio engineering research.
Direct Sound and the Brain’s Processing
The human brain reconstructs a “soundstage”—a mental image of where sounds originate—using cues like the time difference between ears (Interaural Time Difference, ITD) and level differences (Interaural Level Difference, ILD). Direct sound delivers these cues clearly, as it arrives at the ears without interference from room reflections. A high direct sound share (e.g., 20–30% in the high-frequency range) allows the brain to easily localize instruments or voices, creating a vivid, stable soundstage with minimal effort.
Room sound (reflections from walls, ceilings, etc.) arrives slightly delayed, which distorts these signals. The brain must work harder to filter out reflections and reconstruct the soundstage, increasing listening effort. Over time, this effort leads to listening fatigue, causing discomfort or even headaches during prolonged listening sessions. Psychoacoustic studies confirm that clear direct sound reduces cognitive load, making listening more relaxing (Blauert, 1997). Notably,
Jens Blauert’s work btw has been instrumental in teaching me the most important aspects of horn development.
Horns, especially exponential horns, are designed to focus sound in a highly directional way, significantly increasing the direct sound component. Their geometric shape channels sound waves, particularly in the mid- and high-frequency ranges, where shorter wavelengths allow precise control. For example, horns can achieve 10–20 dB higher direct sound efficiency than conventional speakers, reducing room reflections (Tesmer, n.d.). This results in a clearer soundstage and less mental effort, making horns ideal for long, fatigue-free listening sessions.
However, for low frequencies (e.g., 20 Hz), horns require massive sizes (e.g., an 8-meter-long exponential horn with a 2.5x3-meter mouth for a 15” woofer) due to longer wavelengths, which limits their practicality for bass (Tesmer, n.d.). Still, their directivity in mid- and high-frequency ranges makes them superior for clear, effortless audio reproduction.
Conventional Loudspeakers: Losing Direct Sound at Lower Frequencies
Conventional loudspeakers, such as dynamic box speakers, struggle to maintain direct sound at lower frequencies. Bass frequencies have long wavelengths, causing sound to spread widely and diffract around objects, increasing room reflections. In typical rooms, measured at the listening position, direct sound can drop to as low as 2% in the bass range, though it may reach 20–30% in the high-frequency range where sound is more directional (Sengpiel Audio, n.d.). The dominance of room reflections forces the brain to work harder to separate direct sound from echoes, leading to greater listening fatigue over time.
Conclusion
A higher direct sound share, as achieved by horns, simplifies the brain’s task of reconstructing a soundstage, reducing listening effort and fatigue. Conventional loudspeakers, with less direct sound at lower frequencies due to room reflections, demand more mental processing, making them more fatiguing over time. Horns, with their superior directivity, offer a clearer, more immersive experience, proving why they are less taxing for long listening sessions. This theory is grounded in psychoacoustics and audio engineering, as evidenced by research from TU Berlin and Sengpiel Audio.
Resources from Sengpiel Audio, such as “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen,” explain how direct sound diminishes with distance and frequency, with reflections overtaking in reverberant spaces (Sengpiel Audio, n.d.). This aligns with why conventional speakers can feel more fatiguing during extended listening.
Evidence from Research
Academic and practical sources support this theory:
• TU Berlin’s Audio Communication Group: A thesis by Nils Tesmer explores horn loudspeakers’ ability to enhance direct sound efficiency, improving sound radiation control and reducing room interference (Tesmer, n.d., available via DepositOnce).
• Sengpiel Audio Resources: The document “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen” details how direct sound decreases in typical rooms, especially for low frequencies, increasing the role of reflections (available at http://www.sengpielaudio.com/DirektschallUndDeckenreflexionen.pdf).
• Psychoacoustics: Jens Blauert’s work on spatial hearing highlights how clear direct sound improves binaural processing, reducing cognitive effort (Blauert, 1997).
Additionally, TU Berlin’s exercise collections on acoustics (e.g., “Nahfeld und Fernfeld” and “Diffuses Schallfeld” at https://sengpielaudio.com/AufgabensammlungAudiokommunikation.htm) confirm that direct sound dominates in controlled setups, while diffuse fields in typical rooms challenge the brain’s processing.
Best Regards S.
The Role of Direct Sound in Reducing Listening Fatigue: Why Horns Outperform Conventional
When listening to music or audio through loudspeakers, the experience can vary significantly. Some speakers feel fatiguing over long sessions, while others remain comfortable. Something, nearly every listener already experienced.
This treatise argues that a higher proportion of direct sound—the sound traveling straight from the speaker to the listener’s ears—makes it easier for the brain to process audio, leading to a clearer soundstage and less listening fatigue. Specifically, horns, particularly exponential horns, excel in delivering high direct sound, while conventional loudspeakers lose direct sound at lower frequencies, increasing mental effort. This is supported by psychoacoustic principles and audio engineering research.
Direct Sound and the Brain’s Processing
The human brain reconstructs a “soundstage”—a mental image of where sounds originate—using cues like the time difference between ears (Interaural Time Difference, ITD) and level differences (Interaural Level Difference, ILD). Direct sound delivers these cues clearly, as it arrives at the ears without interference from room reflections. A high direct sound share (e.g., 20–30% in the high-frequency range) allows the brain to easily localize instruments or voices, creating a vivid, stable soundstage with minimal effort.
Room sound (reflections from walls, ceilings, etc.) arrives slightly delayed, which distorts these signals. The brain must work harder to filter out reflections and reconstruct the soundstage, increasing listening effort. Over time, this effort leads to listening fatigue, causing discomfort or even headaches during prolonged listening sessions. Psychoacoustic studies confirm that clear direct sound reduces cognitive load, making listening more relaxing (Blauert, 1997). Notably,
Jens Blauert’s work btw has been instrumental in teaching me the most important aspects of horn development.
Horns, especially exponential horns, are designed to focus sound in a highly directional way, significantly increasing the direct sound component. Their geometric shape channels sound waves, particularly in the mid- and high-frequency ranges, where shorter wavelengths allow precise control. For example, horns can achieve 10–20 dB higher direct sound efficiency than conventional speakers, reducing room reflections (Tesmer, n.d.). This results in a clearer soundstage and less mental effort, making horns ideal for long, fatigue-free listening sessions.
However, for low frequencies (e.g., 20 Hz), horns require massive sizes (e.g., an 8-meter-long exponential horn with a 2.5x3-meter mouth for a 15” woofer) due to longer wavelengths, which limits their practicality for bass (Tesmer, n.d.). Still, their directivity in mid- and high-frequency ranges makes them superior for clear, effortless audio reproduction.
Conventional Loudspeakers: Losing Direct Sound at Lower Frequencies
Conventional loudspeakers, such as dynamic box speakers, struggle to maintain direct sound at lower frequencies. Bass frequencies have long wavelengths, causing sound to spread widely and diffract around objects, increasing room reflections. In typical rooms, measured at the listening position, direct sound can drop to as low as 2% in the bass range, though it may reach 20–30% in the high-frequency range where sound is more directional (Sengpiel Audio, n.d.). The dominance of room reflections forces the brain to work harder to separate direct sound from echoes, leading to greater listening fatigue over time.
Conclusion
A higher direct sound share, as achieved by horns, simplifies the brain’s task of reconstructing a soundstage, reducing listening effort and fatigue. Conventional loudspeakers, with less direct sound at lower frequencies due to room reflections, demand more mental processing, making them more fatiguing over time. Horns, with their superior directivity, offer a clearer, more immersive experience, proving why they are less taxing for long listening sessions. This theory is grounded in psychoacoustics and audio engineering, as evidenced by research from TU Berlin and Sengpiel Audio.
Resources from Sengpiel Audio, such as “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen,” explain how direct sound diminishes with distance and frequency, with reflections overtaking in reverberant spaces (Sengpiel Audio, n.d.). This aligns with why conventional speakers can feel more fatiguing during extended listening.
Evidence from Research
Academic and practical sources support this theory:
• TU Berlin’s Audio Communication Group: A thesis by Nils Tesmer explores horn loudspeakers’ ability to enhance direct sound efficiency, improving sound radiation control and reducing room interference (Tesmer, n.d., available via DepositOnce).
• Sengpiel Audio Resources: The document “Direktschall - Deckenreflexionen und Wandreflexionen” details how direct sound decreases in typical rooms, especially for low frequencies, increasing the role of reflections (available at http://www.sengpielaudio.com/DirektschallUndDeckenreflexionen.pdf).
• Psychoacoustics: Jens Blauert’s work on spatial hearing highlights how clear direct sound improves binaural processing, reducing cognitive effort (Blauert, 1997).
Additionally, TU Berlin’s exercise collections on acoustics (e.g., “Nahfeld und Fernfeld” and “Diffuses Schallfeld” at https://sengpielaudio.com/AufgabensammlungAudiokommunikation.htm) confirm that direct sound dominates in controlled setups, while diffuse fields in typical rooms challenge the brain’s processing.
Best Regards S.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |