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

[Rob181]

What about Zellaton speakers? Which group would you place them in?

The advantage that Zellaton have are numerous. Same driver type for the whole range. A mid range speaker that covers from 350 to 7000 hz & a benign impedance range. They are the best "box" speakers I have heard...

 

[morricab]

Yes but they might be aligned on sensitivity and impedance. I don’t know about anima as they don’t disclose exact drivers. Universum is all Radian and bass is active, and the reason why I don’t like it as much as the dual woofer FLHs like Altec 817.

The DIY array is Goto and Altec. I assume Goto sensitivity and impedance is aligned to Altec’s, and the relative weak point to my ears compared to FLH was the cabinet bass.

The issue comes when your sensitivities and impedances are misaligned. The reason many systems are fatiguing is that you are turning up volume for the least loud and difficult to drive driver, causing the other driver to go too loud. Or you risk losing musical information if you turn volume down. And requires worse amps to get to low impedances.

Cessaro TAD with Supravox is a great example of why Cessaro midbass below is as not as good, because the Supravox cannot be properly integrated with the TAD

Why do you think the Supravox cannot be integrated with a TAD compression driver?

 

[morricab]

I think you should forget what you think about TAD R1, Gobel Majestic, Wilson WAMM and try to listen to these speakers with proper amplification then you will realize relation of impedance/sensitivity and proper dynamics is not as simple as you think.
In practice Gobel Majestic, TAD R1 and WAMM can give you close to horn dynamics.

Sigma MAAT is efficient but is not a good speaker in comparison by flagship model of gobel, TAD, Wilson. My experience shows All of those specification like no-crossover (like wilson benesch), simple crossover (like MATT) , linear phase (like gryphon) all are marketing hype and the only trusted way to speak about speakers is listening to those speakers.

Sorry, no they cannot.

 

[bonzo75]

Why do you think the Supravox cannot be integrated with a TAD compression driver?

The midbass is just not of the same quality, and no matter how much someone I know tried to adjust the cross over, there is always a hole or a bump depending on which way you go, never a smooth integration. The woofer moves slower than the tad, very audible

 

[morricab]

marketing is not just advertising in audio magazines or audio reviewing, many companies try to convince you they produce better products by showing better specifications. Check Gryphon and wilson benesch speakers specification : no crossover, sealed box bass, linear phase and time crossover, carbon fiber driver … when you listen to those speakers you think all of those good specs are just marketing hype. there are some low-mid level dacs in this market that claim they use r-2r dac but their sound is not good.
Check Aries Crates specification and listen to Aries Crates room in Moc 2024 , you can not believe it.

I think we should listen and listen and listen without reading specs/reviews …

What do you mean with regard to Aries Cerat?

The problem is that even a simple crossover or no crossover can make up for sluggish drivers and cabinet loadings.

The only two non-horn speaker brands that approach horn dynamics that I have heard are Grandinote Mach 8 Xl (has a horn tweeter) and Mach 9 or Horning speakers (which has horn bass).

 

[morricab]

The midbass is just not of the same quality, and no matter how much someone I know tried to adjust the cross over, there is always a hole or a bump depending on which way you go, never a smooth integration. The woofer moves slower than the tad, very audible

That probably has more to do with the bass loading because the Supravox is a very responsive driver.

 

[morricab]

The midbass is just not of the same quality, and no matter how much someone I know tried to adjust the cross over, there is always a hole or a bump depending on which way you go, never a smooth integration. The woofer moves slower than the tad, very audible

Why do you think Cessaro has kept it in their lineup for so long if it isn’t good?

 

[bonzo75]

Why do you think Cessaro has kept it in their lineup for so long if it isn’t good?

What are their alternatives in terms of currently produced drivers where they can save costs? Btw he has already moved to producing his own drivers. Also, since when did “because a designer is using it it must be a good fit” become your argument?

 

[morricab]

What are their alternatives in terms of currently produced drivers where they can save costs? Btw he has already moved to producing his own drivers. Also, since when did “because a designer is using it it must be a good fit” become your argument?

Their own drivers are basically copies of the Supravox. I asked Ralph about it and he said there were too many QC issues with Supravox. ..it wasn’t because he was unhappy with their sound. I never said anything like what you ate claiming for me as an argument. A lot of designers make strange choices, but Ralph seems pretty competent and then to keep a driver in use for such a long time says they like the sound of it even if you don’t…your opinion is not the final arbiter. I haven’t heard Chopin or Wagner but I use the Supravox in a TQWT loading and it matches quite well with various compression drivers.

 

[morricab]

What are their alternatives in terms of currently produced drivers where they can save costs? Btw he has already moved to producing his own drivers. Also, since when did “because a designer is using it it must be a good fit” become your argument?

The Supravox was also not a cheap driver, so probably making their own version saves some money…not that it’s needed given Cessaro prices.

 

[bonzo75]

Their own drivers are basically copies of the Supravox. I asked Ralph about it and he said there were too many QC issues with Supravox. ..it wasn’t because he was unhappy with their sound.

Why will he say he is unhappy? He sold them in 500k speakers! Do you expect him to say I sold them even knowing they did not fit?

 

[morricab]

Why will he say he is unhappy? He sold them in 500k speakers! Do you expect him to say I sold them even knowing they did not fit?

Companies quietly change designs all the time when they realize they are not working...I would expect that rather than an announcement or mea culpa. What you don't do is stick with the same driver for more than a decade if it isn't working as you say.

 

[bonzo75]

Companies quietly change designs all the time when they realize they are not working...I would expect that rather than an announcement or mea culpa. What you don't do is stick with the same driver for more than a decade if it isn't working as you say.

Ok you are defensive of Supravox that’s fine. I don’t see many commercial alternatives. Doesn’t make it ideal. This is why those based on vintage drivers are much better, but not commercially viable

 

[morricab]

Ok you are defensive of Supravox that’s fine. I don’t see many commercial alternatives. Doesn’t make it ideal. This is why those based on vintage drivers are much better, but not commercially viable

Yes, I think Supravox are good, no I am not defensive. There are some pro drivers from Faital Pro, Beyma and 18 Sound that could probably do an excellent job when used in the same position. However, the Supravox is special in that it has a very low Qts, which makes it ideal for horn/TQWT type loadings and not all drivers that are otherwise suitable would work that well in a horn. If there was a better for that purpose (the old Focal driver in my Odeons is one possible example, but as you say no longer available), then why hasn't Ralph quietly switched over to it? Why make a virtual copy of the Supravox, which he uses in the Opus 1 that is a reflex loading. I think the problem is more that you don't like the driver. It was also used in the Lansche 4.1, which by most accounts was a superb speaker and also very easy to drive.

 

[LL21]

I enjoyed the Acapella Audio Arts horns with dedicated electronics at Munich, they pleased my listening in so many ways.

Which ones did you hear? Have heard good things about the Hyperion and would love to learn more about them. Great footprint. Tall but manageable.

 

[sbnx]

In my view, an efficient loudspeaker is a resistive-friendly design, one that keeps its impedance flat and above 5–6 ohms across most of the frequency range, is often high-sensitivity (95 dB+), and avoids complex crossovers that introduce phase rotation. Such designs behave much closer to a purely resistive load and are therefore highly SET-friendly.
An example is the Sigma Acoustics MAAT, which features physically time-aligned drivers and a first-order crossover (time & phase aligned). Its designer drives it with a 20w 300B amp. Another example is a full-range speaker without a crossover, such as the Grandinote Mach, which can be easily driven with 300B or 2A3 SETs.

By this definition, the Goebel Noblesse cannot be placed in that league, as it behaves more like a reactive-load loudspeaker, similar to Wilson or Magico. However, it generally requires less current (can be driven by 150w amps such as Robert Koda) compared to the Wilson XVX, which demands high-current amps in the 300W+ range (such as CH, darTZeel, or D’Agostino).



Goebel, like other marketing driven brands such as Magico, Wilson, TAD, Kharma, Stenheim.. uses a complex crossover (3rd order). Unfortunately, many loudspeaker manufacturers, instead of first matching their drivers physically and acoustically to simplify the crossover (as done by Vandersteen, Sigma Acoustics), take the easier and cheaper route, and forcefully match the drivers using a complex crossovers to cover up design flaws. If you look at Gobel, you'll see that the drivers are not time-aligned, and this flaw alone makes the crossover more complicated. to compensate for the lack of physical time alignment of the drivers, they shift the burden onto the crossover and employ special filters such as all-pass filter to mask the phase delay issue. Naturally, this results in a more complex crossover, introduces additional filters and phase shifts, diminishes musicality, and ultimately makes the speaker harder to drive.

Just becasue a speaker designer time aligns the drivers and uses a first order crossover does not mean it will have a simple crossover or be easy to drive. I present the crossover for a Thiel 3.6 as an example. Just look at all of those parts for a simple 3-way speaker. Although a relatively flat impedance, it was below 3 ohms and a sensitivity of 86 dB/2.8V which would translate to about 81 dB/W.

 

[DasguteOhr]

That probably has more to do with the bass loading because the Supravox is a very responsive driver.

If you force a driver around 30 Hz, even though it only manages 60 Hz cleanly, that's a problem. Supravox isn't known for working good at low frequencies. A bass supplement, such as a 12" Beyma from 80 Hz down, would probably have been a better choice. Like the liszt my opinion.

 

[morricab]

If you force a driver around 30 Hz, even though it only manages 60 Hz cleanly, that's a problem. Supravox isn't known for working good at low frequencies. A bass supplement, such as a 12" Beyma from 80 Hz down, would probably have been a better choice. Like the liszt my opinion.

When you horn load it’s the horn that is doing the heavy lifting, the driver resonance doesn’t matter so much. However, the Wagner is using some combination of horn and reflex and that tuning might be problematic. Again, I haven’t heard this model from Cessaro, so hard to say if it is really an issue or not…just because one person says it doesn’t work doesn’t necessarily make it so.

 

[morricab]

Just becasue a speaker designer time aligns the drivers and uses a first order crossover does not mean it will have a simple crossover or be easy to drive. I present the crossover for a Thiel 3.6 as an example. Just look at all of those parts for a simple 3-way speaker. Although a relatively flat impedance, it was below 3 ohms and a sensitivity of 86 dB/2.8V which would translate to about 81 dB/W.

View attachment 156980

It also had a fairly narrow dynamic window…was quite good within it though!

 

[Atmasphere]

In my view, an efficient loudspeaker is a resistive-friendly design, one that keeps its impedance flat and above 5–6 ohms across most of the frequency range, is often high-sensitivity (95 dB+), and avoids complex crossovers that introduce phase rotation. Such designs behave much closer to a purely resistive load and are therefore highly SET-friendly.

You didn't use 'high efficiency' here. I agree with all of this except the efficiency bit, which for most SETs (7W or less) really should be 99dB or higher (there is a reason horn speakers were so much more common into the 1950s). Any zero feedback SET really has only about 20-25% of their rated power as usable. Above that distortion makes them sound 'dynamic'. To avoid that, to get the most out of the SET, you need an actual high efficiency speaker.

I consider 90-96dB as moderate and mostly unsuited for SETs unless the SET is very high power (such as 30 Watts).

If you can please Come to Iran and listen to my TAD R1 you will realize theory/specs are different to real experience

That speaker, while excellent in many ways, is 4 Ohms. So its only 87dB 1 Watt/1 meter. Unless in a very small room its not suited for SETs as both the efficiency and impedance are not ideal for a zero feedback SET. TAD made some excellent drivers though. In particular the 1602 woofer which was 8 Ohms, 97dB and had a free air resonance of 22Hz. In a proper cabinet it could be flat to below 20Hz.

when did “because a designer is using it it must be a good fit” become your argument?

Yes- recursive arguments like that are an appeal to authority.