It was a blanket statement. You just haven't heard a good horn. Many are colored, but not all.
You wrote: "all horns more or less color the sound".
That IS a blanket statement, since (even assuming we agree on your implicit definition of "coloration"):
(i) you cannot possibly have listened to ALL horns,
(ii) different horns sound vastly different from one another, and
(iii) a LOT of what you hear actually depends on the crossover and system integration.
M.
He is true, all horns more or less color the sound, but so do all other radiating devices existing to date 😉
It was a personal opinion, not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would cause fruitless and endless discussion.
I have heard many horn systems, some of them are very good, like Bjoern Kolbrek and Thomas Dunker's horn system at last years European Triode Festival, and the leCleach based round horns.
When you say "many are colored, but not all", I'd rather say "they all color, but one more than the other".
If you prefer higher efficiency and higher maximum SPL horns are great.
If you are sensitive to coloration, stick with direct radiators.
Just IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Such a "music to my ears" listening to you guys. 😛
Lynn, I hardly ever came across better example than your analogy of a good triode to a large format image. One can experience such a deep emotional connection to both. "Large and medium format are about textures, not sharpness." I would just add, with its grainless canvas, large format allows lens to shine and lens is the one that becomes more influential, visible and apparent adding quality or poetry to the shoot. Just like difference between good or bad recording really becomes noticeable on a good system. Large format lenses have much bigger task than typical 35mm lens that covers only 24x36mm. Typical 4x5 lens must cover 5x7 or 8x10 circle, and so on. 8x10 lens covers 11x14 circle! In return, due to its shallow depth of field, the difference between sharp and soft areas of image is just breathtaking and that is where real poetry is hidden.
My start was with Pentax K1000. While I was shooting for daily newspaper Nikon F2 and with Leica M4 for people shoots. Later, during advertising years I used Sinar 4x5 or 8x10 with primarily Schneider and some Nikon lenses. You really brought memories mentioning Ilford, Rodinal (R09) developer and Tri-X film. Shooting sports for newspaper we always laughed in lab while enlarging images - Is it a ball or a grain?. Due to always poor light at football (soccer) matches and needing always shorter exposure time we would push 400 ASA Tri X at 1600 ASA and process longer which will blow grain to its max.
It is interesting that with the early digital photography there was similar distinction in formats - scanning back on 4x5 and at the time really poor small format triple captures. Scanning back was using a full 4x5 size and lenses and was quite capable in size ending at 380Mb, while triple and later single capture cameras were about or smaller of the size of 35mm film. Unfortunately scanning backs are not supported any more, but it was really the only successful alternative to the film in my mind.
Today the large format is almost completely gone and even in professional market, digital support for large format cameras is all but eliminated. I am holding on my 4x5 Sinar P2 with lenses and will not sell it ever!
Physics has learnt me that when you measure a radiating device (loudspeaker), and again measure the radiating device with some other device (horn) between the radiating device and your measuring equipment, you will have unequal outcome.
This is why, for example, human air flow causes a flute to sound like a flute.
The radiating device (mouth - embouchure) is the same for all wind instruments; the construction of the intermediate device makes it the wind instrument with it's specific timbre.
Horn loudspeakers will never be able to escape these fundamental physics.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing, it's just an opinion, built on- we don't know what.
My opinion is that I find most direct radiators more colored than a good horn system. Consistently. Why would that be? I have friends here how consistently find horns too colored (some of the same ones you heard at ETF).
What's up with that? Why do I, and some others, find horns to be the most lifelike, least artificial sounding systems, while others swear that cones are? What are we hearing differently? What things do I notice that bother me, that don't bother you, and vice versa?
Electronics are similar. I often hear people talk about "tube sound" as a coloration. OK, it can be, in certain amps. But not on good amps. To me, good tube amps have a lack of the artificial electronic coloration that so many solid state amps have. Transistor coloration. Some hear it, some don't. I don't know why.
Yes, indeed. Texture is the big standout for me. The larger formats have a feel and texture the small formats can not match. I have some 8x10 contact prints of old courthouses I did years ago. The solidity and texture are palpable. They are striking to look at.
I use to be a big fan of 70mm movies. Would go to see every one I could. The most astounding print I ever saw was of David Lean's film "Ryan's Daughter". Stunning! Again the adjective palpable comes to mind. It felt like you could reach out and touch the rock walls, the boats, the houses. Far more real than any 3D film I've ever seen. Freddie Young won an Oscar for his cinematography, as well he should. Young also shot Lean's Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm, but I didn't find it as sublimely real looking as Ryan's Daughter.
This forum is amazing. You never know what will turn up. 🙂
I used scanning back 4x5 cameras for several years. DicoMed, Betterlight and mostly PhaseOne. Most people have never heard of them, let alone shot with them. Impressive.
The image quality is superb. Makes 4x5 film look soft in comparison. You have to get up to 8x10 transparencies to get the same look and feel as the scanning back cameras. True high end imaging.
You should define "coloration" better, as it seems we have different opinions.
When you find good horn systems sounding least artificial and more lifelike, apparently for you it is less colored.
By the way I agree with the lifelike quality of horns....playing a big band through the Danish horns sounded like they were in the room. However some horns make a solo violin much bigger than in real life.
I am bothered by the subtle way horns change timbre of instruments and voices; that's what I call coloration.
For example when I hear a horn system reproducing a horn 😎, I just hear a "horn".
When played through a high quality direct radiator, for me it is easier to hear if the horn is a Paxman or an Alexander. In other words there is less change of timbre.
Agree with your opinion on tube sound!
Last edited by a moderator:
You have the physics wrong. Nothing in the physics of waveguides (because musical "horns" are made to be colored) requires that they have coloration (a change in timbre.) Make them correctly and they have smoother response than a direct radiator.
A friend of mine, Mauricio, made one giant horn for bass. I showed it some time ago in this thread. Also is in my avatar (almost unrecognizable, I shot it during a reform). The bass response is dominated only by the room modes (and better than average due to enormous mouth aka surface area), and harmonic distortion is varios order of magnitude lower than (choose your preferred winning award Hi-End big Xmax ten kW sub) direct radiators. And with almost 108dB/1W/1m! Selenium and Backstage people made a article at a Backstage magazine some 20 years ago.
The bass is for die for and after that I never become impressed by any direct radiator bass.
+1 for "tube sound": also for me, is the least electronic coloured
But like Linn Olson said in the Nutshell site, every person have a own perception (is very personal). Even my friends sometimes don't prefer my "official" system and prefer some alternative/testing system I've made for fun/play with...
Last edited:
😀 I was with Phase one from day one and participated with them in software development. Still with them. I always joked, only lazy photographers do not shoot scanning back. But the word went for convenience and so now the max format we have is 4.5 x 6 cm. That means on the 4 x 5" one has to shoot all the time with wide lenses - digital or analog regardless. I guess we are all punished for convenience - mp3s and small format cameras. As we see that is a double punishment for some of us.
I use this techique all the time, HolmImpulse is really a perfect real-time tool for that.
I usuall set the HP freq to 0.5*f and LP to 2*f and also scale transition width so a neatly enveloped burst develops which is both narrow-band enough and still has transient properties, plus it is linear-phase.
Easy to see with this filtering that with clean 0deg interphase XO's the envelopes do match in their shape and center-of-gravity points ("transient" alignment), as do the phases which affords a perfectly forward pointing lobing and a scalar (=maxium efficiency) SPL addition (on axis, at least). Both bursts almost look identical exept for level, at all frequencies.
As for the actual filters needed for the drivers, it's more important to get the acoustical phases right to their targets than having pefectly smooth amplitude responses as long as it all sums correctly.
EDIT: I still find some derivates of those "quasi-optimal" crossover functions often better sounding overall (thanks for your excellent input in that thread, btw).
Last edited:
No way!! Amazing. I miss that big old beast. My job was scanning fine art for print production. The resolution was so high, we rarely had to use the entire frame. I had a sign up the scanning booth that said "We use a 102 Megapixel Camera" (or something like that). Always got comments from visitors.
Unless you have daily contact with formats like these, the difference is hard to imagine. The same is true with live, uncompressed HD or 4K video. It makes the broadcast feeds look like poop.
This is relative, though I agree. A natural tone has the effect of taking the reproduction out of the way, and needs a wider band. If I would throw it on the line, I've found empirically that 0.1dB can upset the balance in the critical band, 0.25dB at 14kHz (I'm done by about there these days) can betray the space and put the reproduction back in the room, and 0.5dB at 200Hz can alter the weight and put the focus back on the speaker. Bass is optional (no it isn't 😀).
This mantra helped me shed my audiophoolery. I think once the constraints are found and instilled, everything becomes equally important once again.Gedlee said:
One of the mixed blessings of a slight degree of notoriety is that people sometimes walk up to me at hifi shows and at hifi shops and recognize me. They usually find I'm even more prejudiced and opinionated in person than in print (or electrons). That alienates some people and makes others laugh out loud. I have no way of knowing in advance how people are going to react.
Audiophiles and DIYer's seem to be all over the place. I've found the hard way most do not share my tastes. Last year at the RMAF, I sat directly between two really high-profile reviewers, both of whom I've known for more than 15 years, and they were ecstatic about XYZ speakers paired with ABC amplifiers. I thought the sound was awful, obviously distorted on the peaks, with pretty mediocre tonality even during the quiet passages. I just kept quiet, since the pair flanking me thought it was "the best sound of the show". It's not my job to argue with anyone's perceptions; the results are the same as arguing about religion, it doesn't get anywhere, and just annoys people.
I once sat next to an audiophile who I imagine was a regular reader of Stereophile or Absolute Sound. He had a detailed checklist with at least 20 different subjective parameters, and was steadily filling it in as we listened. He recognized me, and asked why I didn't use a checklist. My answer, which probably sounded smart-a** at the time, was that I either like a system or I don't. Well, really, I have three reactions: dislike, indifference, or enthusiasm. Not much in-between. Along with a keen, and somewhat unwanted, awareness of an assortment of technical faults in the crossover, drivers, or electronic defects.
If I don't hear too many defects (or can listen past them) I can feel enthusiasm. But my usual experience at a hifi show is walking in, hearing five things wrong all at once, and walking out again. I heard two good rooms at this year's RMAF, which seems about average.
Last edited: