Newb needs some help: speaker size

[Bucknekked]

While all answers to ur question are very good and no dought have their merits ultimately it's up to u. If I'm understanding this question its not the speaker size u are asking about but more the box size. Ultimately the only person who can best answer this question is u itself. Like me personally, I would have the speakers tucked back in the corner but that's me personally.

JCRIGGS:
What you have suggested, that I'm the final arbiter, is true. I am asking a question that ultimately has a subjective answer. But, there are a number of influencing factors that the experience of others can be of a great help. You are again correct when you say I'm looking for the box choice: bookshelf or floor standing.

This is where the opinions of others (educated and experienced opinions) can be of help. Those opinions won't make my decision, but if someone like ShadyJ that has years of experience in measurements and objective ways to come to an answer offers me some ways to improve the way I make my decision, I'm going to take the time and digest what he and others have to offer on the topic.

Ultimately, I'm going to have to make several decisions.
1) Should I just keep what I have and EQ the room? (the system sounds pretty darned good)
2) Do I stay with bookshelves + subwoofer in a new purchase? (a like for like upgrade)
3) Upgrade to a tower speaker? (take the risk a tower won't have timing issues in my small room)

You're correct. Its going to come down to me making a subjective decision. From what I have seen on Audioholics though, there is a wide variety of experience that can offer me a better piece of advice than my local Big Box store or those horrid purveyors of purple prose, the audiophile writers in magazines. One of the issues I face when wanting new speakers is "where can I listen to or demo some new ones?". There are precious few places to demo speakers these days. And none of them match my room. Still fewer will let me take them home for a demo.

I'm not in a hurry. I don't have to upgrade. I enjoy what I have and understand what I have better now that I have done a small room measurement project. I do have the itch to upgrade. I think a whole bunch of folks that live on this forum have that same itch. Its part of why this forum exists. I will take advantage of as much good advice as I can find before I decide to scratch that itch.

 

[Bucknekked]

I would also like to know something about it (room correction) that is fuzzy to me. My receiver has a low-level Audyssey system and I have used it a number of times. It doesn't give me cool graphs, just shows via On Screen Display that it has applied measurements to output. I've also used Anthem's ARC with an MRX710 receiver and it's interface between the receiver and a PC, and how you save the correction file to the receiver. I get how it works on both systems.

Here's where I'm in the dark: When you use an "aftermarket" measurement system such as REW and come up with what needs to be corrected or equalized, what is the procedure, software files and hardware used to actually get from measurements to corrected sound when it's not a "canned system" like Audyssey or ARC?

KenM:
Check out ShadyJ's response. I think it matches up with your question. REW + a miniDSP piece of hardware can apply the equilization data to the system. I did not know about this as a solution. I may still try it out. Still thinking about it.

 

[Pogre]

JCRIGGS:
What you have suggested, that I'm the final arbiter, is true. I am asking a question that ultimately has a subjective answer. But, there are a number of influencing factors that the experience of others can be of a great help. You are again correct when you say I'm looking for the box choice: bookshelf or floor standing.

This is where the opinions of others (educated and experienced opinions) can be of help. Those opinions won't make my decision, but if someone like ShadyJ that has years of experience in measurements and objective ways to come to an answer offers me some ways to improve the way I make my decision, I'm going to take the time and digest what he and others have to offer on the topic.

Ultimately, I'm going to have to make several decisions.
1) Should I just keep what I have and EQ the room? (the system sounds pretty darned good)
2) Do I stay with bookshelves + subwoofer in a new purchase? (a like for like upgrade)
3) Upgrade to a tower speaker? (take the risk a tower won't have timing issues in my small room)

You're correct. Its going to come down to me making a subjective decision. From what I have seen on Audioholics though, there is a wide variety of experience that can offer me a better piece of advice than my local Big Box store or those horrid purveyors of purple prose, the audiophile writers in magazines. One of the issues I face when wanting new speakers is "where can I listen to or demo some new ones?". There are precious few places to demo speakers these days. And none of them match my room. Still fewer will let me take them home for a demo.

I'm not in a hurry. I don't have to upgrade. I enjoy what I have and understand what I have better now that I have done a small room measurement project. I do have the itch to upgrade. I think a whole bunch of folks that live on this forum have that same itch. Its part of why this forum exists. I will take advantage of as much good advice as I can find before I decide to scratch that itch.

That's a very intelligent way to go about it buck. I think you're going to end up with something you really like. as far as my opinion, I still vote for bookshelf speakers and a sub upgrade. I have some experience with klipsch subs and svs, hsu or rythmik have far better offerings. as shady said though, that won't fix your room eq issues, but it would be a very real and audible upgrade to what you have now. I'll still plug the ultra bookshelf speakers too. I thought my system sounded great too, and it did, but even better now with the main speaker upgrade. a pair of ultras (800 for a pair on svs' outlet) and a good sub would come in well under your proposed budget.

not to say you shouldn't continue with your eq project. that combined with a speaker upgrade will be very noticeable.

 

[Paul Regensburger]

I'm going to recommend you upgrade your equipment. Take a look at Zu Audio. They make bookshelf and a smaller floor standing speakers like the Zu Soul. Go to the website and give them a call. They will be happy to talk to you about your system that will work in your room. They have a 60 day period to try out the product and if you are not satisfied you can return the speakers and get your money back. They can also recommend an Int amp that will work well for the speakers that are in your budget.

 

[Bucknekked]

That's a very intelligent way to go about it buck. I think you're going to end up with something you really like. as far as my opinion, I still vote for bookshelf speakers and a sub upgrade. I have some experience with klipsch subs and svs, hsu or rythmik have far better offerings. as shady said though, that won't fix your room eq issues, but it would be a very real and audible upgrade to what you have now. I'll still plug the ultra bookshelf speakers too. I thought my system sounded great too, and it did, but even better now with the main speaker upgrade. a pair of ultras (800 for a pair on svs' outlet) and a good sub would come in well under your proposed budget.

not to say you shouldn't continue with your eq project. that combined with a speaker upgrade will be very noticeable.

Pogre:
I enjoy my audio. I like the hobby. I am getting better at taking advice in my old age. A younger me would never be able to take corrective advice like Shadyj offered. A younger me would most certainly never entertain advice that ran counter to my original thought. Again, a little age brings perspective and perspective tells me there are a lot of valuable opinions in the world that may just be better than my own.

Your advice on SVS Ultra's and their accompanying subs is on my short list. I have noted your vote for staying with bookshelves + sub for the solution. I worry that towers will not be able to disappear as a music source simply because the room volume and distances are too small. My current bookshelves can disappear in the music. They don't always do it given the source material, but mostly they can pull that disappearing trick off.

 

[Bucknekked]

I'm going to recommend you upgrade your equipment. Take a look at Zu Audio. They make bookshelf and a smaller floor standing speakers like the Zu Soul. Go to the website and give them a call. They will be happy to talk to you about your system that will work in your room. They have a 60 day period to try out the product and if you are not satisfied you can return the speakers and get your money back. They can also recommend an Int amp that will work well for the speakers that are in your budget.

PAUL R:
Thank you for reading my post and taking an interest in a response. I hope you don't mind if I give a brief commentary on what you suggested. Just my opinion.

One of the hallmarks of Audioholics, the feature that drew me to this community, is the no bullshit approach to audio. In one of Gene’s introduction to Audioholics videos, he points out that if you can’t measure a feature, you have to question whether that feature is real or just marketing baloney. We could start with Zu Audio and nano-sanctification. I'm going to wager nano-sanctification isn't measureable.

I have never heard of Zu Audio before. Not a big surprise there. There are large numbers of very fine companies I have never heard of. Two months ago I never heard of Salk Audio either. The amount of ignorance I can display is astonishing. Thankfully, I am a quick study and an apt pupil on a subject I care about. I care about my music.

In looking at Zu Audio and Salk Audio, the difference between the two companies is pretty stark. One adheres to measurements. The other thinks measurements are for chumps.

Salk Audio publishes engineering data on their speaker products. If it can be measured, they not only measure it, but publish it and invite you to try and duplicate it. Gene and the Audioholics community have actually done that. Other companies, like SVS, do that same.

Zu Audio takes a different approach. These are quotes directly from their website.
How are ZU Loudspeakers Different? In a market where nearly all speakers are the same, it would seem that Zu is wrong or everyone else is.

There are no crossovers sucking the life out of music (like 99% of today’s loudspeakers). No crossover. Zu loudspeakers are designed and built well enough not to need “fixing” with crossover and other electronics parts.

Zu makes its own wire (paraphrased) there fore : They also significantly enhance amplifier/speaker intimacy.

I stopped reading at “significantly enhances amplifier/speaker intimacy”. I have intimacy issues it appears. I am not aware of a measure for amplifier/speaker intimacy. I don’t want to know if the bass hump of the amplifier is affected by its intimacy or appeal to the speaker.

I don’t know if Zu Audio makes great speakers or just writes lousy copy on their website. But, I do know something about the subject material and the Zu Audio website sets off too many of my own personal alarms to embrace the “we are right and everyone else in the audio industry is wrong” approach. Particularly when they lead off their discussion with “nano-sanctification”. Sanctification is a religous term not an audio term. If its religion, its another forum.

 

[Pogre]

Pogre:
I enjoy my audio. I like the hobby. I am getting better at taking advice in my old age. A younger me would never be able to take corrective advice like Shadyj offered. A younger me would most certainly never entertain advice that ran counter to my original thought. Again, a little age brings perspective and perspective tells me there are a lot of valuable opinions in the world that may just be better than my own.

Your advice on SVS Ultra's and their accompanying subs is on my short list. I have noted your vote for staying with bookshelves + sub for the solution. I worry that towers will not be able to disappear as a music source simply because the room volume and distances are too small. My current bookshelves can disappear in the music. They don't always do it given the source material, but mostly they can pull that disappearing trick off.

totally understood. there are a lot more options out there and I have limited experience auditioning good speakers. right now you've got your hands full getting the room right by doing some good, careful measurements.

I think your methodical approach and careful research are going to yield some very good results regardless of what you go with, even if you decide to keep your current setup. I'm just happy seeing folks achieve their goals. this is a hobby I love and it's fun to share.

good luck.

 

[Swerd]

… We could start with Zu Audio and nano-sanctification. I'm going to wager nano-sanctification isn't measurable.

LOL . I have enough trouble trying to measure sanctification on a large scale, much less on a nano scale .

… the Zu Audio website sets off too many of my own personal alarms to embrace the “we are right and everyone else in the audio industry is wrong” approach.

Having a 'personal alarm' system and paying close attention when it sounds off will get you far ahead of the game in home audio .

Well-said Bucknekked.

 

[KenM10759]

Zu Audio makes speakers unlike almost anyone else.

My guess is their speakers don't sound bad, but for some reason I don't see them on the front cover of any audio magazines. I checked some reviews and it seems Zu has focused on getting "the human voice" to be the focus of establishing a connection to the listener. Most measurements look dreadful. But those whizzer cone speakers do have a small following.

 

[lovinthehd]

When I think of whizzer cone speakers I always think of Wavetouch Audio speakers

 

[Bucknekked]

I can vouch for the epidemic of "SAD," with regard to this place. Then you get to acquire quality source material. What are you using for source material? Like you, I listen to 2 channel music near field style as well.

I have my pc hooked up to the Denon and I manually EQ it from there to suit my moods on any given day. I know this is impractical in modern times, but is how I enjoy it. Most days I find the sweet spot with my personal preferences.

Before deciding on speakers, I had a friend bring a pair of his klipsch towers over, and some bookshelf speakers. They weren't for me or, left me somewhat undecided. I also had a large pair of JBL 3 way speakers that I own as a benchmark, which I likely will not part with because they were pretty good in their own right too. At least better than his Klipsch towers. He even had to agree that although what I had was not supposed to work in my space according to modern habits, they sounded surprisingly good.

You said you have been a audio head for a long time. What did you use to like? That's essentially where I started and narrowed it down to the best of all the worlds with regard to my preferences. What kind of music do you listen to primarily? Do you find that you like similar amounts of bass, mid range and treble across genres?

MrBoat:
I apologize for not seeing your post and questions. I try to make sure I read every response to any post I make and somehow I missed seeing yours until today. I shall endeavor to do better. You had excellent observations and questions.

As to your questions: source material : I have digitized my entire music collection and put it in to a library on one of my Mac computers. I then spin off a copy of the library to a Mac Mini that's in my music room and that's the source for 90% of my listening. I still like Blu-Ray discs played right from an attached PS4 in favor of ripped versions. There's still something missing or different between the Blu-Ray disc and a ripped image. So there's another 5% of my material. The remaining source comes from vinyl and a turntable and the occasional streamed source from Spotify. I find a lot of new music from Spotify. Then I will try and get a better quality download and pay for it and install it in the library. My Mac Mini drives my Denon AVR.

I have become adept at ripping and have been very pleased with my libraries performance. Upgrading source material is one of my new pursuits. Once you have a system that sounds pretty good, source material is the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb if it isn't up to par.

Question: what type of music is in the library? I'm 62 so I grew up in what's now the classic rock era. I loves the rock n roll. What I have also discovered is that a ton of the music of the 60's and 70's was recorded in somewhat less than optimal conditions. A lot of my favorites are crap recordings when you really listen to the production values. So my hunt for better source is non-stop. Aside from rock n roll stuff, I have everything under the sun with the exception of sequins n sparkles old twangy country music. New fangled country rock and southern rock : yes. Porter Wagner and the fellas, nope. Some of the new vocalists like Adele and others are also getting a lot of airplay. My library has just a shade under 5,000 items in it to play for music. I am adding to it a piece at a time.

Question : do I like similar amounts of bass across the genres? Excellent question. The answer is NO. Uneven bass response is one of the driving reasons I undertook the room measurement/EQ project in this thread. I love a pounding bass in a rock song. But in a ballad or a softly rolling tune by a grass roots band, thumping bass is out of place. Balancing the bass in my system so its effective when rock is on the menu and not overwhelming or out of balance when a singer is crooning is quite the balancing act. So far I have it nicely balanced for most of my daily listening. I turn my sub up manuallly for the really driving rock n roll stuff and then manually turn it back down after that. Its the easiest solution I have so far. I need to become more adept at running an equilizer on my Mac Mini, or, upgrade my speakers to try and move the problem out with hardware. Or , do both.

INVITATION: If you have HD or better source recommendations, I'm all ears. I would love to know about new songs, artists and better quality recordings. I look forward to hearing from you again.

 

[Bucknekked]

When I think of whizzer cone speakers I always think of Wavetouch Audio speakers View attachment 19705

LovintheHD:
There is a punchline in that sentence about whizzer cones somewhere. I just can't come up with it. I think I will stay with the nano-sanctification as the key takeaway from Zu Audio. Those are two hyphenated words I just don't recall ever seeing together. It sounds like a topic for a Gene video.

 

[lovinthehd]

LovintheHD:
There is a punchline in that sentence about whizzer cones somewhere. I just can't come up with it. I think I will stay with the nano-sanctification as the key takeaway from Zu Audio. Those are two hyphenated words I just don't recall ever seeing together. It sounds like a topic for a Gene video.

Nano sanctification is hard to beat. The technology page for Wavetouch doesn't have anything quite that good on it http://www.wavetouchaudio.com/tech.html

 

[Swerd]

I just read this whole thread for the first time this morning. I must have looked at it earlier, but when I saw that Bucknekked had Klipsch speakers, I stopped paying attention. It was last night when I noticed those great wisecracks Buck made about Zu Audio.

First of all, kudos for Bucknekked for persevering with REW. You actually got some useful graphs of how your system and room sounds. It can be bewildering at first.

Kudos also go to shadyj for giving the good advice.

The only thing I might say is add to the others who suggest that Bucknekked listen to some other bookshelf speakers other than Klipsch. Others have mentioned Salk, Philharmonic Audio, Ascend, or SVS. I’d second those, especially the first two, as I have more experience with them. All of them use very good quality drivers and dome or ribbon tweeters, have well-designed crossovers, very good sounding mid range, and an overall neutral sound balance.

Buck had mentioned ear fatigue, or ear ‘carpal tunnel syndrome’ . In my experience, that comes from the use of horn to amplify the tweeter. It creates a resonance, an unwanted noise, roughly at the wavelength equal to the outer perimeter of the horn. To me, it sounds not unlike a voice through a megaphone – always a bit harsh, edgy, unnatural sounding. Others don’t mind it at all, so it could clearly be one of those hate it – love it things we see so much of in audio. Be aware that those REW graphs can only tell you how loud or soft a sound is at a particular frequency. It can’t tell you if the sound is ugly or natural sounding.

 

[MrBoat]

I just read this whole thread for the first time this morning. I must have looked at it earlier, but when I saw that Bucknekked had Klipsch speakers, I stopped paying attention. It was last night when I noticed those great wisecracks Buck made about Zu Audio.

First of all, kudos for Bucknekked for persevering with REW. You actually got some useful graphs of how your system and room sounds. It can be bewildering at first.

Kudos also go to shadyj for giving the good advice.

The only thing I might say is add to the others who suggest that Bucknekked listen to some other bookshelf speakers other than Klipsch. Others have mentioned Salk, Philharmonic Audio, Ascend, or SVS. I’d second those, especially the first two, as I have more experience with them. All of them use very good quality drivers and dome or ribbon tweeters, have well-designed crossovers, very good sounding mid range, and an overall neutral sound balance.

Buck had mentioned ear fatigue, or ear ‘carpal tunnel syndrome’ . In my experience, that comes from the use of horn to amplify the tweeter. It creates a resonance, an unwanted noise, roughly at the wavelength equal to the outer perimeter of the horn. To me, it sounds not unlike a voice through a megaphone – always a bit harsh, edgy, unnatural sounding. Others don’t mind it at all, so it could clearly be one of those hate it – love it things we see so much of in audio. Be aware that those REW graphs can only tell you how loud or soft a sound is at a particular frequency. It can’t tell you if the sound is ugly or natural sounding.

Not for nothing but, the brass section and some of the woodwind instruments comes out of horns.

Also, I never hear about room treatments with regard to treble. Another thing I never hear tried is alternate height adjustment with regard to tweeters from one speaker to the next, at least in the mains. Instead, most people are addressing sound from the foundation of visual symmetry first, and the tweeters almost always at ear level. Almost as if every instrument in an orchestra exits the instrument from the same height, even though some actually point upward/downward.

 

[Swerd]

Not for nothing but, the brass section and some of the woodwind instruments comes out of horns.

But voices shouldn't sound like they come out of horns. And brass horns shouldn't sound like brass horns played through megaphones.

Also, I never hear about room treatments with regard to treble.

I know little about room treatments. The successful treatments I've seen addressed bass problems. They absorbed some bass reflected off of room walls that was arriving at the listening position out-of-phase with the primary signal from the speaker. Without the bass traps, there was puny sounding bass at the listening position, but with the traps the bass sounded more substantial. If you moved the listening position to the left or the right, completely different things happened.

Another thing I never hear tried is alternate height adjustment with regard to tweeters from one speaker to the next, at least in the mains. Instead, most people are addressing sound from the foundation of visual symmetry first, and the tweeters almost always at ear level. Almost as if every instrument in an orchestra exits the instrument from the same height, even though some actually point upward/downward.

The idea behind adjusting speaker height so the tweeter is roughly at ear level, is to avoid possible in-phase/out-of-phase interference resulting in additions or cancellations at various wavelengths. It's only a rough rule of thumb. Try it various ways, and go with what sounds best at your listening position.

Imagine a 2-way speaker with a crossover frequency at 2000 Hz. At that frequency, both the tweeter and mid woofer are playing at equal volume. As long as your head is roughly at the same height as they are – the two drivers should be fairly close to each other – you will hear sounds from both drivers in phase with each other. If you move several inches higher or lower, sound from one driver will arrive at your ears out-of-phase with the other, resulting in cancellation. 2000 Hz is above the primary frequencies of the human voice, but presence and recognition are affected by harmonic overtones in this range.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

[MrBoat]

But voices shouldn't sound like they come out of horns. And brass horns shouldn't sound like brass horns played through megaphones.
I know little about room treatments. The successful treatments I've seen addressed bass problems. They absorbed some bass reflected off of room walls that was arriving at the listening position out-of-phase with the primary signal from the speaker. Without the bass traps, there was puny sounding bass at the listening position, but with the traps the bass sounded more substantial. If you moved the listening position to the left or the right, completely different things happened.
The idea behind adjusting speaker height so the tweeter is roughly at ear level, is to avoid possible in-phase/out-of-phase interference resulting in additions or cancellations at various wavelengths. It's only a rough rule of thumb. Try it various ways, and go with what sounds best at your listening position.

Imagine a 2-way speaker with a crossover frequency at 2000 Hz. At that frequency, both the tweeter and mid woofer are playing at equal volume. As long as your head is roughly at the same height as they are – the two drivers should be fairly close to each other – you will hear sounds from both drivers in phase with each other. If you move several inches higher or lower, sound from one driver will arrive at your ears out-of-phase with the other, resulting in cancellation. 2000 Hz is above the primary frequencies of the human voice, but presence and recognition are affected by harmonic overtones in this range.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

Still, I notice as many people having issues with brightness with more conventional tweeters. In the case of the Tempests I now own, with some big honking horns, the highs seem normal, on the verge of being warm, for lack of a better explanation, or lack of knowing the proper terminology.

Typically, with just about every other speaker I have owned, I soften the highs with the graphic EQ. This is the first time I have not had to adjust it or had it occur to me to for it being too bright. Outside of computer desktop speakers, this is my first go-round with a 2 way speaker, and using it full range at that so, there may be some other reason I'm not aware of. 2 sets of speakers ago, the difference between a bit too peaky highs and normal was the cloth grills, of all things. If that was an intentional, compensatory measure on the engineers part, my hat's off to them for thinking of it.

If horns are too bright, why do so many speaker manufacturers include them? I'm sure they could come up with some other gimmick, if that's what it is.

Is this more of an issue with auto EQ? I mean, the control on a graphic equalizer for the highest frequency is typically just one band. Softening the highest of highs didn't really take away from the quality of sound with the other ranges.

 

[Swerd]

Still, I notice as many people having issues with brightness with more conventional tweeters…

The bright sound of a speaker, or the lack of it, warmth of a speaker, is caused by the relative balance between the woofer and tweeter. It’s not caused by the nature of the tweeter (dome vs. horn, etc.), but is controlled by the crossover. More volume from the woofer than the tweeter, and the speaker sounds warm. If the tweeter is louder than the woofer, the speaker sounds bright.

The woofer and tweeter rarely have the same sensitivity; most tweeters are more sensitive than most woofers. It is up to the crossover designer to adjust this balance with some added resistors to the tweeter circuit. Often there are two resistors arranged in an L shape where one resistor is in series with the tweeter, and the other is in parallel. Strangely enough this is called an L-pad.

I looked for a schematic diagram of the Tempest crossover, but couldn’t find it. In the example below (from a different speaker), there is an L-pad is in the tweeter network. It’s the 2 ohm resistor in series with the tweeter, and 50 ohm resistor in parallel. The 0.1 mH inductor coil also lowers the tweeter’s rising response in the higher frequencies, helping to create a more neutral or warmer sound.

Getting balanced sound in a speaker crossover seems to work better (in my limited experience) than if done by external EQ. But it may depend on who does it and how well it gets done.

I'm glad to hear the Tempest sounds good to you, and especially glad it doesn't sound like a Klipsch .

 

[MrBoat]

The bright sound of a speaker, or the lack of it, warmth of a speaker, is caused by the relative balance between the woofer and tweeter. It’s not caused by the nature of the tweeter (dome vs. horn, etc.), but is controlled by the crossover. More volume from the woofer than the tweeter, and the speaker sounds warm. If the tweeter is louder than the woofer, the speaker sounds bright.

The woofer and tweeter rarely have the same sensitivity; most tweeters are more sensitive than most woofers. It is up to the crossover designer to adjust this balance with some added resistors to the tweeter circuit. Often there are two resistors arranged in an L shape where one resistor is in series with the tweeter, and the other is in parallel. Strangely enough this is called an L-pad.

I looked for a schematic diagram of the Tempest crossover, but couldn’t find it. In the example below (from a different speaker), there is an L-pad is in the tweeter network. It’s the 2 ohm resistor in series with the tweeter, and 50 ohm resistor in parallel. The 0.1 mH inductor coil also lowers the tweeter’s rising response in the higher frequencies, helping to create a more neutral or warmer sound.

Getting balanced sound in a speaker crossover seems to work better (in my limited experience) than if done by external EQ. But it may depend on who does it and how well it gets done.

I'm glad to hear the Tempest sounds good to you, and especially glad it doesn't sound like a Klipsch .

Thank you for the explanation, Swerd.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine was going to sell me his Klipsch speakers and brought them over with some others and I was not impressed with the tone of them. Even he had to admit that my ancient JBL's (that he likes to make fun of) outclassed his Klipsch speakers pretty handily. That demo was half the reason I decided to keep the JBL's instead of offing them when I got the Tempests. At that point, if similar speakers to his at that price range were going to fall in the same performance, sound wise, I would have just stuck with what I had and saved the $.

The JBL's have a more normal sized tweeter, but still with a small waveguide sort of arrangement that's sort of a horn, but not quite.

 

[Swerd]

The subject of horn or controlled dispersion (CD) speakers is complex. I find it difficult to understand mainly because I prefer speakers with wide dispersion, not limited dispersion. A good dispersion pattern, in my view, is a key ingredient to a good listening experience. Wide dispersion is one of the features that frees musicians from the confines of the loudspeakers and creates the image of musicians floating in a convincing acoustic space.

I talked (OK, ranted) about this a few years ago. You might find it interesting to read that thread: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/what’s-the-deal-with-speakers-with-horns.85105/. It sums up my views on the subject, as well as those of various others.

There have been a number of DIY kits designed by Jeff Bagby, featuring SEOS horns. (I forget what SEOS stands for.) I haven’t heard these, but Jeff Bagby is a respected DIY designer, so I can’t rule them out just because I don't like horns.