Why do horn loaded tweeters resolve more detail than conventional domes?

[yepimonfire]

I've noticed that horn loaded speakers such as klipsch tend to be extremely revealing when compared to dome tweeters. One could chalk it up to brightness, but the newer klipsch models aren't bright like the reference II. Even when compared to conventional bright speakers, regular dome tweeters sound veiled, and the sound stage sound more diffuse and flat vs the huge three dimensional sound stage of horns.

Could it be the extreme efficiency lending to ultra low non linear distortion, or the fact most horns are aligned perfectly with the center of the woofer or is there something else going on?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[everettT]

You can have bad and good implementations of both. It's too broad of a question IMHO .

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't think they do. Excessive detail is unnatural. A lot of horns have poor dispersion, so you get more direct sound and less reflected sound. We get into the pop/classical realm here. While a higher ratio of direct to reflected sound can work for pop and rock, it is terrible for classical music.

 

[highfigh]

I've noticed that horn loaded speakers such as klipsch tend to be extremely revealing when compared to dome tweeters. One could chalk it up to brightness, but the newer klipsch models aren't bright like the reference II. Even when compared to conventional bright speakers, regular dome tweeters sound veiled, and the sound stage sound more diffuse and flat vs the huge three dimensional sound stage of horns.

Could it be the extreme efficiency lending to ultra low non linear distortion, or the fact most horns are aligned perfectly with the center of the woofer or is there something else going on?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

When Klipsch started designing speakers, his intention was to allow using his speakers with low power amplifiers and horns made that possible. At the time, tweeters were unable to produce the sound quality that we have now and they were very prone to 'lobing', which is bad for sound.

You can't do an A:B comparison between horns and domes and expect to come away with the idea that hot high end and wide dispersion/accurate sound the same. Louder is often perceived as better- it's not intentional, but it's part of how we perceive sound. Listen to the dome tweeters for a longer period of time and if it's an excellent tweeter, it will reveal details that seemed to be missing because you were being beaten over the head by the horns.

To be fair, some horn speakers have a certain 'sound' that works well with the proper recording techniques and monitoring equipment for mixing, but those techniques and mixing speakers are all but gone. Very few speakers used in studios, if any, use a horn. I think a large part of the reason is that the horns need to be farther from the mixing desk and floor space is expensive but they can be more fatiguing, too.

Listen to a great pair of speakers at low to moderate level- you might be surprised by the amount of detail that can be heard at those levels. High SPL is just not necessary at all times.

 

[yepimonfire]

When Klipsch started designing speakers, his intention was to allow using his speakers with low power amplifiers and horns made that possible. At the time, tweeters were unable to produce the sound quality that we have now and they were very prone to 'lobing', which is bad for sound.

You can't do an A:B comparison between horns and domes and expect to come away with the idea that hot high end and wide dispersion/accurate sound the same. Louder is often perceived as better- it's not intentional, but it's part of how we perceive sound. Listen to the dome tweeters for a longer period of time and if it's an excellent tweeter, it will reveal details that seemed to be missing because you were being beaten over the head by the horns.

To be fair, some horn speakers have a certain 'sound' that works well with the proper recording techniques and monitoring equipment for mixing, but those techniques and mixing speakers are all but gone. Very few speakers used in studios, if any, use a horn. I think a large part of the reason is that the horns need to be farther from the mixing desk and floor space is expensive but they can be more fatiguing, too.

Listen to a great pair of speakers at low to moderate level- you might be surprised by the amount of detail that can be heard at those levels. High SPL is just not necessary at all times.

The speakers I most recently compared have the exact same sensitivity, and play at the exact same loudness in relation to the level on the volume knob, so it isn't loudness skewing my perception.

What do you mean "beaten over the head"? I understand older Klipsch models were indeed piercing and some found them to be harsh, but I am specifically referring to the newer models, which don't sound or measure bright at all. I'm not saying dome tweeters necessarily sound better or worse than horns, but I do notice horns have a certain characteristic sound that I've never heard reproduced by regular dome tweeters. They sound extremely clear and detailed, highly responsive to the smallest changes in dynamics, and have a larger than life soundstage.

It's not just about SPL, although it's definitely nice to be able to achieve distortion free reference level sound in a large room with average sized bookshelf speakers

 

[j_garcia]

Simple: they don't. I have heard some good horn loaded designs that are not fatiguing, but most do tend to be. They do a good job at dispersion; that does not necessarily mean "more" detail. The same can be said about many ribbon based systems - not all of them are good. What you may find with horns is they have a wider sweet spot compared to a traditional dome.

 

[shadyJ]

If I remember correctly, Dr. Earl Geddes has argued in the past that speakers with wide dispersion can smear detail because of all the early reflections that reach a listener. He thinks that since constant directivity speakers, such as many horn loaded designs, do not create nearly as many reflection points, they will preserve detail. There are many papers written on this subject if you want to learn more.

 

[Hetfield]

Interesting discussion, and it seems from everything that I read that there is no "perfect" without flaws tweeter and speaker for that matter. I even recently read some drawbacks to Berrylium tweeters and they are thought of as the best right now or one of the best. Interesting discussion though.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[j_garcia]

All speakers are a compromise somewhere in the design, both internal and external. You are shooting for a good overall sound in the expected environment. That's all you can do really.

 

[shadyJ]

I have heard very good speaker designs of all types, constant-directivity horns, wide-dispersion domes and ribbons and AMTs, dipoles, and even omnipolar designs, etc. I wouldn't call constant directivity inherently superior. It depends on the acoustic conditions and listener preferences, and so on. I think that in rooms where the listening position is going to get hit with a lot of early reflections from the sidewall, a constant directivity design is something that should strongly be considered. On the other hand, some sidewall reflections can make a speaker sound very spacious. There are trade-offs for all designs.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Horn loaded tweeters, if properly implemented, are more efficient ... therefore, all things being equal, they will have lower distortion.

They also introduce acoustic distortions that a conventional tweeter doesn't have to deal with. Like everything, it's a choice based on the compromises each introduces to the total system performance.

However, they are not more detailed. What you are hearing is probably the result of the acoustic phase relationships with the other drivers. If you look at the time response of a typical horn-loaded system, (regardless of whether the other drivers are horns or domes or cone type) you will see the tweeter leads the other drivers in time, slightly. That imparts a certain "sparkle" to the overall response of the speaker, which can be mistaken for detail (just as high order harmonic distortion can be mistaken for added detail).

 

[ski2xblack]

Pretty good discussion so far.

One thing not yet specifically mentioned and that may pertain to the OP's question is that wide dynamic range is as important as flat on-axis and smooth off-axis response (IMO, but I'm not the only one who feels so). Horn loading gives the speaker a much better chance at fully reproducing the dynamic range of the source material. Direct radiators have lower dynamic range limits, which may account for why good horn speakers seem so lively in direct comparison.

On the down side, speakers with truly uninhibited dynamics can and will shred your ears if you get too enthusiastic with the volume knob.

 

[Hetfield]

Here's a question for ya. Have you ever seen a company make an about face and today change the tweeter they use? Like if Kilpsch knows the horn tweeter is so controversial why not change it? Why doesn't some other company switch to a ribbon tweeter? Companies just don't do that right?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[ski2xblack]

I think Klipsch uses horn loaded tweets simply as vestiges of their past for marketing reasons, not because they're wonderfully implemented per se. I'm a bit biased, though, as I only consider the Heritage/Cinema to be 'real' Klipsch. At least Klipsch seem to have learned some lessons. The current RP series is voiced much less hot on the top end than the old Reference series, for example. And they're still pumping out some of the real deal speakers, too. Perhaps Audioholics would review the new Forte III coming out.

 

[highfigh]

The speakers I most recently compared have the exact same sensitivity, and play at the exact same loudness in relation to the level on the volume knob, so it isn't loudness skewing my perception.

What do you mean "beaten over the head"? I understand older Klipsch models were indeed piercing and some found them to be harsh, but I am specifically referring to the newer models, which don't sound or measure bright at all. I'm not saying dome tweeters necessarily sound better or worse than horns, but I do notice horns have a certain characteristic sound that I've never heard reproduced by regular dome tweeters. They sound extremely clear and detailed, highly responsive to the smallest changes in dynamics, and have a larger than life soundstage.

It's not just about SPL, although it's definitely nice to be able to achieve distortion free reference level sound in a large room with average sized bookshelf speakers

The sound from a dome tweeter comes directly from the tweeter unless it's located close to some kind of boundary, a horn uses reflection to achieve a specific dispersion pattern. Because of this difference, I don't know how they could sound the same. In theory, reflections that reach the listener at the same time as the direct sound shouldn't cause problems, but this will apply only to certain wavelengths in a horn, unless they can shape it and correct the phase problems.

I'm not sure if the measured response using SPL alone is the best way to analyze speakers, anyway. Sure, it reveals the energy in the acoustic space, but it shows nothing about the fidelity of the waveforms, which can only be seen on an oscilloscope. If a speaker's distortion is low, it probably won't have "that sound" which makes it different from others in a way that's hard to define.

 

[highfigh]

Here's a question for ya. Have you ever seen a company make an about face and today change the tweeter they use? Like if Kilpsch knows the horn tweeter is so controversial why not change it? Why doesn't some other company switch to a ribbon tweeter? Companies just don't do that right?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Talk to speaker designers and you'll find that they have definite opinions about the type of drivers they prefer. Infinity's EMIT tweeters from the late-'70s and early-'80s sounded very nice, but they didn't handle a ton of power and/or clipping. It's pretty easy to tell that one of those tweeters has been abused- the foil is wavy, rather than flat. Sometimes, it's rippled and some look like a blown fuse. Someone who wants to build high SPL speakers just wouldn't use them because they weren't particularly sensitive. The extremely high SPL drivers for mid-high frequencies are compression drivers and at close range, they're like sonic lasers- they'll drill your ears out.

Klipsch is using tradition to sell their speakers and some people like that. They do sound different- some like it, some don't. As far as changing drivers- yes, I have seen them change when a manufacturer discontinues production of a model or, in the case of Philips/Amperex, they left the speaker industry completely. I don't know why, because they made some nice stuff but around the same time, Peerless, Vifa, ScanSpeak, SEAS and some others started to surpass them in sound quality and they lost their market.

 

[Hetfield]

Talk to speaker designers and you'll find that they have definite opinions about the type of drivers they prefer. Infinity's EMIT tweeters from the late-'70s and early-'80s sounded very nice, but they didn't handle a ton of power and/or clipping. It's pretty easy to tell that one of those tweeters has been abused- the foil is wavy, rather than flat. Sometimes, it's rippled and some look like a blown fuse. Someone who wants to build high SPL speakers just wouldn't use them because they weren't particularly sensitive. The extremely high SPL drivers for mid-high frequencies are compression drivers and at close range, they're like sonic lasers- they'll drill your ears out.

Klipsch is using tradition to sell their speakers and some people like that. They do sound different- some like it, some don't. As far as changing drivers- yes, I have seen them change when a manufacturer discontinues production of a model or, in the case of Philips/Amperex, they left the speaker industry completely. I don't know why, because they made some nice stuff but around the same time, Peerless, Vifa, ScanSpeak, SEAS and some others started to surpass them in sound quality and they lost their market.

Very informative posting, thanks. Very interesting. It's all a compromise as we have all been told from day one in this hobby. From the enclosure, to the drivers and tweeters, the size. It's all a compromise for the best sound at the price point each company is trying to be in.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[MrBoat]

Before I built my current speakers, a friend offered to sell me his Klipsch speakers, which have horns, that he replaced with a set of speakers with dome tweeters. He claimed he never really liked them because of the tweeters being too bold. When we hooked them up to my system, all I did was EQ the highs down just a tiny bit via graphic EQ in my software. After that, they sounded quite good. He's using them again in a 2 channel rig in a spare room with the same fix.

I know this isn't likely an audiophile grade solution but, this is how we always tamed or enhanced the characteristics of our speakers and it was never anything drastic.

My current horn speakers don't really require much additional tuning but I have tested these effects with them and I can pretty much make them sound like what I want them to.

 

[yepimonfire]

Very informative posts so far. I think from all of this I can conclude it's a combination of the extended dynamic range, wider off axis response, and controlled dispersion that is leading me to prefer horns. I watch movies at a fairly high volume (around -10dB - -15dB ) and really enjoy the dynamic swings. My room also has hardwood floors unfortunately, and while the room isn't terribly lively, it could definitely use some carpet The improved imaging I'm experiencing is likely due to the way horns interact with my room vs domes. Might have to set a pair of klipsch and a pair of traditional dome speakers up outside and see if that changes my experience.

Sidewall reflections can make a speaker sound spacious, but it also ruins two channel imaging in my experience. Better to just listen to music with PLII or Dolby Surround for extra spaciousness.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[highfigh]

Very informative posting, thanks. Very interesting. It's all a compromise as we have all been told from day one in this hobby. From the enclosure, to the drivers and tweeters, the size. It's all a compromise for the best sound at the price point each company is trying to be in.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

If it's all a compromise, why do so many manufacturers describe their products as 'uncompromising'?