John, I have to confess that I feel very not easy about the idea of Synergy horn. I did not hear the Danley Synergy horns and I have very superficial understanding of what he is trying to do with the whole Synergy/Unity idea. The whole idea does not make very horny, pun intended….
One of the theoretical premises of my understanding of horn loading is for any given loading application there is an infinitely-small bandwidth of “ideal loading”. The “ideal loading” is not a field but rather a single point similar to antiskating with pivoted tonearms. A perfectly balance antiscating is a single point on the records, everywhere else are just acceptable compromises. The same is with horns. I given single frequency has own “perfect horn” with max horn EQ, minimum acoustic low-passing and best possible other characteristics. A deviation from this “perfect narrow frequency” makes acceptable compromises. It does not mean that a horn cannot serve 5-6 octaves but the level of acceptable compromises becomes a bit wider as the driver at lower knew stops acknowledge the horn and at higher knee become too much restricted by the horn size. Again, not saying that it is unusable but I am just explaining the concept.
Not let look at the Synergy design. Let leave aside the way how Mrr. Danley proposes to integrate the drivers and let look at the Synergy idea only from a perspective of best horn for a best given driver. We would see that the mid drivers in Synergy might have own “best” lording but the high and low drivers do not. The LF driver looks like loaded into an insufficient re-entry horn and the HF drivers see also very far from optimum horn. Is it a too high price to pay for point source, particularly considering that I do not support the notion that a point source is necessary better than 3D source?
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche