Paul S wrote:

I never managed to come up with a horn that did not sound like a horn…

As many times I heard similar comments as many times I feel that people rather demonstrate own foolishness on the subject then express a sane opinion. Truly, since then the terminology “sounds like a horn” have become a derogatory characteristic and why “sounds like a horn” is worse then the “sounds like box”, or “sounds like open baffle”,  or  “sounds like a single driver”, or “sounds like electrostats”, or the “sound like port”?  I do not think that anybody with a listening audio IQ higher then today mortgage rate would deny that any loudspeaker topology has own auditable character. So, why the “sounds like a horn” gets such a bad reputation but “sounds like any other crap in audio” get nomination for the stupid audio gold medals and looks like a universal positive acclaim from audio public?

The answerer is the same as with many other audio subjects – the people’s superficiality and unawareness in the field, sponsored by brainless and ignorant propaganda by the industry. Badly made horn installations do have many troubles and the “sounds like a horn” is just one them. However, as many times you heard people toss the common “sounds like horn” judgment as many time you would NEVER heard those people provide a specific criticism about the nature of “horn sound”. People declare something as “horns sound” but it might imply a dozens of different characteristic. The horns critics NEVER looks distinctively ingot them. It is like if you have a pain in your liver and you go to a doctor saying “Doctor I am sick”.  Probably doctor would ask you to define what your complains are but you refuse to identify, insisting that you are generally sick. This attitude most likely would help neither to you nor to your doctor…

 The point that I am trying to make is that what people call “horns sound” is a derivative of VERY many reasons and without the identification of the specific negative characters of Sound there is no sensible criticism but only a demonstration of own listening ignorance. (Not to mention that majority of audio people are trained do not approach sound critical at all). The sweeping generalization “it sounds like horn” is absolutely not indicative and most of direct radiators for instance are not able to “sound like horn”.  Sit in orchestra and listen bras instruments. The trombones, French horns, trumpets, euphoniums, tubas, cornets, flugelhorns and many other instruments have specific harmonic colorations that are absolutely normal when you are in Symphony Hall but the very same colorations are recognized as the offensive “sounds like a horn” when it being plays via a playback. Listen the harmonics of life performing valveless brass instruments – you would hardly be able to find a direct radiator acoustic system that will be able to handle those tones. By saying it, do I imply that horn-loaded acoustic systems have any intrinsic inclinations for specific sounds? Absolutely not. I’m just saying that improperly and mistakably MADE horn-loaded installations has tendency to exhibit a common negative characteristics.

Let go back you my doctor example. You are complaining to your doctor without identifying what is wrong with you, the doctor did “something” and you died. Would it be a remote interest for anybody, at least for a people of medical profession, to express a curiosity about what was wrong with you and what the doctor did? Sure it might be a “simple” explanation: you were sick and you died. This explanation sound as intelligent as “it “sounds like a horn”. The fact that a live singing full-blown contralto singer in an open large hall has a lot of those “sounds like a horn” colorations in her voice seems dos not bother anybody. I know Boston Symphony Hall quite well and I can say that there are very many sitting locations in there were BSO has very much “honky sound” but it also seems does not bother anybody.

The point of all of it is to say that playback sounds in the way that reflects the perception of the playback architect and organizer. The stupid criticism that “it sounds like a horn” is not a criticism at all. If a person with a deep understanding of his sonic objectives will hear your complain about his payback that it was “sound like horn” then he would ask you “did it sound to you as what kind of horn?” Was it proper “horn sound”? Was it musically and sonically beneficial “horn sound”?  Did that “horn sound” exist inappropriately during some algorithmable inappropriate moments? Can you identify those moments tonally, dymickly or phraseologicaly? Was the amplitude and the accent of the “horn sound” altering with any other aspect of sound? Was the “horn sound” inclusive on the total sound of playback? What was misting from sound if you mentally remove the “horn sound” component? Is any specific characteristics of the given recording you might observe that makes you to feel that the playback has “horn sound”. Can you hear the “horn sound” over a playback when you play a regular person taking, like news on radio?  You can ask yourself those and many-many other questions and it will all bring you to a realization that there is good “horn sound” and there is a bad “horn sound”. The good “horn sound” and the bad “horn sound” is not a characteristic of horn-lording topology but it characteristic of the system organizer vision.

So, if you are experiencing a playback that floods listening space with the “brainless honk” then there is no need to blame in it the horn-loaded topology. All that you need is to inform the person who organize the playback that he did something wrong and that you are annoyed with honk and if you have expertise and the person deserves it then you might point out what specifically he did wrong with his playback. The “horn sound” has as much connection to the horn-loaded topology as the sound of resonating panels has connection to box loudspeakers. Sure many of box loudspeakers suffer from this problem but at the same time there are some that do not. It is not to mention that some loudspeakers are made intentionally to have very flimsy boxed and they sound very fine.

Axel wrote:

… why if a horn is not designed or set-up properly does it ALWAYS sound honky? It seems there is a small window for it to sound good / right whatever, but outside this VERY narrow window things then start to sound like a bloody PA system?!

Can we start with a given that different people will care more or less about different "stray" aspects of sound, what to play up and what to play down?  I get that people dig horns, and I have absolutely no problem with it.  My question was from a purely practical perspective, based on very limited experience and total failure, just as stated in the post.  Romy, I actually found your response to be enlightening, since, indeed, I did have a rather different perspective when I was into the horns, and some of the question does "come from that time".  But your "twist" of the question does make plenty of sense, taken alone, or taken as a more evolved perspective.

Anyway... I actually thought there was some common recognition of "horn sound", just like there might be about OB sound or BR sound, which is to say, qualities that are endemic to the genre.  For instance, although I recognize and do not like certain "sound qualities" of BR itself, I have tried but failed to overcome them all.  So I soldier on with the "benefit" I get while still mindful of (and not liking) the "soft bottom" (although I have overcome the "chuffing"). 

By "horn sound" I mean when all instruments and voices in a given frequency range sound as if they went through a smaller or larger megaphone (horn).  Basically, more of less, like talking through cupped hands, depending on the frequency in question, ie, the sound is thereby "shaped" in a generic sense that has been, in my experience, peculiar to horns.  And all the big ones I have heard have had this characteristic in spades (ie, the sewer pipe).  But I can say just how I tuned and "dealt with" the BR soft bottom, by design and allowed-for adjustment.  So I was just wondering if anyone tried to "deal with" the horn shaping, or what, and if so, how they did it, since horn people do not seem to talk about it.  If I understood Dominik correctly, he expects to do the math, make the horns, and just assemble and use the result, without ongoing modifications.  This surprises me.

Best regards,
Paul S

Paul S wrote:

Can we start with a given that different people will care more or less about different "stray" aspects of sound, what to play up and what to play down?

It is incorrect.  If you look deeper then you will discover that there is no different perception of "stray" aspects of sound. The whole evolution of musical culture is based upon it.

Paul S wrote:

By "horn sound" I mean when all instruments and voices in a given frequency range sound as if they went through a smaller or larger megaphone (horn).  Basically, more of less, like talking through cupped hands, depending on the frequency in question, ie, the sound is thereby "shaped" in a generic sense that has been, in my experience, peculiar to horns.

And what you just say is exactly what I was standing against in my initial post of the thread. You attribute the random and irrelevant results of methodologically incorrect experiment do define an alien topological characteristic.  The cupped hands do have characteristics distortions but it has absolutely nothing to do with horns as a topology. The cupped hands always overloaded with LF, severally EQ to the ears of the person who speakes through  the cupped hands and the sourse is severally distorted by the oppression of leaps by the hands. Ironically those are 3 most common mistakes that Morons who have no idea what they hear do with horns.

If you load 155 tons of weight on a horn’s back than she would probably not only die but will be converted into a sheet of meet. So, in your association with horn you state that a horse can not care weight on her back. I just find this logic irrational and damn. I do not exactly argue this point with you, Paul – you do nothing with horns practically and your position about the subject is not very relevant. I just use your quote without asking your copyright release as the very same oponeon might be expressed by many other people who look at the horn subjects superficially.

Axel,

This is a thread dedicated to battling stupid rhetoric about Horn Criticism. There is no need to highjack the plot of the thread with your questions about specifics of your project. The reason why people “can’t find anything” is because they do stay on the subject of thread…

rowuk wrote:

In the case of horns, I think that most fail to see that it is a simple band pass device.

Yes, this is as simple as that.

rowuk wrote:

Applying a high and low pass filter to a standard speaker driver creates a similar "honk", albeit with much higher distortion for a given loudness.

Well, yes and no. Applying a high and low pass filter to a standard speaker driver creates a different "honk". However, as I can see it honk is not a problem itself. With wrongly used horn honk might be a problem but we need to differentiate between good honk and bad honk. It is hard to explain it in words. I in fact very much welcoming honk in my playback but it is very different honk then the honk that many people get in audio what they run full-range across little horn and use a driver with overly-substantial diaphragm. Life sound has plenty of honk and it bothers no one. I think in audio horns we create a fear of honk but it is very different honk. The nasal sound of life music is wonderful, it has nasal character but that character does not hamper tonal characteristic of sound and does not restrict dynamics. Listen a lower octave honk of contrabassoon or bass bass saxophone - it is sensational honk. Audio honk has absolutely nothing to do with the sensational honk of live music. The Audio honk terminate dynamics, tone and it is juts side effect of improperly operating electro-mechanical system

rowuk wrote:

So, the next time honk becomes apparent, don't blame the horn - it is not "flawed", it simply what it is.

Horns are of course some kind of band pass filters with different kind of ripples at lover cutoff and beaming at upper cut off, according to horn type.

Maybe it should be added that contributing to the horn sound idea, is that the sound also depends on the material of the horn wall, flutes for instance are made of either, brass, silver or gold with a reason other than cosmetics.

Then there are flutter echo like bathroom sounds that horns also sometime produce, especially if they have a glossy surface.

be wrote:

Horns are of course some kind of band pass filters with different kind of ripples at lover cutoff and beaming at upper cut off, according to horn type. Maybe it should be added that contributing to the horn sound idea, is that the sound also depends on the material of the horn wall, flutes for instance are made of either, brass, silver or gold with a reason other than cosmetics.

The material in acoustic instruments is manufactured in a different way. The mass of the instrument is very low compared to the acoustic power. Generally the instruments have braces - some to conduct sound - like with a feedback loop, other braces damp sound. Also the material is hardened and annealed during the construction process. This shapes the overtone series and thus the timbre. Eve as the instruments get older, the vibration during playing changes the temper (hardness) of the material. The sound changes/matures like a good wine. Speakers are built more massive compared to the acoustic output power. They are often built from a much lossier material with much less change over age too.

Different materials in wind instruments help the player find a sound that better matches what is in their heads. This reduces the amount of energy required to become "one" with the instrument and thus frees up energy for the creative process. In the hands of a weak player, material considerations are generally not audible/useful.

be wrote:

Then there are flutter echo like bathroom sounds that horns also sometime produce, especially if they have a glossy surface.