Bruce Edgar, the founder and designer of California-based EdgarHorn Loudspeakers, recently announced that he discovered a new relationship between his business plan and rules of physics. According to Bruce:  “The physics of sound reproduction through the horn-loaded loudspeakers is very intricately correlate what my woodmaker’s moods and my bookkeeper’s advisement”.

Being a knowledgeable Horn-thinker but having lethargic woodworkers and frugal business plan, Mr. Edgar over the year spread the rumors that lightly built; curved upper-bass horns are a pinnacle of horns design. “We really have no complains from our customers”, - Mr. Edgar said, - “ This Patrice Barber has light and curved voice anyhow and it was a perfect much for our horns. Since the EdgarHorn customers never heard properly designed straight upper-bass horns with small throat we have opportunities to sell them virtually anything that “looks like horn” and the customers, after knowing the only ported enclosures with rubberized driver, have no other options then to love our curved horn with that have oversized throat”

However, in recent time Mr. Edgar decided that his loudspeakers, no mater how compromised they are still over-perform the majority of the more expansive “boxed” speakers. So, in his desire to increase the price twice he PERMITTED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS in his upper-bass horn and now his Titan loudspeaker will have a straight horn, but only for $20,000 instead of $10,000.

“Our plans look much further into the unlimited taste development of our ignorant and mostly deaf customers. We stratified our customer’s interests, their financial capacities and the business development of our company. – Mr. Edgar said. Then he continued: “After paying $20,000 for a straight upper-bass horn I will publicly acknowledge that the LF loading and throat equalization in horns do mater. Whoever understands would have a chance to pay $30,000 for upper-bass horns having a smaller throat. For $40,000 I will acknowledge the importance of time alignment in horn installations, for $50,000 I will acknowledge the benefit of mass loading for upper-bass horns. For $60,000 I will acknowledge that rectangular horns do not work properly and for $70,000 I would acknowledge that the properly built horns might in fact can perform perfectly fine in nearfield.”

So, the "intricate correlation" between the truth 'bout horns and the laws of physics has shaded some light…

guy sergeant wrote:

Of all the manufacturers you could be poking fun at you've chosen two who actually care about what they make and sell.

I do not think any manufacturers “do not care about what they make and sell”. They all do, or at least they all want to. Everyone want, certainly within a scope of their aperture, knowledge, exposure and ….conformity.

guy sergeant wrote:

Whenever I encounter Bruce Edgar he always strikes me as a courteous and serious guy trying to offer value for money, high performance speakers. He does also seem to enjoy music (as does Kondo)

So, what? I have no problems Bruce and enjoy him. What is has to do with the subject of the news?

guy sergeant wrote:

I imagine he's well aware of the compromises he has to make to supply speaker systems that can actually be sold via retailers. He's also trying to make a living and therefore has to keep some of what he makes reasonably affordable. Of course it's priced accordingly.

Here is where you are wrong and this is why I wrote what I have written. Bruce does familiar with own publicity among the ignorant horn people and unfortunately he uses it as a cheap and irresponsible commodity. I was very surprised what I have sent him a few customers who where very open and very receptive and then…. he loaded them with objectively erroneous generic axioms juts because it was covenant for him to BS then at that given moment. It regrettably happened many times with Bruce, for instance, he was preaching for years to his customers that there were no fundamental or even theoretical shortcomings of his bent upper bass horn vs. a straight horn. So, his Morons-customers were buying and parsing the Edgar upper bass horn. Two-three years ago to told him at CES that his curved upperbass horn do not sound well and was a weakest point of his Titans. We even were talking with him how simple would be to make the very same horn to be straight, even preserving all the rest compromised of that design. Now, two years since then, the Edgar’s upperbass straight horn became a reality and you hear from his customers and from Bruce that it performs much better. No Kidding? So, how about the “no fundamental or even theoretical limitation of angled upper-bass horn”?

Guy, I regrettably heard VERY many examples like above about Bruce. I do not care about the fact that Bruce jacked the price twice, good for him, he have to do it more. The problem with Bruce that he is very much not a Moron and he does know those real “theoretical limitations answers”. So, why is it necessary to BS the gullible and ignorant people? Execly THAT was something that I portrayed in my “news”. If you did not get it then you did not get it, no biggy… Now… I am sound like a real boring snob… someone should write a news about me….

guy sergeant wrote:

Generally people who'd buy Edgar and Kondo items aren't buying them for the kudos of ownership as neither looks that prestigious or expensive. They are bought for how they sound rather than how they look.

…and you, Guy, is wrong here. I do not know well the Kondo’s US customers but knowing the US’s distributor I can made quite confidently an assumption that they should be Morons as no one (I  might have interest) would accept the  Kondo’s US importer seriously.  The playback installations with Kondo never were interesting, I would not say horrible, but they were juts too much Japanese and… to much ignorant (referent o the enter installation not to the Kondo’s gear specifically). Also, whomever I have seen with Kondo WERE the reach and “do not case about sonic result” people.

However, in case of Edgar’s customer is very different story: I know quite few of them and I almost learned their “idiosyncrasies”. When I am saying that the domination majority of Edgar’s customers are bottom-eating audio-white-trash I am not juts pay tribune to my addiction to the adjectives: very many of them ARE very-very primitive (audio-wise) people. This is one of the biggest problems with the Bruce operation that Bruce started as low-price company and he picked all low-laying audio fruit: all those DIYer and those “The big sound” bashers did embrace the Edgar’s horn. They did it NOT because sound or the specific aspect of the Bruce’s horns but BECAUSE it was cheap and not glossy. There was, and still there is NO other reason for Edgar’s customers to be his customers. Why, because very few of then, even using the Edgar’s horns, have interesting sound and practically none of them knows how to use the Edgar’s horns. You want more “evidences”? Stop by at the “Midwest White Wrash Convention” that the DIY/Horn enthusiasts make annually in US and hear/see/speak with the real Results.

At least it is what I feel….

Rgs,
The caT

PS: If you do not mind I will move the Bruce’s posts into his one “News” thread.

Kerry Brown wrote:

When Bruce realized a straight axis horn was a better choice he went with it. Like a good scientist.

Ah, did Bruce realize it of he decided to make his customers to Bruce realize it?

Kerry Brown wrote:

The throat size of those 80 Hz horns is correct. Regardless of convention. With JBL 150-4C's the bass is incredibly good.

Incredibly good? As incredibly good as they COULD BE if the throat were twice or trice smaller? If so then will be you using the same  15” JBL-150 or juts plane better drivers?

Kerry Brown wrote:

Time alignment ? It's not nearly as critical as many claim.

Here we go! Wait unit the Titans III will be coming. Then Bruce will “allow” the Time alignment to be important for the horns.

Kerry Brown wrote:

Rectangular vs round ? I doubt that a round version of Edgar's 80 Hz horn would sound much different…… My rectangular tractrix midrange horns sound very good... and so do my round tractrix horns.

It is only if you sit at the dead listing spot but try to walk around the room. Still, eve at the “dead spot” the rectangular horns screw the general imaging. Anyhow, in your case, Kerry, with all your “time alignment nor nearly as critical” and the digital “dreck”  the you use you have no interesting imaging anyway… :-)

Kerry Brown wrote:

As for nearfield listening ? Bruce does like some distance, but he knows that near field listening does work well with horns.

It is not what he was trying to convince some customers of his. According to the Bruce “the horn must not be used in nearfield”.

Kerry Brown wrote:

I think you are far too hard on Bruce Edgar. He actually does care about performance. And about value. He's a good man.

No questions, but the fact that he is a good man prevent to be “hard on Bruce Edgar”. I am not hard on hard on Bruce Edgar but on some of his very specific actions that I outlined in my “News”

Kerry Brown wrote:

The combination of Bruce Edgar's horn subwoofers, 80 Hz horns and tractrix horns is just plain amazing ( especially with a DEQX digital crossover/preamp ) !

Here we go again!

guy sergeant wrote:

Ok, so imagine I'm someone living in the US with a keen interest in playing my collection of CD's and LPs. I need some speakers priced between 5000 and 10000 dollars to go with my 25 watt tube amp. I won't buy Edgars because Bruce once said that bent horns were ok but now apparently they aren't. What should I buy instead? You see, despite changing his stance on certain issues (I obviously do not keep abreast of such matters, I just base what I say on what I see and hear when I meet him)  he still offers music lovers a chance (even if they don't know fully how to get the best from them) to reproduce music at home in an enjoyable way without it costing the earth. That surely is to be commended.

Kerry Brown wrote:

Re: Here we go again! and again and again....

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

guy sergeant wrote:

Surely one of the objectives of this site is to allow people to be guided towards good sound by discussing the issues involved in getting there. Whether that entails discussing the merits of different recordings or performances or whether it entails discussing the means of getting the best from those recordings I would have thought that it has to involve presenting opinions about different components…. I just think that the site would seem less elitist to newcomers if they could see a way (or ways) to get from where they are to where they perhaps would like to be.

Nope, there are no objectives in this site; no objectives at all. This forum is juts a public dairy, a blog on the specific subject. Nothing further.

guy sergeant wrote:

You have authored articles on SME tonearms, varieties of vacuum tube, getting the best results from particular drivers etc I don't see that expressing those opinions is so far removed from expressing opinions on Edgars speakers or any other components.

And why do you think I would not write the identically “venomous but objective” news releases about the SME or about the Vitavoxes? You really do not know me well if you question my liberalism.

guy sergeant wrote:

A careful choice of well conceived (possibly home built but not necessarily so) components should get the keen listener closer to the 'Good

 I extremely violently OPPOSE to this sentiment. If YOU wish that people coming to this site should learn something then it would be my main wish that they “get” that the notion you proposed in your statement above is fundamentally false.

guy sergeant wrote:

I think that Bruce Edgar's efforts fulfill the role (as far as speakers are concerned) quite well. Reading your comments about him might put some people off which would be a shame because there's very little out there that they can buy (or make themselves) that does the job as well.

Well, I presume that the readers of this site have some evolved understanding of subject and I sincerely hope by “reading someone comments”, including my own, then would not reverse own judgment or actions. If they do… then who care what the do in that case….

Rgs,
The Cat

guy sergeant wrote:

…there are some decent products out there although it seems that in your view those products are the result of happy accidents …

Hm, this is a good way to look at the reality of the things….

guy sergeant wrote:

Why is the statement that suggests people might be able to learn something from this site's contents so offensive?

I did say it “offensive”. I said that it isn’t a motivation of my actions and aren’t the objectives of my behavior. Educational value of my (for instance posts) is a subject of perception not the intentions.

guy sergeant wrote:

If from reading what you write about the Melquaides amplifiers I decide to investigate the possibilities of the 6C33, why is that a bad thing?

Because the Melquaides Sound has nothing to do with 6C33 and mostly derives from the driver stage. Still, there are so many deadly problems of that miserable   Romy’s character…. Do you think we should nail down each of them right here, at the Edgarhorn thread?

Rgs,
The Cat

guy sergeant wrote:

Nah, this thread is not worthy of such a discussion!

guy sergeant wrote:

You might write a venous attack on Vitavox but it would be about 12 years too late!

Bruce Edgar have officially retired and ended up his long career

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hug/messages/16/165931.html

Say whatever you want but Bruce is distinctive maker and I do like him a lot, even I disagree with some of his products. Unfortunately the majority of his clients were ether bottom eaters or just simplistic audio-idiots, Bruce well know sit. Whatever it was Bruce was the one who very much advanced horn thinking around the world and in contrary to many retarded audio builders he actually the person who could hear and the most important who can understand what he hears/listen.