Jump to content

Talk:Horn loudspeaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation

[edit]

The description of the operation of a horn is not correct. This is indeed a type of impedance matching as discussed below.Jackocleebrown (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impedance matching?

[edit]

I'm a little sketchy on the specifics of acoustic impedance, but it sounds like this is a form of impedance matching. — Omegatron 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a type of impedance matching. The horn makes it appear to the driver that its driving a very small acoustic resistance (or something like that). Rohitbd 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It would be nice to clarify this in the article. — Omegatron 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frugal-Horns Site

[edit]

An anon ed deleted this link as spam, but I don't see any problem with it. Dhaluza 08:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with it either. I've issued a vandalism warning to the anon. I suggest other editors do the same if it continues to be removed. GlassFET 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy horn distortion

[edit]

The Synergy horn concept has been touted in the Danley white paper as having less distortion due to there being less speaker cone excursion at the same SPL as a standard horn, yet Danley doesn't include a distortion plot or associated THD or THD+N numbers in his white paper. User:ww says he's chasing down a citation for there being greater distortion in the Synergy horn. FWIW, Tom Danley is one of the good guys, an anti-snake oil defender of truth by way of exacting measurements. He's not a fan of standard loudspeaker measurements performed at 1 meter distance since a physically large loudspeaker allows the measurer to move the measurement mic around in order to 'game' the specifications and avoid (for instance) port distortion, group delay and phase problems. Danley prefers to measure at 10 meters with power increased to 100w, matching the theoretical SPL obtained by 1 watt at 1 meter... Ten meters and 100w is more of a real world experience anyway, in terms of professional concert, theater and event loudspeakers. At any rate, we'll let his Synergy horn design defend itself. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed 'tapped' to 'Synergy'... the section under discussion is about multiple entry horns with more than one bandpass involved. Tapped horns are typically one bandpass in the subwoofer range. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy horn section deletion

[edit]

Several times now I've restored the paragraph that talks about horn speakers that have several different-sized drivers exiting into the same horn. It's been deleted by anonymous IP editors 70.128.102.146, 71.153.163.186, 70.234.126.249 and 70.234.148.18. Various edit summaries give reasons such as "superfluous commercial text" and "veiled advertisement". I wrote the section originally and I have no commercial relation to any of the four companies listed: Servodrive, Renkus-Heinz, Yorkville and Danley Sound Labs. It's hard for me to imagine somebody writing veiled commercial advertisement text which simultaneously promotes four loudspeaker manufacturers which are in some degree competing with each other. The paragraph is about a patented loudspeaker horn technology and deserves to stay in the article. In fact, later in the article there's a mention of another technology associated with EAW--nobody's trying to delete that cite. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to list the Unity style horns as an improvement over other horn types. It is a configuration that has advantages and disadvantages like many other configurations. By not listing all of them, the Unity/Synergy and CoEntrant references read like an advertisement.
It might be more appropriate to list a history of horns. Each kind of horn should be listed, from those used on gramaphones to early theater horns to models used in hifi today, tractrix, LeCleach and others. This would include everything from single driver backhorns to front loaded horn systems, as well as PA horns. One can also mention coaxial, triaxial and multiple-entry horns.
As an introduction to waveguides, the earliest constant directivity horns can be shown along with an explanation of how each works and its strengths and weaknesses. Manta-ray and Biradial horns, then quadratic and oblate spherioidal horns. This would show a series of horn families, and a timeline for each. I think it is a well-rounded listing of the evolution of several configurations and horn types, and is better than singling out one configuration or style of horn.
I realize this is a lot of work, but I think it is the only way that is objective and fair. I would be willing to work with you to develop this document. But please do not simply post the same paragraph and then say I am a "vandal" to take it down. Without listing the other configurations, the "Horn loudspeaker" page on Wikipedia takes a decidedly one-sided slant, at least in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.169.28 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the opportunity of working with you to work on an article that brings so many important horn designs into a framework that makes it easy for students of the industry to follow chronologically the development of various foundational designs. Until we get there, I see no reason why one particular paragraph about one particular horn design must be removed from the article. Let's bring the others in. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the commercial reference, and possibly the one about EAW too, until we have writen a more rounded page that encompasses all horn types and has more varied commercial examples. There is a good general presentation about horns that stands fine without the two or three commercial products that are listed there. By having just the ones you've listed, it leaves the uninformed reader to find only those examples and this is from a rather biased perspective, in my opinion. If the goal is neutrality, then certainly a singular perspective is to be discouraged, don't you agree? 71.153.169.28 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to remove the names of the originators of certain horn speaker technologies. We can very easily give credit where credit is due without straying into commercial promotion or skewed points-of-view.
I am interested in hearing your proposal of how the expanded article will be framed. How about if we make a chronological developmental sequence, citing each horn speaker technology's first appearance, its inventor or proponents and how the technology fared in the marketplace and whether it was sidelined relative to later developments? Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had an agreement to develop a page in Talk prior to another reversion. Please do not continue to revert the page to list the commercial references for the Synergy/Unity style horns. Until we have listed other horns, having that single one listed makes the page very lop-sided. I do not want to continue the editing war, but as long as you continue to list this single horn style, I am going to insist that it be removed. This is a monopolistic practice and should not be allowed, as it is decidedly anti-neutral to have one horn style referenced in exclusion of all others.

I was planning to write up a proposal skelaton/template for a Horn_speaker page this past weekend, but couldn’t. I probably can’t do much until next week but my proposal generally is to write-up a history, much like what is in the Peavey quadratic throat document. The Horn-speaker wiki page should start by showing the earliest gramaphone horns, the early radial and sectional and then the constant directivity horns like the EV, Mantaray and BiRadials. Then go on to show the quadratic throat and OS horns.

We also should show completed loudspeakers, and this section would include the Unity/Synergy/CoEntrant horns. It would have several paragraphs showing everything from horns like the backloaded single driver models, to Klipschorns, Oris and Edgar/Avantgarde style speakers. It would also have speakers like the JBL 4430 and others of its type, such as Geddes Summa and Pi Speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.147.98 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.234.147.98 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pi Speakers firm doesn't have any ground-breaking developments to bring to this article. No patents, no blatant copy violations, no respectful homages using their technology. Pi Speakers doesn't have the sales numbers that would give notability. On the other hand, Earl Geddes is an author on the subject of horn speakers and his published observations have value. What would be worthy of mention here is the Geddes concept of oblate-spheroid waveguides.
I haven't been able to find a published source of Geddes's testing of the multiple entry horn showing that the concept has higher amounts of high-order modes or HOMs. I have seen Geddes saying in bulletin board entries that he thinks the design is flawed in that it has more HOM artifacts but such casual sources aren't strong enough to include here. Geddes would have to test the design and publish the test in order for us to quote him on it. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted another deletion by 70.234.147.98. Reporting incident to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Per discussion here I have been expecting this IP editor to participate in the process of building the article up, not insist on the continued removal of just this one paragraph, which is coincidentally the paragraph where three out of four of the article's references are found. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it irresponsible to repeatedly add a singular reference in the Horn_speaker page, and then to fail to add others that are arguably more relevant. To then later lock the page for editing smacks of bias and brings Wikipedia into questionable credibility. I think this action should make Wikipedia administration look hard at who it allows to have this kind of editing power.

The page has shown only one type of horn implementation in the "improvements on basic designs" section for well over a year. This was added by Binksternet in August of 2007. He has had 16 months to add other entries for other relevant improvements, yet he has not. To complain that I have not added these other references in this page in the past week or two that I became aware of this oversight seems extremely unfair. He's had 16 months to do it, yet chose not to.

What I see in the Horn_speaker page is highly biased and not even close to being neutral. If Wikipedia truly wishes to be neutral, it will pull Binksternet's singular reference as I had done prior to his repeated reversions. In my opinion, it should remain that way until the page can be made more complete.

To illustrate the absurdity of the Horn_speaker page as it now stands, look at an automobile engine analogy. If you were to list car engines and their improvements, you might start with the basic internal combustion engine, then show flatheads, overhead valves, and overhead cams. You would probably show gasoline and diesel engines. These would be reciprocating engines, and you might also list Wankel engines and other variants.

What Binksternet has done is to list just the Wankel, even though it is the least common variant. Most cars have reciprocating engines, so while the Wankel is a viable alternative, it certainly should not be listed as the only improvement on basic designs. To do so leaves the uninformed reader to believe that the Wankel is the only improved design since the engines in the Model A.

I like Wankels as much as any other engine but would never leave a reference page about internal combustion engines to list them as the only improvement from basic designs. It would be irresponsible to do so, since it is available from only a very few manufacturers. It could be said that to do so unfairly advantages Mazda and perhaps Ford and it also leaves an incomplete page with slanted information.

That's what I have been trying to say. The Horn_speaker page as it stands now is slanted, incomplete and biased. To use Wikipedia terminology, this page is the subject of a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. To have left it this way for 16 months is extremely irresponsible, in my opinion. Then to lock it now, in this state, is really unfair. I don't think that should be allowed.

I question Binksternet's ability to provide unbiased contributions to this page since he has left the page in this state for 16 months. When challenged, he has stubbornly refused to look at my objections, and has instead repeatedly reverted it back to his version. That's incredible. One would have thought he would have at least started adding a few references, since he obviously knows a few. Either add other references or remove the one that's there, but don't leave it the way it is. As it is, I'd consider it basically a sales pitch for what is obviously Binksternet's favorite flavor of horn.

My suggestion is to remove the reference to the CoEntrant/Unity style horns until other technologies are included on this page. Until a more rounded listing of improved horn speaker implementations are listed, it is my position that none should be listed. At least make a start rather than to leave the solitary reference to a technology that is only offered by a small number of manufacturers that are clearly in the minority. 70.234.108.246 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been any particular push by me to promote CoEntrant or Synergy horns. I put that paragraph in over a year ago because I ran into that kind of horn, was impressed at how it sounded and was stimulated to write about it when I saw that nothing on Wikipedia mentioned it. To continue your car engine analogy, it's like I drove a Wankel Mazda, got excited and went to the internal combustion engine article to find nothing at all about Wankel rotaries.
There's no particular rule in Wikipedia about how articles are to be built. The existing paragraphs can most certainly stay in place while the rest of the article is built up. I am looking forward to the addition of more horn speaker technologies but I can't be saddled with sole responsibility for the current state of the article. Hundreds of other editors have failed to add a full catalog of horn technologies. Me, I've been working on a bunch of other articles that interest me more; the horn speaker article hasn't been at the top of the list. Because of the tempest initiated by the IP address deletions, I'll be paying more attention to the article and will be taking a more active role in building it. I won't be deleting valid sections, especially sections that contain the majority of references in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I glance through the history of the Horn_speaker page, I see that it has changed considerably in the past few years. Most of the early references are gone and what is left is decidedly one-sided. The current references you mention now are there because you put them there. I have pointed out out the singleness of POV and yet you insist on reverting my changes. You could have at least put the {POV} tag in the article instead of locking it.

You can say "I can't be saddled with the sole responsibility for the state of the article" but it appears to me that you take it upon yourself to be the sole arbiter of its contents. The "improvements" section has only one mention, and that's of the CoEntrant/Unity/Synergy horn. This reference has stood alone for 16 months now, and you have been somewhat protective of the image of that technology. I see other discussions about it over the months that followed, deletions, reversions, comments like "cutting out old fact-challenged sentence". This shows your intense interest and bias towards that one product, and I think that proves my case about the lack of neutral POV.

The mere fact that you have chosen to revert my changes often enough to get a 3RR timeout shows your zeal. I am zealous too, but my zeal is towards making a more rounded page. I would appreciate it if you would respect my opinion instead of trying to maintain the current page with its obviously slanted singular perspective. I appreciate your "excitement" about coentrant style horns but please understand that not everyone feels this way and that only a small minority of loudspeaker horns are coentrant types. Zyxxy (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "my zeal is towards making a more rounded page" but your actions don't back up this statement. You've typed lots of words here on the Talk page about wanting to add material, but most of your actions in the article have been the deleting of a single paragraph. You have done very little to round out the page: you added two waveguide sentences that still need references and you put the word 'conical' into a short list of modern designs. Me, I saw that there were some redlinks that needed to be dealt with so I added an entire page about Yorkville Sound and another about Renkus-Heinz, arguably the first manufacturer to patent the multiple-bandpasses-in-one-horn concept. I spent a good deal of time hunting down patents (there are more that I missed) so that we could begin writing a well-referenced development of the horn. I'm standing ready to expand the article. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this page about two weeks ago, right in the middle of the Christmas season. I didn't have time to write much but did think it was lop-sided as it stood. I've said why, so I'll not repeat.

I remember a couple years ago this page had a lot more references.

It looks to me like you changed the tone of the page to be Unity-centric over a year ago and have stood guard over it to keep it that way. You had 16 months to add other references. You could have just left the original comments and added yours but instead, you removed references to other horn loudspeakers and inserted your comments in their place.

In the past few days since we've had this dispute, you've added even more text about the same technology. Rather than adding information that would balance the database and make it more neutral, you've added whole new sections about the same single technology, licensed to a handful of companies that you wrote about. Have you written anything else related to horns, or has it all been just about Danley products and the companies that license them?

Now the page has been locked, mostly as a direct result of your influence. I am losing interest in trying to work with you, because I think you are single-minded and forcing your point of view. This looks to me like a good ol' boy network, one that I've seen before. It is an obstinate and biased position, incredibly one sided. Zyxxy (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this article's edit history to be an example of a "good ol' boy network", I'd have to be a member of such a network. Funny... I seem to have missed all the meetings and field trips. I don't believe I've ever met Ralph D. Heinz and I've only seen Tom Danley for a few seconds at an AES convention. All I am is a live sound guy who used SPL Synergy horns once and Yorkville Unity horns a couple of times with stellar results. Those few times pale in number compared to the thousands of professional sound jobs I've performed using McCune, Meyer, JBL, Apogee, EAW, Mackie, RCF, ADRaudio, Adamson, Electro-voice, Altec, Community and QSC loudspeakers; each with their own horn designs. I don't own or sell any professional loudspeakers at all so I can hardly be biased by that aspect. I have no professional connection with Danley Sound Labs or the ghost of Servodrive or the guys at Renkus-Heinz.
No, I'm not exactly single-minded. You should check out my user page which lists the wide variety of article subjects that I have added to Wikipedia and the even wider variety of articles upon which I have had a major influence. Architecture, dance, professional audio, film, military history, political history... Not single-minded; however, I admit to being doggedly determined when I believe in something. I added the multiple-entry horn section here, I've defended it against deletion and I continue to think it worthy of inclusion. Because of your deletionism I was moved to add more backing material to support the subject. I plan to do even more in that direction by adding further support articles. On the other hand, I look forward to seeing this article get expanded so that more technologies are described. It's just something that wasn't on my to-do list.
Though this page is locked against IP editors for a couple of weeks anybody is welcome to add potential article material for review here on the Talk page. People do that all the time when working to achieve consensus. You are also welcome to start your own articles about tractrix horns or oblate-spheroid waveguides or a biography of Earl Geddes--whatever you want. I'll work on topics that interest me and about which I know enough to write a summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this page is locked period. I am registered now, and the page still can't be edited. I could add things here but am concerned about your objectivity and ability to have a neutral point of view. You admit to being doggedly determined when you believe in something. You also admit that you are biased strongly in favor of the coentrant horns. I can see in your edit history that you have deleted several references of other loudspeaker companies and products that I would have included. Why then do you object to my position that the coentrant horn references should be deleted until the page can be brought into a neutral point of view?

Look, I don't want the coentrant horn references to be deleted permanently. What I want is for those to not be the sole commercial references in the section. There should be several other horn loudspeakers listed here.

I also do not want you to continue to have such a heavy handed approach. You seem to think your opinion is all that matters. What gives you the right to say what stays and what goes? Why do you get to leave the reference to the companies that sell coentrant horns, yet you seem to dismiss Edgarhorns[[1]], Oris[[2]], Geddes[[3]], Pi Speakers[[4]], Fitzmaurice[[5]] and others?

Why don't we have a link to information about the early Altec theater speakers with sectional horns[[6]]? Why is the EV Constant Directivity[[7]] horn not mentioned? How about the Altec Lansing Mantaray[[8]]? Why is the JBL BiRadial horn[[9]] not there? What about the Peavey quadratic waveguide[[10]]? How about the Oblate Spheroidal waveguide[[11]]?

Please do not dismiss these other companies and horn types. As much as you think the coentrant style horns and companies that make them should get a listing, I think each of these and others should be included. As I've said, I think it should have been a prerequisite that these others be included, because to have only one type is not neutral. Zyxxy (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific technology links you give are great sources--I'll use the major ones for sure. Help me get time frames on each of them, if possible. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What allows you to be the judge of 'major'?

Look back through the history at some of the revisions made in 2007. A lot of this kind of thing was visited upon back then. At one point, there were numerous references, some commercial, some not. They were culled through and many references were deleted.

I personally think that if you're going to have some commercial references there, you probably should allow a fairly wide range of them to stand. If you don't then the page loses its neutral point of view. One way to avoid this is to avoid commercial references altogether.

Which will it be? Who decides? Zyxxy (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears those early external links were deleted because they weren't directly related to text describing the inventions. Some of those old links remain worthless--they are simply a main homepage for some manufacturer. Others of the old links can be used here because they link to specific white papers or descriptions of technology.
I'm imagining a new article layout that will use patents and white papers to describe major historical developments in horns. The descriptive word 'major' is quite easy to determine: if later authors cite the technology as an example, or if the patent appears within a multitude of subsequent patent applications, then the development can be called major. Importance of a technology can also be sensed by how many examples of it have been produced and sold.
The way I see the article shaping up there will be references to at least a dozen commercial entities including RCA from the start and extending through Altec, Electro-Voice, JBL, Community, Klipsch, EAW, Peavey, etc. The imbalance which drew you to the article in the first place will be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done, including other horn types. It is a good start.

Sorry if I came across forcefully. I am still frustrated that the page has been locked down though. It seems heavy handed to me.

I also still maintain the position that the page is a little lopsided although now it is not so much that it is lopsided towards coentrant horn speakers as it is lopsided towards loudspeakers used in sound reinforcement applications. This is a step in the right direction but I think we need to include examples of technologies used in high fidelity home settings. This is where horns like Edgarhorn, Avantgarde and Oris would be mentioned.

I also think Geddes[[12]] and Pi Speakers[[13]] should be mentioned because they are the two most focused on solving the problems of acoustics in small rooms, i.e. home hifi. Their speakers are similar, providing constant directivity and a uniform reverberent field. They also propose multiple subwoofers for smooth in-room bass response. These are technologies that are specifically aimed at solving acoustics problems in small rooms. Zyxxy (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is getting there. I agree that it has a pronounced PA slant to it; that's what I know and I write best when I write what I know. Somebody else will have to add the SOTA in hi-fi and DIY circles, though I caution against adding any references from online forums or manufacturer's own technote pages. If at all possible, stick with white papers that have been published in mainstream journals or presented at AES, expert books providing theory, etc. Please don't put anything at all about Pi Speakers in the article--you don't want me to raise a stink about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that the hifi and DIY market segments be included. While arrayability in sound reinforcement is an attractive use for constant directivity horns, the uniformity of the reverberent field in small rooms is what's attractive about horns in home listening rooms. They're two different things, but both are improved by using horns.

I also think you have unfairly dismissed Pi Speakers and I think that should be remedied. The number of installed units is quite high, probably higher than any of the others discussed on this page. The DI-matched two-way configuration and the uniform directivity cornerhorns have been Pi Speakers mainstays for decades. Pi Speakers is the only company that makes a CD cornerhorn (Klipsch is not CD) and the DI-matched two-way speakers were the only speakers of that type for the home hifi market until the recent entry of Geddes with his Summa loudspeaker, introduced in 2005.

Pi Speakers has advocated the multiple sub approach for several years, something else that was somewhat controversial but has begun gaining acceptance. This is a technique of smoothing room modes by distributing subwoofers to generate dense interference below the Schroeder frequency. While not exclusively a horn speaker approach, it is an attempt to gain uniform sound distribution at low frequencies, something that no point-source horn can do. Multiple distributed subs are used with constant directivity mains to provide a uniform sound field in rooms, so this technology goes hand-in-hand with horn speakers for the highest quality home hifi installations.

For the large room and outdoor scale, the 12Pi hornsub has features that are patent pending, and the patent will issue soon. Here again, these features were somewhat controversial in some circles, yet the idea of a heat tube is well-known in the industry and it is now gaining universal acceptance among most manufacturers. The important (and patentable) marriage was using the heat tube approach in a horn subwoofer, combining the access plate as a heat sink. Horns decrease excursion, so the cooling vents are less able to do their work. The pole piece is another avenue to remove heat, so a removable cooling plug installed to connect it with the access panel proved to be an excellent method of removing heat.

These are non-trivial things, in my opinion, and should not be dismissed so easily. They were listed on this page at one time, but later removed. I have seen the Pi Speakers cooling plug listed on a French Wikipedia page, and think it makes sense to have a listing in the English page as well.

I don't mean to dwell on that except you seem so adamant against listing Pi Speakers. I have seen Danley supporters take this tack against Pi Speakers, which then in turn makes Pi Speakers supporters tend to take a dim view of Danley. This is symptom of a larger polarization, that of prosound verses home hifi. The home hifi crowd thinks they're more interested in quality and that prosound manufacturers make gear designed to be loud but not necessarily acoustically pure. The prosound crowd thinks they're more technically sophisticated and that the home hifi enthusiasts are easily swayed by boutique products that do nothing, just fancy cables and snake oil.

Personally, I see the two camps as having different priorities, even if you remove the SPL requirements and provide equal quality. One is designed for large spaces, the other for small. Both can make use of uniform directivity, but for different reasons. The two camps should not be polarized, but should instead understand the optimizations required of each environment. That's where I'd like to see this article go. Zyxxy (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed adamant about you not adding anything whatsoever about Pi Speakers to the article. There is no wiggle room in the policy of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but you could list it if you wanted, as could others. There have been mentions before, here and in the French version of Wikipedia.

I have not made an entry on the Horn_speaker page except for general comments like the ones you saw about conical horns, quadratics and oblate spheroidal waveguides. However, someone has made entries in the past that were later deleted. I can see that in the history.

That's partially why I was frustrated to see all references of improved horns deleted except those about CoEntrant/Unity-style horns. References that I thought were relevant and useful were removed, and the only ones left standing were licensers or licensees of coentrant style horns.

As I've said before, I think the only responsible and fair thing to do is to correct this. Otherwise, I think the page lacks a neutral point of view. Zyxxy (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a loudspeaker horn design is seen as notable by well-known industry experts, some description of it belongs in the article. Even if it's notable only as acknowledged by a consensus of editors here, it can go in. Notability is gained not by a mark of high self-assessment or by gaining a toehold in the marketplace but by publishing and influencing others, or by offering something that turns out to be so wildly popular that it blankets the marketplace. You might want to think about getting a book deal, presenting an AES paper or getting a patent granted to establish your notability. That way, somebody else other than yourself could put your horn speaker ideas into this article. Running an online forum and publishing a website to present your ideas isn't enough to register on Wikipedia's radar. Check out these three foundational concepts for citing our Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're kind of side stepping the issue here. First, the whole point is there were lots of references that were already present, but in the last year they were all deleted leaving one type of horn in its place. Second, I see no "consensus of editors" here, I see only you and me. You're the one that's been policing this page, and my input here first and foremost is to say - it's biased, it's been that way for a long time, and suggest a few ways to change it. Third, I see a bit of a double standard, in that I think some of your self-imposed rules are strictly applied to those not making your personal favorites, but much more lax on the ones you like. For example, if getting a patent granted were the requirement, then why is a reference to Yorkville listed? They are only a licensee.

To tell the truth, I'm getting really tired of this discussion. I see it as hopelessly one-sided. As I've said before, I think you're the one that lacks a WP:Neutral point of view. You haven't even bothered to consider what I've said, so verifiability and original research are unavailable to you. You just won't look.

By the way, your most recent Horn_speaker page is not accurate. You have shown a patent Danley did on a multiple-entry horn in 1989 that is not related to the Unity/CoEntrant design. They're two entirely different things. The 1989 Danley patent describes a horn with multiple drivers but it is not clear that those would be used at different frequency ranges; Instead, it is evident what he meant was for them to be multiple similar drivers all operating as a single source.

Danley has described his thought processes when coming up with the Unity concept as being related to a trip he made to Egypt in the late 1990's where he visited the pyramids. At that time, it occured to him that he could put the HF driver at the apex of the horn and put lower frequency drivers further down the pathway. This would delay the HF driver and he could match the delays of each subsystem in the crossover. This was the first time he considered a multiple-band / multi-entry horn. I believe he applied for the patent around 2000 and it issued in 2002 or thereabouts. Zyxxy (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that 1989 Danley patent misapplied to how it's used in the text. I'll get in there and fix it.
To answer your complaint that I "just won't look" at what you are saying, you're wrong. First, I'm rolling up my sleeves and quickly adding material to the article before I have to get back to my bread'n'butter work. I have consciously chosen not to joust with you on a point-by-point basis, as it takes away from my limited time to fix the article. Second, you are wrong in assuming that I don't consider each point you bring up here on the talk page. I consider it, then I weigh it relative to how important I think it is, and if I think it's significant, I answer it. Certain of your arguments are ones I haven't responded to at all because they are flimsy and too easily countered. For instance, you have repeatedly said that this article at one time or another had links to things you think should be able to be returned to the article because they were once there. This is not a valid argument. Links, text references and data points go in the article because of their current value to the reader, not because somebody put them in a while ago. In fact, I'd be more circumspect in re-assessing links that somebody once deleted.
It may look like only you and I are here on this Talk page but there are a few other editors who are keeping tabs on it as it changes. The Horn speaker article got over 100 page views every day for the past three days and this talk page got an average of 33 visits per day in the same period. Any of the people looking on can chime in if they see a need. Apparently, they don't. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what I meant about "you just won't look". I've decided to send an E-Mail to you directly because there are some things that are better said in a private discussion. I never felt real comfortable talking about some of the things we've begun to talk about, and yet it is hard to comment honestly without at least making mention. Frankly, lots of this could have been left off the "WP:Talk" page anyway. So watch for my E-Mail, and perhaps we'll talk more in private.

I have no doubt that anyone interested who might be looking on would be happy with the progress made in recent days. It has been explosive. I hope that in spite of some of our disagreements, I have been helpful in some small way.

For whatever else might be said, the progress you've made in the past few days is encouraging. It's great work. I think I'll leave it at that. Zyxxy (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of progress - LOOKING GOOD! Zyxxy (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information sources

[edit]
  • Peavey Quadratic-Throat Waveguide. (2000) Paper by Charlie Hughes and John Murray which first covers a brief history of selected horn designs.
  • US patent 0673396, George L. Hogan, "Horn or Trumpet for Phonographs [collapsible conical horn with removable flared bell]'", issued 1901-05-07 
  • US patent 1381430, Edward Phipps, "Amplifier for phonographs and the like [horn with slight narrowing at the mouth]'", issued 1921-06-14 
  • GB 278098  (5 October 1927) Paul G.A.H. Voigt. "Improvements in Horns for Acoustic Instruments" [Tractrix horn]
  • US patent 1666057, Elwood Grissinger, "Sound-projecting apparatus [folded phonograph horn]'", issued 1928-04-10 
  • US patent 1722220, Hurlbert, Harold M., "Horn [curved horn surrounded by damping material]'", issued 1929-07-23 
  • US patent 1835739, Alexander I. Abrahams, "Sound amplifier [curved, convoluted horn]'", issued 1931-12-08 
  • US patent 1874733, Cornelus Zwikker (RCA), "Device for directing sound [short horn loaded with columnar array of drivers for output pattern control]'", issued 1932-08-30 
  • US patent 1918366, Alexander I. Abrahams, "Horn structure [nested horns with phase plug]'", issued 1933-07-18 
  • US patent 1920631, Stavros Coumbopoulos, "Sound amplifying horn [collapsible horn mouth for portable phonograph]'", issued 1933-08-01 
  • US patent 2001089, Blattner, David G. (Bell Telephone Labor Inc.), "Horn [horn with longitudinal vanes for wider dispersion of mid- and high-frequencies]'", issued 1935-05-14 
  • US patent 2135610, Edward C. Wente (Bell Telephone Labor Inc.), "Horn [hybrid conical horn with curved interior vanes yielding multiple exponential cross sections]'", issued 1938-11-08 
  • US patent 2203875, Harry F. Olson (RCA), "Loud-speaker [horn with multiple exponential flare rates]'", issued 1940-06-11 
  • US patent 2269284, Harry F. Olson (RCA), "Signal translating apparatus [Concentric high and low frequency drivers]'", issued 1942-01-06 
  • US patent 2310243, Paul W. Klipsch, "Horn for loud-speaker", issued 1943-02-09 
  • US patent 2338262, Vincent Salmon (Jensen Radio Mfg. Co.), "Acoustic horn [straight or re-entrant horn with increasing flare rate for better low frequency coupling]'", issued 1944-01-04 
  • US patent 2440078, (General Electric), "Radio cabinet and speaker mounting", issued 1948-04-20 
  • US patent 2537141, Paul W. Klipsch, "Loud-speaker horn", issued 1951-01-09 
  • US patent 2642948, Harry F. Olson, John Preston (RCA), "Portable radio with a bass-reflex cabinet", issued 1953-06-23 
  • US patent 3930561, Arnold I. Klayman (Monitron Industries, Inc.), "Low distortion pyramidal dispersion speaker", issued 1976-01-06 
  • US patent 3935925, Koiwa, Kenji; Kohashi, Makoto, "Horn unit for a speaker", issued 1976-02-03 
  • US patent 4050541, Clifford A. Henricksen (Altec), "Acoustical transformer for horn-type loudspeaker [phase plug in the shape of a dome connected to a truncated cone, with radial slots]'", issued 1977-09-27 
  • US patent 4071112, Broadus D. Keele, Jr. (Electro-Voice), "Horn loudspeaker [constant directivity horn]'", issued 1978-01-31 
  • US patent 4116302, Seebinger, Frederick L. (American Trading and Production Corp.), "Horn loudspeaker", issued 1978-09-26 
  • US patent 4138594, Paul W. Klipsch (Klipsch and Associates, Inc.), "Small dimension low frequency folded exponential horn loudspeaker with unitary sound path and loudspeaker system including same", issued 1979-02-06 
  • US patent 4176731, Rex Sinclair (Altec), "Two-section exponential acoustical horn", issued 1979-12-04 
  • US patent 4187926, Clifford A. Henricksen, Mark S. Ureda (Altec), "Loudspeaker horn [Horizontal diffraction "Mantaray"]'", issued 1980-02-12 
  • US patent 4194590, Anderson, Roger C., Schulein, Robert B. (Shure), "Loudspeaker horn with adjustable angle of dispersion", issued 1980-03-25 
  • US patent 4308932, Broadus D. Keele, Jr. (JBL), "Loudspeaker horn", issued 1982-01-05 
  • US patent 4390078, Bruce Howze, Clifford Henrickson (Community Light & Sound, Inc.), "Loudspeaker horn", issued 1982-02-23 
  • US patent 4348549, Berlant, Emmanuel, "Loudspeaker system", issued 1982-09-07 
  • US patent 4369857, Spencer Frazer, Steven P. Soibelman (The Kind Horn Company), "Loudspeaker and horn combination", issued 1983-01-25 
  • US patent 4580655, Broadus D. Keele, Jr. (JBL), "Defined coverage loudspeaker horn", issued 1986-04-08 
  • US patent 4685532, David W. Gunness (Electro-Voice), "Constant directivity loudspeaker horn", issued 1987-08-11 
  • US patent 4790408, John F. Adair, "Coiled exponential bass/midrange horn loudspeakers", issued 1988-12-13 
  • US patent 4823908, Tanaka, Tsuneo; Iwasa, Mikio; Kimura, Youichi; Nakamura, Akira (Matsushita), "Directional loudspeaker system", issued 1989-04-25 
  • US patent 4845759, Thomas J. Danley (Intersonics Inc.), "Sound source having a plurality of drivers operating from a virtual point", issued 1989-07-04 
  • US patent 5020630, David W. Gunness (Electro-Voice), "Loudspeaker and horn therefor", issued 1991-06-04 
  • US patent 5526456, Ralph D. Heinz (Renkus-Heinz), "Multiple-driver single horn loud speaker [CoEntrant horn]'", issued 1996-06-11 
  • US patent 6016353, David W. Gunness (Eastern Acoustic Works), "Large scale sound reproduction system having cross-cabinet horizontal array of horn elements", issued 2000-01-18 
  • US patent 6059069, Charles Emory Hughes, II (Peavey Electronics), "Loudspeaker waveguide design [Quadratic-Throat Waveguide]'", issued 2000-05-09 
  • US patent 6411718, Thomas J. Danley (Sound Physics Labs, Inc.), "Sound reproduction employing unity summation aperture loudspeakers [Unity horn]'", issued 2002-06-25 
  • US patent 6581719, Alan Brock Adamson, "Wave-shaping sound chamber", issued 2003-06-30 
  • US patent 6712177, Mark S. Ureda (JBL), "Cross-fired multiple horn loudspeaker system", issued 2004-03-30 
  • US patent 7068805, Earl Geddes, "Acoustic waveguide for controlled sound radiation [Bi-spheroidal waveguide]'", issued 2006-06-27 
  • US patent 7316290, Hutt, Steven W.; Steere, John F.; Keele, Jr., D. B (Harman International), "Acoustic lens system", issued 2008-01-08 
  • Patent application. Waveguide loudspeaker with adjustable controlled dispersion. Guido Noselli, Stefano Noselli, Outline

What's needed is to identify which of these were the most influential. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute [Improvements on basic designs]

[edit]

The current page has shown only one type of horn implementation in the "improvements on basic designs" section for well over a year. This is an enormous oversight, in my opinion. There are dozens of modern horn designs, each with its own distinctive properties and advantages. To show only one makes the Wikipedia/Horn_speaker page nothing more than an advertisement for a particular type of horn.

To illustrate the absurdity of the Horn_speaker page as it now stands, look at an automobile engine analogy. If you were to list car engines and their improvements, you might start with the basic internal combustion engine, then show flatheads, overhead valves, and overhead cams. You would probably show gasoline and diesel engines. These would be reciprocating engines, and you might also list Wankle engines and other variants.

What is displayed now on the Horn_speaker page is just one horn type, a patented implementation sold by only one manufacturer and licensees. It represents a very small minority of horn loudspeakers in use today. To further the automobile engine analogy, this is like listing just the Wankle engine, even though it is the least common variant. Most cars have reciprocating engines, so while the Wankle is a viable alternative, it certainly should not be listed as the only improvement on basic designs. To do so leaves the uninformed reader to believe that the Wankle is the only improved design since the engines in the Model A.

I like Wankels as much as any other engine but would never leave a reference page about internal combustion engines to list them as the only improvement from basic designs. It would be irresponsible to do so, since it is available from only a very few manufacturers. It could be said that to do so unfairly advantages Mazda and perhaps Ford and it also leaves an incomplete page with slanted information.

The Horn_speaker page as it stands now is slanted, incomplete and biased. To use Wikipedia terminology, this page is the subject of a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. To have left it this way for 16 months is extremely irresponsible, in my opinion. Then to lock it now, in this state, is really unfair. I don't think that should be allowed. It should be at least unlocked and the {POV-section} tag applied.

My suggestion is to remove the reference to the CoEntrant/Unity style horns until other technologies are included on this page. Until a more rounded listing of improved horn speaker implementations are listed, it is my position that none should be listed. At least make a start rather than to leave the solitary reference to a technology that is only offered by a small number of manufacturers that are clearly in the minority. Zyxxy (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the assertion by User:Zyxxy that the horn speaker article shows only one implementation and that it is slanted and biased: I see a bunch of horns listed. There are conical horns, exponential horns and tractrix horns mentioned as well as conical, quadratic and oblate-spheroid waveguides. Each of these are important developments--all that's really missing are constant directivity (CD) horns, manta-ray and biradial horns, along with a few others that were less important. My friend Zyxxy can very easily suggest a framework or template for the article which takes these designs and shows each of them described with importance proportional to how much of an effect they had/have on the industry. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been locked, so no changes are currently possible. Before it was locked, I added mentions of conical, quadratic and oblate spheroidal horns. Those are basic constant directivity horn shapes, ones that should not have been overlooked by anyone remotely familiar with the state of the art.

I found this page a couple weeks ago and found that it was missing these important references, so I added them. I did not have time to write more, but thought I would at least make mention of the basic modern constant directivity horn/waveguide shapes. I also removed the commercial references of coentrant style horns because I felt they made the page biased and lacking in neutrality. If you want to add them, fine, but only if other similar competing company references are made of other horn types. Standing alone, I think this section reads like an advertisement for coentrant style horns.

Two years ago this page had several examples of a variety of horn speaker types and companies that make them. Now most of them have been removed. I think this page lacks neutrality in the most basic sense. Other horn types and other manufacturers must be equally represented here or the page lacks neutral point of view. That's the issue here. Zyxxy (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now LOOKING GOOD! Zyxxy (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list

[edit]

Still to be done on this article:

  • Add Geddes and oblate spheroid waveguide
  • Add Voigt (1927) and tractrix done
  • Mention hyperbolic-exponential (Vincent Salmon, 1946)
  • Mention circular
  • Karlson (1952) assymetric sound projector
  • Add JBL's 1980s acoustic lens horn modifier plates
  • Nexo's assymetric dispersion CD horn
  • Tannoy's use of LF driver as horn for HF driver
  • A section on phase plugs past and present
  • More about low frequency horns
  • More about hi-fi and DIY horns
  • A section about how horns combine in arrays, including line array concepts
  • Something about materials, ringing and sound-deadening treatments
  • Half-, quarter- and eighth-space loading (corner horns, etc.)
  • Community's PC horn
  • Specific notes about folded horns
  • Vented, ported and other horn designs which use the back side of the driver to serve some purpose

...and more as I think of it. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 more horn types

[edit]

One is a horn's that's so folded that one part of the horn tube passes through another section. I presume these come in various geometries. I've seen them in large pre-war pre-electric gramophones, and gather they were popular in cinema speakers at some point before the 1930s.

Another horn type is the naive horn. This is simply a horn that makes no attempt to follow any mathematical pattern, it simply 'looks ok.' This approach has been used in small home made table top horns, typically made by experimenters out of low quality materials. Of course they're crude, but they're also a type of horn that's out there in the world. Here's one: naive horn speaker. I can release it pub dom if its of use. Tabby (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:Reliable sources which discuss either sort of horn then you can compose text which reflects those sources. A quick Google search I performed just now netted me nothing on naive horns, so I doubt there are easy-to-find sources on that aspect. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the type of folded horn where the "tube passes through another section" is explained as of May 2024, as "reentrant" or "reflex", typically for public address.

A naive horn can be as simple as a piece of paper rolled vaguely into a cone and the narrow pushed into a compression driver. Another example would be the unpowered blobs of plastic one can put their cell phone into to amplify the sound at the expense of bandwidth. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_(acoustic)

These aren't really why I replied (but seems relevant). I see a description of most any horn I know, except 2; and one type is very important. The type is "logarithmic". They are essential in understanding why "Tractix" horns exist. I'll explain a little here, but am not a good source for the article: The curved flare of a horn can happen at 3 relative rates: 1. slower than the sound front expands (long, narrow horn). This is a logarithmic horn; the flare's curve is based on a logarithmic value. 2. faster than the sound frond expands (short, wide horn). This is an exponential horn, the flare curve is based on an exponent. 3. The flare's curve can match the expansion of the sound wave front exactly. this happens in exactly 1 curve, the tractrix curve. Instead of having a bulging center to the sound front like a logarithmic horn, or a concave center like an exponential horn, a tractrix horn produces an unwarped wave front and improves the off-axis performance by having the sides of the wave front be at the same distance from the driver at the same time as the center of the wave front.

clear a mud? probably...

CD horns: which way round ?

[edit]

Many CD horns are fit in a square cut-out so that they can be rotated to give more horizontal dispersion and less vertical, or vice-versa. I presume because the cabinet may be used on its side as a stage 'wedge' monitor. Is there a simple (visual) way to tell which way round is wider and which is taller ? A thin vertical slit could give wide horizontal dispersion by diffraction ... but most non-square horns are wide-mouthed, presumably for wide dispersion ! I came here to look for the answer, but am going to give up and just try both orientations ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK on my speakers (W-Audio PSR-8 !), for wide dispersion : the throat of the horn is tall and narrow, with smoothly-curved sides. The top and bottom of the horn are more nearly two straight plane wedges. As supplied.
Hope this helps someone else ! Not sure if it's notable to be worth adding to the topic.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Horn loudspeaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to introduction

[edit]

User:2602:306:cc93:79e0:1044:809a:e125:5a5f, I thought your recent addition [14] to the introduction was interesting, but I feel it is a little broad and off-topic for an article on horn loudspeakers. Also, it doesn't really change the fact expressed in the sentence it is commenting on: horns are less widely used than cone speakers in home audio systems (except in tweeters). I think this content would be better moved to the body of the article. Also, it really should be supported by an inline citation of a reliable source. Cheers --ChetvornoTALK

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Horn loudspeaker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horn_loudspeaker&oldid=1223716252"