Martin Poulin
Munich High End 2019 expo, what a show!
As of May 2019, I’ve attended seven Montreal HiFi shows as well as four Toronto HiFi expositions.
The last time I went to one of these shows, I left quite disappointed and thought I might never go back again. Following the mainstream mostly obsolete offerings was no longer of any interest. (See my blurb "HiFi show" somewhere on this website).
Both the Montreal and Toronto shows are different, but somehow remain similar in terms of number of rooms, and “flagship rooms” showcased. Also, many exhibitors showcased their products at both venues, with a slight edge given to Toronto for more “cost is no object” type of systems.
The Munich High End show is different. It's much larger for one, and displays many more “flagship rooms”. Currently, it’s the biggest show in the world. Two days simply isn’t enough time to browse through everything, so I'm glad I purchased a three-day ticket, to enjoy most of it. The Friday and Saturday crowds are considerable and often, there are lineups to hear some of the more interesting rooms. People here love their classical music. No Pink Floyd to be heard anywhere, and that was refreshing. For North American visitors, Munich brings multiple new European brands which are less common in Canada, although some international companies such as Harman Kardon and MBL brands were present. However, they weren't my focus, as my interest was to hear horn offerings.
Horns aren't very popular in North American shows. Prior Munich shows online coverage have had on average about a dozen horn based systems. Therefore, in order to hear and learn from those big horn systems, and the different approaches, I decided to book a flight ticket and head to Munich. I wasn't disappointed.
I won't offer a show review or mention my top sounding room (spoiler… it was not even horn based), but I will share my general afterthoughts and some lessons learned, in no particular order.
For the full review, use google, lots of websites offer excellent show coverage.
First, I didn't spend time listening to bookshelf-based systems, as I know what they can do, and especially what they can’t do. I’m not bad mouthing them here, but I didn't travel 7500 km to hear sub-par sound reproduction, and that included the “big” bookshelf units like the Yamaha NS5000, Harbeth or the popular JBL L100's. In my opinion, smaller than that full-size loudspeakers are simply paperweights.
All the three brands below I find disappointing, even if they are infinitely better than the smaller bookshelf speakers you can find:
Like American manufacturers, most European brands choose classical passive crossovers and rarely take advantage of the “full active system" with modern technology such as DSP room correction. I heard only a few offerings that had integrated active amplification systems, and some basic DSP user configuration. ATC was a prime example and their system, with their infamous 3” mid-range dome, sounded superb. I know they use a sealed box limiting the lower bass output, but their musical selection seemed to be well implemented.
Below is the great sounding, all active system from ATC SCM40A
Not all horns are created equal. Flare choice, compression ratio or lack of thereof, system crossover slope and number of ways applied matters a lot. Some horn systems I liked very much, while some I didn't care for. Yet, all of the horn systems either re-enforced my current belief, or brought me some useful new information to consider.
It was obvious that a dedicated super tweeter was essential. (aka bullet horn like the Fostex T925A, a super high frequency compression driver like the TAD ET-703, even the older JBL 2405). Those ultra high frequency units greatly surpassed their regular compression driver counterparts in the top octaves. The super tweeters are designed to cover ~7 kHz and above, and bring air to the system that no regular compression driver can provide.
The two-way "hORN Symphony" from Poland, or the huge three-way from Tune Audio "Avaton", clearly demonstrated those compression driver’s upper range limits in the top octave. Beryllium, titanium, or aluminum domes… it didn't matter. They just can't reproduce top treble like a real dedicated ultra high frequency super tweeter can do. I don’t understand why the designers didn't add a super-tweeter to those products. Whilst they sounded good, adding a super-tweeter would had escalated them to the next level.
Below are the hORN Symphony and the Tune Audio Avalon. Good sounding, but a super tweeter would be welcome, I think it would be a must to add one.
.jpg)
Back loaded horns, as usual, are basically a waste of time.
I knew that from my full-range days (mostly Lowther and Fostex based projects), and hearing those again brought back some frustrating memories. The expensive “AX Superjet”, or the Voxativ offerings applied the back loaded horn design, and the dreadful sound coming out of them wasn't a surprise. The AX Superjet were particularly lame with guitar and vocals thrown in your face, while the bass was delayed and ultra weak, with the top end being non-existent. I find it rather sad that such a flawed concept still appeals to some. Can’t discuss personal taste.
Here are the two lame back loaded horns that were exposed at Munich:
WESTERN ELECTRIC – A pleasant surprise was the Silbatone room!
Those original 1932 Western Electric WE-22A horns were quite a treat to hear. People were cuing up to enter the room and I understand why. The room was huge, and people often clapped loudly after a song was played. Of all the shows I attended, I never witnessed people repetitively clapping after pretty much any song that was played. Heck, I've clapped too! The proud owner was also making small talk between songs, to explain the system and its components. It was a 3.5-way system on demo only, as none of those vintage museum quality horns were for sale. (Silbatone sell electronics only). It consisted of one pair of WE597A field coil high frequency compression drivers crossed at around 3500 Hz, and two WE555’s and their huge exponential spiral horns. As I was informed, the two mid-horn were playing in parallel covering 100 Hz to 3500 Hz, without any equalization or delays. The two mid-range horns blended each other well, and brought out the “best” sound, according to the owner. Using a single one as one would expect was not bringing the dynamics that the pair could provide; according to the owner. Having two horns operating in parallel, also increased efficiency and offered tremendous dynamics indeed. On the lower end, there was a single push-pull open baffle subwoofer on the left corner. It was a DIY solution which integrated very well with the system, attracting no attention to itself… as it should be. It consisted of an unnamed driver (eight of them if I remember correctly) and was filing from 100 Hz and below with ease.
Sure, the vintage WE horn sound was a bit euphoric, and rolled off badly on the top end, but it was so entertaining. (I expect that the high frequency died after 10 or 12 kHz). Yet, after two songs, one forgets the lack of transparency and adjusts to the tone. Then, one simply enjoys the sheer dynamics and musical enjoyment this type of vintage system can provide. Because it was rolled off, it could play very loud without ever having a slight edge of aggressive sound. Choirs, Opera, Led Zeppelin, Classical Music…you name it. This system rendered it all, in its gory. Loved it. This system alone, was worth the flight ticket to Munich.
A not accurate, but immensely satisfying system:
Note:
The inner two horn speakers (3-way in rosewood) were played independently.
Rarely were those speakers demonstrated, as they sounded significantly less appealing than the "bigger ones"
The outer four horns were played together.
-
Both pairs of mid-range horns on the left and right connected in parallel.
-
Single WE 597A tweeter per side (attached on the metal frame)
-
DIY slot loaded open baffle subwoofer seen on the far left
Back loaded bass horn… as expected, didn't fare much better than the full range back loaded horn mentioned above. (Voxativ and AX)
Expensive Cessaro Alpha II systems use back loaded horn bass bin, and despite having a relatively dynamic mid-bass from an efficient 16” TAD Alnico driver, it wasn't coherent and lacked low extension. I suspect that the BLH was tuned at around 50 Hz. My request of some organ music revealed the first octave was badly MIA (Missing In Action).
But I applaud Cessaro's representative for accepting to play music that was showing the limitation of the speaker, most audio reps knows what their system can't do and will absolutely refuse to play music that will demonstrate their system limitations. Ask a Tannoy representative for organ music on their big semi-horn loaded loudspeaker, good luck with that.
One could add a dedicated sealed sub-woofer to this system, but then why not go sealed bass bin and keep the group delays relatively in check? Compromises were clearly implemented here, aiming at a small footprint for sure, and any attentive ear could hear it. Mind you, the top end extension was excellent thanks to the $1800 TAD ET-703 super tweeter on a custom horn.
.jpg)
Big five-way full horn system from ESD was a mixed bag. I was excited about it, and hearing those field coil compression drivers was a delight.
However, the “L shaped” bass horn was truly deficient. There was huge resonance in the system. I listened to the horn up close, to confirm it wasn't the room or something vibrating in the cubicle. It wasn't. The bass horn didn't physically vibrate much from my hand’s touch, so it must have been the horn flare, the driver, the compression ratio used or even a defective driver. I don’t know what it was, but something was terribly wrong, and that one strong resonant mode killed the enjoyment of the whole system.
It wasn't a slight thing neither. On the organ music I requested, it really drew attention to itself, and was so constant that the room eventually emptied. Hopefully, they'll correct that flaw on a future design. Rest of the system was very good, vocal and jazz music was reproduced brilliantly.
.jpg)
.jpg)
The Stein five-way system was also a mixed bag.
Similar to my current system in its philosophy (horn reproducing high frequency and direct radiator doing the bass duty), it used horns in the high frequency (I suspect from 350 Hz) and multi-drivers in the bass. I mean a lot of drivers, (18 of them per side! for the main speaker). Add to this the subwoofer column in the back (not seen on picture as picture angle perfectly hide them behind the main speaker).
I wanted to like it, but just couldn't. The system wasn't bad, but it just didn't shine like the other systems did. Perhaps it was the set-up or bad match somewhere, that was the cause. I actually went into that room four different times, hoping to find something great, but just never could.
I have no idea on the bass driver used (cheap vs expensive) and their inherent quality, one is thing for sure is the cabinet is VERY SMALL to house 18 bass driver...
Moreover, the Stein are Open Baffle and such small enclosure would require driver with high Qts parameter to compensate for the falling frequency response as the baffle is too small to naturally support bass output.
High Qts speaker mean "small magnet driving force" relative to the speaker cone and such combination, in my experience, greatly limit subjective sound quality. I never heard a high Qts driver that I've liked...I think that was the main culprit
I'm pretty sure it was.
Avantgarde Duo MEZZO XD, three-way speaker done right.
Feature a “Celestion CDX1-1425 look alike” compression driver tweeter, a horn loaded 6” paper dome midrange (throat size approx. 3”) and a dual 12” front horn bass. “Short horn” with active amplifier. Use of DSP was evident. The bass horn’s name is a joke (way too short for a bass horn), at maybe 20” long, it’s really a sealed dual 12” design with some front wings for appearance.
Yet, it sounded powerful and complemented the two horns superbly. Organ music, thanks to the DSP sounded adequate and no notes resonated or were inaudible. The bass never collapsed at lower frequencies when pushed hard. I suspect those 12” were close to reaching their limit, being played dangerously close to their "red line". I'm sure the demo was done at maximum output capacity, but no dynamic compression was felt at the level played. It rendered music with authority, and the constant crowd’s taping feet in that room was a proof. Very well done.
Another three-way done right was the Odeon Audio Carnegie. It featured a 1" compression tweeter horn loaded, a 5” Audax driver housed in a front horn midrange with a DIY conical phase plug and a 15” woofer.
Damn, did it sound good! Yes, a super tweeter and dedicated sub would have helped, but the core midrange horn was great. Those last two systems, with less efficient front horns, and conventional cone midranges, proved to me that big 4” compression driver midranges can have serious competition.
Cone speaker midrange horns are less efficient then compression driver, and they can't reach the same dynamic levels, but they exhibit no edge of aggressiveness, often heard on “cheaper” Public Address styled compression drivers. Specially the Compression Driver using Titanuim diaphragm.
Also, Cone driver horn can play lower frequency, although they do not reach as high as a compression driver do, different beast, different trade-offs.
In a home setting environment, these speaker could be a great place to start.
Makes me want to try a DIY prototype one day. (200 Hz-1 kHz horn)
Cessaro Beta II was quite stunning. A four-way full horn system. Super dynamic, with no horn coloration detected, integrated well, and provided a good sound stage. It used TAD ET-703 super tweeter, a TAD 4001 midrange compression driver, both TAD's with Beryllium diaphragms, and an 8” Supravox paper driver in an upper-bass front horn. Of course, the bass horn was HUGE. There were two of them, with the Cessaro flagship models using six!!!
Rendering of Sheffield Lab Drum Record (improvisation by Jim Keltner) was clean and louder than life. Such a feat is exceptional in the HiFi world with very few playback systems being capable of reproducing such scale and coherency, The big Western Electric above certantly can't. Cesssaro was one of the few rooms not afraid to play music above real-life levels. It sounded great and such power had to be enjoyed in moderation. GREAT JOB HERE!
.jpg)
Living Voice Palladian paired with the Basso subwoofer, was equally spectacular as Cessaro.
It consisted of a five-way, with four being horn loaded and a well-designed 18” JBL paper bass reflex subwoofer, which kicked in at ~70 Hz to provide the first two octaves. This system was super accurate, and despite a folded horn covering 70 Hz - 350 Hz, the sound was free of resonance and frequency anomalies. This folded horn design makes me believe than upper bass horns can be great if the folded horn is cleverly designed. The Living Voice owner was meticulous. He set up the room perfectly, and the system showed all of its strength. Construction quality is absolutely FLAWLESS. Obviously, the 18” basso unit was the bottleneck, but let’s not emphasize that.
Unfortunately, the owner wouldn’t play it “louder than life”, as Cessaro routinely did. I suspect those Palladians would run out of steam very quickly. The 3” diaphragm Vitavox S2 mid-range playing down to a mind boggling 350 Hz, must have a seriously limited output or distort like crazy at higher levels. The bass horn, when played at moderate volume was flawless, but cranking the SPL higher would likely unmask inevitable cabinet resonance and they would likely become audible. Additionally, the single 15” Vitavox driver used in the bass horn has an SPL limit, as per their tiny Xmax. If a salesman who knows the flaws and limitations of his demo, refuses to play organ music loudly or put on certain material, it’s a very bad sign. They’re obviously hiding things from you. Their speaker design leads me to believe they refused to play my requested tracks for a reason...
However, without any confirmation, I can only speculate on this but I know physics and know what the drivers in the Living voice are limited to.
.jpg)
Basso unit without the front grill.
JBL Synthetis K2 S9900 was interesting.
Three-way design with beryllium compression driver tweeters, big 4” radial compression driver covering 900 Hz -15000 Hz (15000 Hz crossover point, WTF, directivity must be falling off a cliff here) and a high-quality reflex loaded 15” woofer.
Soundstage was exceptional, and adequate upper bass was heard. Those JBL designers know a thing or two about sound reproduction. They were worth a long listening session. Really not much to complain about here. The bass could be perhaps be more dynamic to match the horns better, but coming from a single, direct radiator 15” woofer, what can you expect?
Not the super dynamic sound of Cessaro, but still very acceptable and miles above other classical floor standers exhibited in other rooms.
The TAD Reference One,
three-way floor standing was a total wash. Veiled and compressed compared to the previous horn systems described. Yet, they gave me the most satisfying sound stage width and depth in the show. I know that room and setup matter a lot for 3D imaging rendering but the TAD were very good in that aspect.
I care more for accuracy, resolution and dynamic than 3D rendering, but if wide 3D rendering is your thing, those TAD’s should be high on your list of floor standers to evaluate.
.jpg)
Surround, Surround and Surround.
Three demonstrated systems proved the vast superiority of proper multi-channel reproduction over conventional two channels stereo.
Dr. Floyd Toole keeps mentioning this in his book, and scientifically proves that a centre channel and rear speakers, are necessary for immersive sound reproduction. As an analogy: colour TV was stereo which was a vast improvement over black and white mono recordings. 3D TV is the future which brings color TV to the next level. Multi-channel audio does kind of the same thing, it makes the flaw of 2.0 channel reproduction very apparent...
PSB speaker had a remix of Miles Davis’s Kind of Blue in 7.1 Dolby Atmos and the resulting ambiance re-created was spectacular. Playing the original track afterwards was a revelation of how “dull” the regular 2.0 channel was. Re-mastering talent is paramount, as one could ruin the resulting sound, but this example proved that if masterly done, it works fantastically and brings musical enjoyment to the next level.
In a real multi-channel demonstration (forgot name of the sound engineer), a sound engineer recorded live performance (mostly classical music) and mastered them in 5.1 channel, recorded all in native DSD (SACD format is limited to 6 channels hence the 5.1 format used).
His technique was mostly using a boundary layer microphone. How realistic did it sound? I can't say enough words to describe it. I think my jaw dropped once or twice, drums from 90° sideways, pinpoint choir singer, audience clapping surrounding you as if you're in the center of a real theater, and rear reverberation ambience detail retrieval, as the real environment would had sounded if you were in a concert hall. This system was nothing short of fantastic, and most of it was due to a proper 5.1-way playback system.
I loved it, and such result permanently confirmed my direction to go towards a multichannel system.
This is no small statement. It really confirmed my faith in multichannel reproduction. Dr. Floyd had put the seed in and he was right.
This was the best sound of the show.
Even if the speaker demoed did not had the dynamics capability from other horn systems...
Properly recorded multi-channel tracks are nothing sort of amazing.
A 5.1 system has a total immersive feeling that 2.0 channel can't touch.
Accurate soundstage like nothing I ever heard before.
Because 99.9% of the music out there is only available in legacy stereo format, going multichannel like the previous system demonstration is difficult. Hope was found when I visited Illusonic room. The room was small and system comprised of Genelec mini monitor with a 5.1 setting.
They use DSP and re-mix conventional stereo using a proprietary reconstruction matrix, which resulted in re-creating surround sound much better than original 2.0 stereo source. See them here:
Rear speaker provided good ambience retrieval. Not as realistic as a proper 5.1 recordings, but close and quite better than regular 2.0 stereo.
Centre channel was created from the stereo signal and with care in the matrix. The frontal soundstage was wider/fuller than its stereo only counterpart.
I don’t know exactly how their matrix operated, but once I go multichannel myself. I’ll replicate something like they do, as it’s not that hard. several DSP Plugin doing just that already exist, most for free... One simply has to find the best one.
Will I go to Munich again? I think so.
On the bonus side… schnitzel and German beer. One can’t get enough.