How a horn works. mouthpiece

We traditionally use a mouthpiece to amplify our voice. It is generally accepted that this device, by directing sound in a certain direction, does not allow it to dissipate. However, in reality, the mouthpiece is not just an ordinary concentrator.

Acoustic energy is taken by a horn from a source and concentrated into a narrow beam. However, in reality, the mouthpiece is not just an ordinary concentrator. It's much more efficient. It adds to the sound an uncharacteristic power hitherto. Lord Rayleigh also developed the theory of sound. He argued that for a sharp cone, the intensity increases not only due to concentration, or a change in the angle of radiation within which the sound travels.
This increases the energy emitted by the source. According to Rayleigh, by reducing the angle at which the horn opens, you can get any desired amount of energy from the sound source. At the same time, due to the elongation of the horn, the exit of the above energy into the environment is facilitated. You can agree with his theory! But why is this happening?

Let's see how you can emit sound as efficiently as possible. The sound wave is generated not so simply. As a rule, it is produced by oscillating membranes: say, a speaker cone. It invariably has a pair of sound-emitting surfaces.
The radiation is in antiphase - for obvious geometric reasons. Compressing the air on one side, the diffuser always discharges it - on the other. So the speaker, in fact, is two sound sources located on opposite sides of the diffuser and emitting sound in antiphase.
The problem is just a pair of sources in antiphase. After all, the sound wave in this case does not propagate into space, but is closed between sources. Let's take low-frequency oscillations as an example. The speaker cone moving forward, in theory, compresses the air in front of it, rarefying it behind it.
However, in our case, the air will follow a simple path: it will flow to the back of the diffuser from the front in a circle. The latter, at the same time, without feeling air resistance, seems to oscillate in a vacuum. Result: regardless of the power of the sound source, all its power can be spent on compressing the air, which simply flows around the radiator under this pressure.
This airflow around the diffuser is just that very strong sound wave radiated from one side to the other. Similarly, the sounds of other frequencies are closed. Their waves will fit on the road from the front to the back of the membrane a whole number of times. The process is called "acoustic short circuit".
As a result, the sound produced by the speaker is absorbed by it along a closed path of arbitrary length. If such a "short circuit" occurs, and the speaker stops emitting sound, oscillating, as mentioned above, without feeling air, almost in a vacuum. It can happen both from one side to the other, and generally on one side. The latter option is possible in the presence of external obstacles. A short circuit is also possible between the diffusers of a pair of different speakers.
It is possible to deal with a short circuit of a pair of sides of one diffuser by increasing its diameter. Indeed, in this case, the rounding path will also increase. Then the air located in the center of the diffuser is easier to compress than to flow around it. At the edges, the acoustic short circuit will still remain. The rule known to all specialists for increasing the efficiency of radiation is as follows: for lower sounds, a large diffuser is needed.
It is possible not to increase the diffuser, but to place it in a wall, which, of course, emits sound, but also prevents acoustic closure. You can go further by isolating both diffuser surfaces from each other - front and rear. The speaker is inserted into the most ordinary column or a closed box.

Curiously, even if the oscillation amplitude is small, the speaker in the box emits sound more efficiently than its counterpart without the box. Even if the latter has a more powerful amplitude. Strange, isn't it?
It seems that the oscillatory amplitude of a diffuser depends on the same parameter of the sound wave ... Yes, the sound of an open speaker is very powerful. However, having closed from one side to the other, it hovers around the speaker without carrying away energy. The speaker in the box has less vibrational amplitude. But all the available sound goes out.
The disadvantage of the box is still quite heavy. The sound emitted by the back of the diffuser disappears, closing in this box. Indeed, as a rule, its inner part is upholstered with material that absorbs sounds. So the sound inside the walls, without re-reflecting, is corny absorbed. As far as the speaker is concerned, this interior turns out to be an endless space, radiating "reverse" sound to no avail. Compared to a short acoustic circuit, this is not bad. It does not absorb all the sound, but exactly half - which is also unacceptable.
Air can be pumped out of the box to overcome the radiation from the back of the diffuser. Maybe it will be possible to do this when they come up with boxes that can withstand atmospheric pressure.

How to use the radiation from the back of the speaker to your advantage? It seems to be the easiest way to turn this radiation one hundred and eighty degrees, adding it to the straight line. You can use a pipe for this. The sound coming from the pipe must become a copy of its counterpart coming out of the front of the speaker. Then the powers of both sounds will add up, and a short acoustic circuit will not happen.
A full-fledged implementation of this idea is unrealistic: the sound always comes from the pipe with a delay, being, moreover, inverted. After all, they remove it from the back of the diffuser. This is not a problem for a time stable signal. For example, if it is a sinusoid with a fixed frequency.
The inverted sine wave delayed by half a wave coincides with its direct counterpart. Therefore, by correctly delaying the return sound, we will compensate for its inversion. This is how a pair of synchronous sound sources is formed - a pipe with a diffuser. The phase delay achieves a signal inversion, the result is a phase inverter. Relative to the box, the power will double. You can adjust the amount of delay by changing the length of the pipe.
However, different frequencies need pipes of different lengths. In other words, there will be no delay to combine a complex inverted signal with a direct one. So such a pipe will work well with only one tuning frequency, as well as its harmonics. There is no benefit for other frequencies. If the frequencies are between the harmonics of the tuning frequency, the effect will be generally negative. The result is a short acoustic circuit. As a rule, this pipe works only at the tuning frequency, and quite low.
It is important that the lower frequencies that give the pipe a short circuit are not heard, and ideally, they are completely absent. To avoid shorting the pipe at frequencies exceeding the tuning frequency, it is made cranked, then upholstered with material that absorbs sounds. Then relatively high-pitched sounds will not pass through it, and the box will seem closed to them.

With the help of a phase inverter, you can use a particle of the reverse sound from the low-frequency spectrum. The rest of the spectrum will still need to be somehow extinguished. How can this result be improved? The mouthpiece turns out to be the most radical way out.
Roughly speaking, we are talking about a kind of diffuser magnifier. The membrane oscillating on the narrow side of the horn is projected to the wider side. The amplitude with the size of the oscillations will increase proportionally.
Visually, it may seem that the sound coming out of the horn is much more powerful than that emitted by a modest membrane. But pressure must also be taken into account. A small membrane has a small stroke, but there is a significant resistance of the air it compresses. So for the same period, its work is similar to the efforts of an equivalent large membrane with a significant stroke.
To understand how a horn works, you can study the activity of a speaker in a box directly in the air or on a pipe. It is easy to understand that under the condition of equal “breaths” of the device, when using a pipe, the shifted air will have a higher kinetic energy than in the case of open operation. A similar system - and on the "exhale".
This is due to the fact that almost all the air in the pipe has to acquire the speed of the diffuser. In open space, only the nearest air layers receive it. A little further the speed decreases (elementary geometry). So acoustic energy is transferred to the pipe in much larger volumes than to air.
What happens if, by increasing the length and reducing the diameter of the pipe, the diffuser of the device remains the same? The air will have to move faster than the diffuser, and on "inhalation" the kinetic energy of the previous air volume will increase again.
There is also a problem: it is unrealistic for air to get out of the pipe, all the more narrow. After all, its open side will reflect back the wave of sound. To prevent this from happening, at the end of the pipe, its diameter must exceed the wavelength. In practice, it should be done as widely as possible. It is logical to give a conical extension to this part of the device.
However, where the cone is connected stepwise to the pipe, the back reflection is still quite large. It is best to connect the cone and the pipe into a single unit, expanding at first weakly, and in the final - much faster. Do you already understand what we are getting at? This is a classic loudspeaker in the form of a horn.

Let's summarize the main idea of the device. The air around him should acquire maximum kinetic energy in just one movement. In other words, we want the air to pick up as much sound energy from the cone as possible. For this, air flowing through a narrow channel is optimal. After all, here he has to move very quickly. But outside the sound must come out of the channel without encountering back reflections. To do this, closer to the exit, the channel should steadily expand.
Curiously, the diffuser located in the horn can be created with an ever smaller diameter, also reducing the amplitude of its oscillations. The ability of the horn to give low-frequency sounds will remain. Ideally, its speaker becomes the most powerful electromagnetic coil-magnet system. It moves a small membrane a moderate distance, while creating a significant pressure on the air.
Horns at the same time even specifically distort the sound. The reason is the non-linearity of adiabatic air compression. Due to the heating during the compression process, the increase in gas pressure is faster than the decrease in its volume. All sound emitters have a similar distortion. However, in the case of horns, it is more pronounced - due to significant air compression.
This device does not have the problems of acoustic shorting mentioned above, as well as excessive sound dispersion from behind. After all, the back of the diffuser in that case is devoid of a horn and practically does not emit sound. Being too small for this, it has a fairly small vibrational amplitude.
Thanks to the horn, the diffuser transmits its energy to the air. The speaker, both open and located in the box, practically cannot do this. Indicators of the transformation of the electrical energy supplied to the input into sound:
at a closed box - within one percent;
for a box equipped with a phase inverter - two to three percent;
at the mouthpiece - thirty - fifty percent.
Agree, the numbers speak for themselves!

Split Technologies: Radio Liberty. According to what manuals does the mouthpiece of Western propaganda work?

On November 15, the State Duma adopted in the third reading amendments to the law on "foreign agents", allowing foreign media to be recognized as such. One of the most famous foreign media broadcasting in Russia is " Radio Liberty”, known for its anti-Russian orientation. SONAR-2050 dealt with the essence of this American publication with a long history.

Name " Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”(RFE / RL, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty) is somehow known to most Russians. However, not everyone knows exactly what this media is. Radio Liberty is known as chief mouthpiece of the United States Department of State, in particular in the territory of the CIS countries. Funding for radio comes from the US Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

RFE/RL began broadcasting during the Cold War, namely in 1950. Initially, the headquarters of the RS was located in West Germany, and the radio could be heard on the territory of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. The Russian edition of Radio Liberty opened three years later, in March 1953. At that time, it was called "Radio Liberation", the radio station has been operating under its modern name since 1959. In 1953, broadcasting also began in almost all languages of the peoples of the USSR, with the exception of Belarusian and Ukrainian (since 1954) and Crimean Tatar (1960s).

"Don't let her grow up without the truth!" - Propaganda poster of the Cold War era.

The Soviet leadership viewed Radio Liberty as information weapon West in the Cold War, the purpose of which was to stir up public discontent and form opposition to the Soviet regime. There were reasons for this: RS provided listeners with information about the activities of organizations opposed to the socialist regime. The news broadcast on the radio stations differed markedly from those published in the Soviet media and for the most part exposed the USSR and the Soviet power in a negative light.

The main goal of RFE/RL at that time, according to the published reports of representatives of the American Committee of Radio Liberation, was "the formation of thinking and directing the will of the peoples of the Soviet Union to the need to eliminate the communist regime." In this matter, "Svoboda" had an advantage over its colleagues - at that time the radio station was positioned as an emigre station, and at different times Vasily Aksyonov, Sergey Dovlatov, Vladimir Voinovich, Viktor Nekrasov, Leonid Likhodeev and other Soviet political and cultural figures who left the USSR for various reasons.

Initially, RFE/RL's relationship with US authorities and intelligence was not as transparent. However, in 1971, data on the sources of funding for the radio station were made public. It turned out that approximately 85% of the funds for the development of Radio Liberty came from the CIA, which in fact carried out control of the radio station.

It is obvious that such a strong connection with the CIA cannot be built on one broadcast. It is known that radio employees in the 70s engaged in espionage: the collection of information was carried out both through communication with Soviet emigrants, and with the help of radio interception and wiretapping services. Thanks to the data collected by Soviet intelligence, most of the emigrants who worked for the CIA were able to uncover.

The Soviet leadership considered Radio Liberty as the information weapon of the West in the Cold War, and it was right. Unfortunately, this weapon is still operating, now against Russia.

duplicitous work

After perestroika, namely in 1995, Radio Liberty was officially registered in Russia as a mass media. Since 1998, the radio began broadcasting on medium waves, in a number of regions there was also a relay of RS programs by local radio stations. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, special attention on the air of RS was devoted to the Chechen conflict.

According to the official version of the radio station, she tried to be impartial, allowing both one and the other side of the conflict to speak. In fact, it was noticeable that the RS sympathizes with the Ichkerian militants, which representatives of the Russian political elites have repeatedly said, pointing out that the radio station is aiding terrorism.

So, on one of the broadcasts there was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the unrecognized Chechen Republic Ilyas Akhmadov. During the broadcast, the host of the radio station accused the Russian authorities of unwillingness to conduct a constructive dialogue with Chechnya and of imitating the NATO operation in Yugoslavia. Ilyas Akhmadov on the same air, he accused Russia of provoking Chechnya to carry out terrorist acts in the Russian Federation.

“The fact is that literally from May, with its chaotic shelling of the border zone, Russia provoked such things. The reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia were constantly full of reports of some alleged attacks on checkpoints ... Naturally, it is quite possible that this was one of the main incentives for people who made an independent decision, ”- he said.

Another material came out six months after the start of the bombing of Grozny in 2000. Special correspondent for Radio Liberty Oleg Kusov emphasized that the Russian military came to the conflict zone in order to "make money".

“Officers of the Mobile Detachment have a dry and professional attitude to their work, that is, they do not try to put some, maybe even state interests in the foreground. These are tough professionals who put the question like this: "We are fighting here in our line of duty." They do not hide the fact that they came here to get big money. They were promised a thousand rubles a day, and, in general, in the two months they spend in Chechnya, they simply expect to earn good money and provide for their families. These people know what they are getting into, they are fully aware of the risk, they have already seen a lot and, of course, they are somewhere more cold-blooded,” reporter said ( how similar this rhetoric is to modern accusations of “Russian mercenaries who came to fight in Ukraine for the sake of money.” - Approx. ed.).

Western propaganda mouthpiece

Now Radio Liberty broadcasts in 25 languages in 23 countries of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. The head office of RFE/RL is located in Prague. In addition, the radio station broadcasts over the Internet and creates television projects, in particular, this is an Internet channel in Russian " present tense", created in collaboration with the radio station" Voice of America».

Current Time positions itself as a TV channel, but in reality it is broadcast on the Internet and via satellite TV. The TV channel's studio is also located in Prague. The project's website notes that Current Time provides "accurate and impartial information based on facts," and the channel's employees try to be objective.

According to Radio Liberty's official website, it sees its main task as "promoting democratic values and institutions by reaching out to audiences in countries where press freedom is restricted by the authorities or has not yet become a norm in public life."

Screenshothttps://www.svoboda.org/p/3318.html

However, in reality, most of the materials of both RFE/RL and Current Time contain bright anti-Russian orientation.

On the eve of the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, which will take place on March 18, 2018, Radio Liberty broadcasts many programs dedicated to possible presidential candidates, the outcome of the elections and the political situation in Russia. Each broadcast contains a hidden or explicit call to vote for representatives of the liberal opposition. In addition, in each program, leading and invited experts do not miss the opportunity to throw a stone into the garden of the Russian authorities.

One of the latest broadcasts was devoted to the election program Alexei Navalny and a detailed description of all those things that he will immediately perform as president. Another transmission contains a comparison Vladimir Putin With Leonid Brezhnev. Both broadcasts are idle conversations with an expert look, practically not backed up by any worthwhile arguments.

American millions for propaganda

The anti-Russian agenda of RFE/RL is set by the American authorities. Data on the funding of RFE/RL by the US authorities are freely available, information on the funds spent can be found by anyone if desired. Open funding for Radio Liberty occurred back in 1973, when the radio station was spent $38.5 million. Subsequently, the annual budget of the RS increased.

Now a lot of money is also being spent on financing Radio Liberty in the United States. Thus, according to the detailed report of the Commission on Public Diplomacy US State Department, for 2016 only for maintenance Moscow Bureau of Radio Liberty The Board of Governors for Broadcasting has spent almost $4.3 million.

Screenshothttps://www.state.gov/documents/organization/274950.pdf

In total, 108.9 million dollars were allocated last year to support the activities of Radio Liberty, according to the same report.

Every action has a reaction

Despite the joint efforts of the US State Department and Radio Liberty staff, it is now very difficult for the radio station to operate in many countries. Broadcasting of RS is prohibited in many countries. Thus, for political reasons, there are no radio frequencies of RFE/RL in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. On-air broadcasting of Radio Liberty in Russia ceased in November 2012. In addition, there is no radio station broadcasting in the United States. There are different opinions on this matter, the prevailing are statements that the American authorities want to protect their citizens in this way from the propaganda influence of their own offspring.

Recognition of "Radio Liberty" along with its subprojects " Voice of America», « Caucasus. Realities», « Crimea. Realities», « Siberia. Realities», « IdeL.Realities"and TV channel" present tense", as well as Tatar-Bashkir service « Radio Liberty"(Azatliq Radiosi) and the project" factographer is a "mirror image" of US actions. Earlier, the US Congress forced the Russian media RT and Sputnik to register as a foreign agent in the United States.

So there is nothing surprising in the recognition of Radio Liberty. For every U.S. action, the rest of the world has to respond in reverse.

Radio Liberty: “Are you ready to cut the Russians?” (Overview of foreign agents)

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, can be obtained on Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all waking up and interested ...

In the United States, in the New York Times officialdom, a fanatic article was published in which the authors claim that the American air defense systems supplied to Saudi Arabia were ineffective in repelling a ballistic missile attack from Yemen.
The plot is like this. Saudi Arabia is armed with the widely advertised Patriot air defense systems. The Houthis periodically fire cruise and ballistic missiles from Yemen into Saudi Arabia (some of which, according to the Saudis, are smuggled into Yemen from Iran). Some get knocked down, some hit the target. Before the recent cruise missile attack on the nuclear power plant in Abu Dhabi, the most notorious episode was the strike of a ballistic missile from Yemen on Riyadh International Airport.
The Houthis said after the launch that the missile had successfully reached its target. The Saudis said that the air defense worked as it should and there was no danger. But according to the Americans, the Saudis are lying.

A Burqan 2 ballistic missile (Iranian upgrade of the good old Soviet SCUD) was fired from the northwestern regions of Yemen and successfully reached Riyadh, where it was fired on by Saudi air defense systems.
The Saudis reported that the missile had been hit. Trump also said that the missile was hit, and the Patriot, the best air defense system in the world.

The Americans claim that the air defense systems worked on the components separated from the missile, while the warhead itself successfully passed over the anti-missile shield and happily reached Riyadh airport.
Accordingly, American experts argue that the US and Saudi Arabian governments are lying or misinformed about the real effectiveness of the Patriot complex.
As evidence, references are made to the Gulf War, where the Patriot was said to have successfully shot down Iraqi SCUDs, when in practice. the effectiveness of American air defense systems turned out to be much lower than stated.

Diagram of what happened.

American experts argue that the Saudis, at best, hit the separated back of the rocket or did not hit it at all.
Satellite imagery of the airport shows the area where the missile hit near the runway near the terminal. There are also testimonies from civilians who heard the explosion very close to the airport.
From this, it is concluded that the warhead successfully overcame the American air defense system and reached its target, only by a lucky chance bypassing the airport terminal. The miss was about 1 kilometer and, according to the Americans, the Houthis themselves probably did not understand how close they were to hitting such a large target, which would have been a very painful blow to the Saudi monarchy.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html?smid=tw-share - Full article in English

1. On the one hand, this can be used to justify the interest of the Saudis in buying the S-400, because the American complex frankly failed.
2. On the other hand, perhaps the point is not in the complex itself, but in the low level of training of personnel who did not cope with the task at hand, which is a common thing for the military of Saudi Arabia.

As a result, the Americans already had questions, since official propaganda claims that this is one of the best air defense systems in the world, and here a by no means new Yemeni missile passed through it. The fact that it got out in the public domain suggests that the state of emergency has gone far beyond the Yemeni war. Of course, this episode will be compared with the recent rocket attack on the Iranian base near Damascus, where the Syrian air defense system shot down at least 2 Israeli missiles. And here it turns out that a single target went through the entire air defense of Riyadh. There is something to think about.

Horn acoustics

Horn acoustics has always been more expensive than usual. And it is not surprising that the most ardent fans of such acoustics are those users who once owned traditional speakers.
There is nothing surprising in this. A sophisticated listener will always appreciate the overall harmony, integrity of perception and naturalness of sound.
The user himself likes horn acoustics in view of their musicality and ability to capture the listener.

What it is

Modern audio equipment is capable of reproducing the entire range of required frequencies. This is enough to transmit musical compositions, but not enough to create a sense of the presence of the listener.
As any music lover will tell you, there is something that is responsible for the transmission of not just music, melody, but also for the transmission of the emotions of the performer. Horn acoustics just perfectly copes with this matter.
Horn acoustics are not designed like conventional ones. The speaker (see) in it is not quite large in size and it joins the horn, which increases the volume of its sound.
This can be compared with the case when a person, in order to shout to an interlocutor at a great distance, folds his hands with a mouthpiece.

Note. If you are thinking about purchasing horn speakers in your car, we hasten to warn you: the difference between good and bad horn speakers is very significant than is observed in traditional versions.
Cheap horn acoustics made by an unscrupulous manufacturer cannot in any way act as a comparison. It was these cheap options that gave rise to rumors that supposedly horn acoustics are good, but the sound in them is colored.

As for high-quality horn speakers, they are always expensive. They always use Alnico magnets and exotic metal diaphragms.
Horn acoustics are always assembled according to strict tolerances and dimensions. In a word, such a production technology cannot imply any compromises and cost reduction.

Let's give examples. A two-inch TAD compression driver, used in all Cesaro horn acoustics, costs about 1,000 euros. At the same time, the most expensive tweeter to date is the beryllium-diaphragm Scan Speke, which only costs about $600.

Horn acoustics for cars are always unique products produced in series. The names of some in gold letters are inscribed in the history of car audio.
For example, this is the Japanese horn acoustics Maxonik, which has been produced since 1932. Today Maxonic always presents high-tech products.
When creating, expensive technologies are always used with the use of magnetic systems in emitters.

Story

So:

It will be interesting to know that the very first loudspeakers in the world were horn-type. They appeared in the 20s of the last century.
The technology of creation was the only one and then they simply did not know how to make other acoustic systems;
Ten years later, speakers appear that are already similar to today's versions of traditional acoustics. They immediately gained great popularity, but forgot about horn acoustics.
Then it was mistakenly believed that the ideal place for horn acoustics would be the sounding of large spaces, and for pleasant listening to music, it is simply not suitable;
Another ten years pass and the famous American engineer creates a completely new design of horn acoustics. It was Paul Klipsch (that was the name of the engineer) who proved that horn acoustics would make it possible to reproduce musical compositions with very high quality.

Note. It was then that the engineer founded a company producing horn acoustics, which to this day is a world leader. The company was called Klipsch, and speakers of this type were called Klipsch.

Interestingly, music lovers immediately "figured out" that the "clips" reproduce music in a special way. Since that time, horn acoustics have become the choice of a rather narrow circle of connoisseurs of real music;

The second half of the last century was marked by the appearance of completely new carriers. In addition, there are new developments and new approaches for processing and amplifying the audio signal;
Finally, having reached the apogee of modernization and improvement, people began to realize that the sound had not been able to give "liveness". And then the eyes of many turned to horn acoustics, which began a real boom about three years ago.

The magical sound of horn systems

So:

The fact that horn acoustics sounds in a special way is not difficult to verify. And for such a sound there are all the prerequisites. Firstly, horn acoustics are highly sensitive. This makes it possible to reproduce the most subtle nuances, convey the emotions of the performer;
Secondly, horn speakers produce sound waves that are more "natural" in nature compared to the air vibrations coming out of traditional speakers;
Horn acoustics can reproduce low frequencies, but its dimensions depend on this. In other words, the lower frequencies you have to reproduce, the larger the size of the horn speaker should be.

Note. It is for this reason that horn acoustics are used for the most part for reproducing midrange and treble, but if you choose larger speakers for yourself, then bass will be reproduced at the highest level.

And that is not all. Low frequencies will be reproduced not just like that, but at the highest level. True, only the most subtle connoisseurs of sound can distinguish the difference in reproduction.

Note. It is interesting that recently quite often there are speakers where only the tweeters are made in the form of a horn. For example, the same speakers of the Clipsch Reference series are made according to this model.

The high frequencies reproduced by horn speakers sound much louder. Needless to say, the HF quality is better than when using conventional tweeters.

Recently, among the manufacturers of horn acoustics, I would like to single out the Italian company Zingali separately. The engineers of this company have created an original horn radiator, which simultaneously reproduces midrange and high frequencies, and at the same time looks beautiful.

Horn acoustics in a car

Needless to say, all traditional car speakers do not allow you to achieve high sound quality. It's not about anything, but in a cramped cabin.
Here the horn ones will give a chance to significantly exalt the sound, create the effect of presence (as if you are sitting in a studio or at a concert). The explanation can be simple: the horn increases the distance over which sound waves propagate, while increasing the density of sound and giving a characteristic melody.
Technical solutions for placing such acoustics in a car can be different:

So, the most popular way is to install the loudspeaker in front, frontally on the wall of the case, inside which the main waveguide is formed. It has an outlet to the outside;
Another option involves a horn system, where there is a woofer. It is placed in a separate building. The same fate is followed by tweeters and midrange speakers, which are also placed in the corresponding case separately from each other.

Advantages and disadvantages of horn acoustics

This concludes our review of horn acoustic systems. Recently, they have been increasingly installed in cars with their own hands, using step-by-step instructions, useful video reviews, drawings and photo materials.
The price of good horn acoustics is very high, but this will not stop ardent music lovers.