They are both 90x40deg horns, constant directivity type. The H295 is small physically like the H290 radial and Peavy CH3, the H395 is more like the size of the JBL Bi-Radial 2370. I was thinking that perhaps the CD horn might be better over the radial horn as it should be able to keep tighter pattern control in both vertical and horizontal planes, rather than only in the horizontal plane which the radials do.

However the constant directivity horn by not having a dropping HF response as we move further off axis vertically would create a wider overlap region between itself and the subsystem right below it (eg: woofer) so destructive interferance would be greater between them, which isn't a good thing. With the radials, destructive interferance is less because vertical dispersion is limited, but vertical pattern control is not maintained - big drop in HF output as we move further off axis. What do people here consider the better alternative? Maintained vertical pattern control at expense of more destructive interferance or poor vertical pattern control/big drop in HF output off axis but with less destructive interferance?

Unfortunately Eminence said they have no measurement graphs at all on them as they let manufactures take their own measurements as part of a complete system.

I got the Emminence CD flares when I bought the Georges speakers. I have replaced them with some Altec 32B bent horns.

I found the CD flares to have a very small sweet spot and the Altecs add a lot more soundstage (used for music in my living room). From what I've gathered on the Pi and hi efficiency forums the soundstage often comes from reflected sound which I suspect the CD flares cut down on. For some applications you might want to direct sound so whether you want them or not depends on what you want to use your speakers for.

Grant.