Ivica: Without delving into your response: I said (often) it makes NO difference what the *slope* is - if the distance from the driver exit to the eventual mouth is short, the crossover must be higher than a horn that is deeper.

Put a groove in it, cut a funky angled slit, poke holes with a rubidium laser in zero gravity, whatever....

Horns of the SAME depth that have DIFFERENT slopes/mouth area/curves/bends/girlfriends WILL require crossover slopes to match with the MANY variations of mid/woofer diameters and baffle placements.....and we are not even including the many driver variations.

But short is short. Long is long. If it didn't matter the long-throw 2366 was a waste of time right? it's 3ft+ deep for a reason. I use them each summer for shows and squirrels fear me.

You posted the infamous "Karson" horn which I believe has been debunked the same as his LF cabinet..but that's a DIFFERENT course of discussion....really...

The original poster has a single unloaded 4333 cabinet and wants to make/assemble a pair to use - but of course he has been swayed by the "4 way" crowd that extols the virtues of the additional low-mid cone. If he actually assembles a complete, component / crossover correct pair the midrange ( as explained quite well by heather ) will be JUST FINE and I have a pair in my study that get regularly abused by screaming vocalists of the "punk" genre.

The advantage by adding the 4th component is minimal BUT BUT is one of those " long-term engineer fatigue in the recording studio" issues that is applicable IN THAT CASE...hence the much higher cost and the MUCH more involved passive networks to keep that high SPL.

sub