High Sensitvity = good transient response ?


Can a medium sensitvity speaker (86-89 db) give as good transient response as a high sensitvity speaker?
wings

Showing 6 responses by sean

It is possible to achieve good transient response and have high efficiency in a bass driver. Trying to achieve great extension AND high efficiency is a tough thing to achieve though.

The problem with most high efficiency designs in terms of bass reproduction is that they are of some type of vented design. Vents are always slower than an optimally tuned sealed box with a reasonable Q. Since sealed boxes are typically inefficient, there are few that achieve this. One exception is the Klipsch Heresy, which is sealed, has pretty quick and punchy bass ( good transient response ) and is relatively high efficiency ( 96 dB's ). Only problem is that in stock form, it is rolling off pretty hard by about 50 Hz.

Bass horns tend to add their own colouration unless phenomenally well constructed. I've never seen a mass produced model that worked really well from the factory ( in terms of "hi-fi" ). Sean
>
Duke, I've heard the CAR's ( or is it KAR's ?? ). I've commented here that i thought they sounded pretty good for a vented system. I do have to say that using very efficient drivers does give you a BIG advantage though when it comes to tuning vents. This has a lot to do with the gains achieved due to a more efficient motor design and the lower excursion rate that results from it.

If one uses a lower to average efficiency driver and uses vents, the driver will go from minimum to maximum excursion capabilities over the operating volume range. This is due to the increased drive levels that one must apply to achieve the amount of pistonic displacement necessary to achieve high volumes with a low efficiency driver. As such, this changes the amount of air and the associated turbulence that occurs in a vent over a pretty wide spl range. As such, most ports / boxes are a compromise that run most efficiently at one specific volume range. Going below or above that results in too little flow velocity or too much through the port. The sonic result of such a design is sluggish bass that lacks damping and / or increased port noise and "one note thud". Being able to find optimum performance on most ported designs typically means that you have a small window of listening levels. Anything below or above that results in slightly different tuning and the decline of performance.

Sealed systems never run into that specific problem as there is always a specific amount of "air spring" or "internal pressure" inside the box. As such, damping remains pretty consistent regardless of volume levels. Sealed boxes do have their problems though in that they do typically require far greater excursion out of the driver, which typically results in greater distortion. Obviously, the driver has to handle a lot of power to make long excursions too, so that is another drawback. Like anything else in audio, we pick our trade-offs and try to minimize the damage done.

Using a high efficiency driver with a port gives you the advantage of having a driver that will not have to "throw" or produce as much excursion to play as loudly. Since the driver will not have to produce as much excursion to perform over the range of average listening levels that most people use, one can more precisely tune the port for maximum flow velocity and damping. This results in a more linear performance over a wider range than what a typical port / low to mid efficiency driver combo would offer. There are times that the high efficiency / port combo may become "destabilized", but a good designer will strive to minimize that effect and / or place that range outside of what most users will run into.

The advantages of working with a low production / high quality manufacturer can come into play IF one really wants to fine tune their system. One can literally design a vented system to perform optimally if most of the variables ( drivers being used, listening room size, spl's required, type of music, etc.. ) are known. By factoring in how much power it will take to pressurize the room to achieve the average listening level and knowing the efficiency of the speakers, one can literally calculate how much air would be moving through a port and size it accordingly. This would maximize port velocity while minimizing such variables as port noise ( chuffing ), lack of damping, etc.. Obviously, this design would be even more specialized than the average "compromise" and may not work the greatest in other rooms or listening situations. Such are the perils of using a port and trying to be as "precise" as possible.

A newer port design on the market ( it's really been out for years but is just making it into commercial products ) is the "Aeroport" or similar products. This design is exactly what its' name indicates i.e. a port that is aerodynamically designed. Rather than using a straight tube, both ends are flared. The bend radius is reduced, which increases flow velocity through the port, minimizes port stalling, DRASTICALLY reduces "chuffing" or "port noise" at high volumes, etc... One can use a slightly smaller diameter port to maintain low spl flow velocity and damping and still not run into port compression ( stalling and chuffing ) until a very high spl was achieved. Since most people are not pushing their systems that hard, it should offer marked advantages and looks like a win / win situation if properly implimented. Sean
>
How do you make an aperiodic transmission line ? I would assume that the TL was terminated in some type of resistive ( probably stuffed ) vent.

Kind of reminds me of the Shahinian Obelisk. This is a TL that terminates into a passive radiator. Both would be somewhat out of the ordinary approaches. Then again, TL's are not very mainstream to begin with. Sean
>
Aperiodic designs seek to combine the damping of sealed speakers with the efficiency and extension of ported speakers. You pick up bass extension and efficiency due to making use of the backwave from the driver ( like a vent ) but the impedance remains low ( typically even lower ) at resonance like a sealed design. The high impedance peak of a vented design is part of what contributes to the "bloated" or "uncontrolled" low end response that lacks definition.

While it sounds like a phenomenal trade-off ( best of both worlds type of situation ), aperiodics ( also called "vario-vents" by Dynaudio and some DIYer's ) don't sound like either design. How such a design would work in combination with a TL is anybody's guess. Obviously, one would have to listed and see if it was their cup of tea. Sean
>
Twl, have you ever looked at the distortion levels of many "nice" sounding tube amps as power increases ? The distortion curves vs power output are not very linear to say the least. A good example of this can be found in a earlier review of a BAT product in Stereophile. If you remember, there was a HUGE uproar about the test results with this unit when the review first came out.

To top it off, I just saw an "updated re-design" of the Marantz 8B in Audio Xpress. While the factory Marantz was rated at 30-35 wpc, this "new and improved" design that uses a notably bigger power supply, wider bandwidth transformers and automatic biasing should do more power with better frequency response and lower distortion. If you look at the test results, this amp is COMPLETELY "done" at anything above 10 wpc if your criteria is low distortion reproduction.

I would like to see something like an Atma-sphere, Tenor or one of Roger Modjeski's designs on the bench to see how they measure up. My guess is that they would probably be somewhat similar ( albeit better ) to the above mentioned products. I think that much of the "richness" and "harmonic structure" that we hear with tubes are artificial byproducts of the distortion that they generate. I think that most humans like that "feature" of tubes and think it sounds good. However, i don't think that such designs are "accurate".

Please keep in mind that i have 7 different pieces of tube gear that i currently own, so i'm not coming from an SS vs Tube point of view. I think that SS and tube do sound somewhat different in many aspects and one should buy what they like and will enjoy listening to. Sean
>
Twl: Please forgive me for doing my impersonation of Sgt Joe Friday i.e. "Just the facts" : ) Sean
>