Higher sensitivity - more dynamic sound?

@deludedaudiophile wrote:

"can you comment on room response of line arrays?

"... I expect that electrostatic speakers and large planar speakers must be fairly immune to these power compression / thermal modulation effects within limits?"

The room response of a given line-array system depends on the specifics. Obviously at frequencies where they approximate a line source the sound pressure level is falling off at about 3 dB per doubling of distance rather than the normal 6 dB per doubling of distance, not counting the contribution of reflections. There are of course tradeoffs to be juggled.

If small fullrange drivers are used, they beam moreso than most tweeters in the horizontal plane, resulting in a pretty big spectral discrepancy between the direct sound and the reflections. If tweeters are stacked alongside midwoofers, the frequency response in the crossover region changes significantly with the horizontal angle. If there is a central tweeter flanked north and south by stacked midwoofers, the tweeter may not approximate line source behavior as well as the midwoofer array.

All of that being said, with a line-source-approximating speaker the direct sound tends to be more dominant than with a point-source-approximating speaker, so I’m not sure how audible the aforementioned off-axis anomalies tend to be in practice.

Electrostatic speakers can have compression from transformer saturation at high power levels, and in extreme cases the transformer can overheat and melt. My impression is that in general they are less prone to compression than cone-n-dome speakers, but also less efficient and/or more difficult to drive, and in general will not go as loud as comparably-priced cone-n-dome floorstander speakers.

Single-ended planar magnetic speakers, those having magnets only on one side of the diaphragm, have a compression-ike mechanism because of the non-linear motor; that is, the motor strength decreases when the panel is further from the magnet, and increases when the panel is nearer the magnet, such that motor strength available for the higher frequencies is modulated by the lower frequencies. A push-pull motor structure eliminates this effect. I don’t know much else about compression mechanisms specific to planar magnetic speakers, but I am not under the impression that they are champions in the realm of dynamic contrast.

Loudspeaker/room interaction happens to be something that I give high priority to. The two types of speakers I sell are large, curved, line-source-approximating fullrange electrostats, and hybrid horn systems. I think full-range horn systems can be superb but they are inevitably larger than what I want to work with.

Duke

Electrostatic speakers can have compression from transformer saturation at high power levels

Just to clarify on this comment, at the point the transformer saturates it will also be making distortion and thus describe an upper limit on the range of the speaker. Sound Lab is known for using dual transformers, one for bass and one for treble to get around this problem a bit.

{I see no physical mechanism by which a horn speaker would throw better than a dynamic speaker} You can not see the horn on a horn loudspeaker? Horns decrease SPL less at distance than a conventional dynamic design think radiation pattern control. Good luck.

I like a Dynamic ...Live.presentation from my system with a DEEP soundstage. I like to transport myself right into the auditorium....I wanna' Be There. Low powered Tube amp with the glorious 845's and a high eff. speaker system (Tekton...Klipsch..JBL etc. gets me there.  Let's enjoy the Music...Not the system.

While I much enjoy the wisdom, experience and informative posts of Audio Kinesis, Atmosphere and others, the debate of which is best between which combination - efficient speakers paired with a low powered tube amp vs low efficiency speakers paired with a quality high powered SS amp (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems a bit irrelevant unless you are listening at live concert SPLs (104 - 115+ db).

I listen to my system several hours at a time, three to four evenings a week and can't even imagine wanting to listen to music that loud or re-create the scope and volume of a live concert in my home. So, for me, at any volume I now care to listen at, I'd say either combination works very well.

At lower volumes my inefficient 1.7 Maggies seem to perform quite well with either my 100W Rogue, tub amp or with my 200W/350W SS ADCOM.........Jim

@jhills --

Making this about low efficiency speakers/higher power SS amp vs. high eff. speakers/low power tube amps is not the strictly defined combo context here, but rather low vs. high eff. speakers - certainly per the OP. It makes sense using low powered tube amps with high eff. speakers (and vice versa with low eff. speakers), but you get lots of the benefits with high eff. speakers no matter the amp principle. Myself I use a combination of class A and class D solid state coupled actively to my high eff. speakers, and from my chair bypassing the passive filter is the real treat with the benefits it offers with digital filter settings to more readily accommodate horns with steeper slopes, etc.; not whether tube amps are used instead of SS.

Re: playback volume, it’s a common misconception that high SPL capabilities (with high eff. speakers) necessarily equates into the need or want for high SPL playback. To me at least it’s generally about how it sounds at average SPL’s (i.e.: ~65 to 90dB range) and how the segment of speakers I’ve chosen excel here, but with the added bonus of a greatly enhanced, effortless dynamic bandwidth, in addition to prowess into transient capabilities and overall presence and physicality of reproduction, whether at low or high SPL’s. It’s not about clearing the roof over my head with +120dB levels, but the incentive to listen at higher SPL's with speakers that can handle it cleanly with ease and powerfully is not diminished, I might add.

And let’s expand a bit on ’effortless’: headroom is your friend - can’t be re-iterated enough, it seems - and that even more so when we enter LF territory. You want 105dB clean peaks at the listening position you want headroom to spare, not just merely enough, and this goes for speakers as well as amps. So, when I say my subs can put out ~127dB’s at the LP down to almost 20Hz, that’s not to say it’s my desire to actually achieve those levels - far from it - but once you hear bass reproduced effortlessly at every desired level, headroom makes sense.

@jhills wrote:

"... it seems a bit irrelevant unless you are listening at live concert SPLs (104 - 115+ db)."

In my experience freedom from compression effects is audible at pretty much all volume levels, including low levels, which is where I normally listen.  I never listen at anything approaching "live concert levels", and only rarely listen "loud". 

Duke

Lonemountain- why did you arbitrarily start at 102 db volume for the high efficiency speaker but 86 db for the lower one? The more efficient one can also of course play @ an 86 db level using a small fraction of a watt & thus probably w/ extremely little amp distortion. Both speakers can have the same dynamic range assuming a sufficiently powerful enough amp for the lower efficiency speaker. The high efficiency speaker can achieve it more easily, likely quicker too & w/ much less required power

Last word in efficient or not, I prefer the big open and natural sound of electrostatics and planers over boxes, hands down, but that’s just my personal preference.

My favorites over the past many years was a pair of (not so efficient) Apogee Duetta Sigs. driven by a Mark Levinson 333. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but was mine.

If all I wanted was loud, forward and dynamic I’d buy a Jukebox.....Jim

@jhills --

Last word in efficient or not, I prefer the big open and natural sound of electrostatics and planers over boxes, hands down, but that’s just my personal preference.

Absolutely fair.

Being natural representatives of the (very) high efficiency segment: do you have experience with horn speakers, be that horn hybrids or all-horns? Tall large-horn speakers can have a sound reminiscent of large panel speakers, certainly akin to a limited dispersion "big open and natural sound" you’re describing, and a sound that sets itself apart from smaller, low efficiency box speakers in general. Not trying to convert you into being a horn freak (I suspect that attempt would be futile), but just to break down more stereotypical assumptions of their characteristics as being in every case from the same piece of sonic cloth. With horns in particular, size matters, but few want to accommodate that in their homes.

If all I wanted was loud, forward and dynamic I’d buy a Jukebox.....Jim

I hope that’s not your condensed takeaway from what high efficiency is necessarily about. By contrast a jukebox is only representative of that: a jukebox.

+1 @phusis 

The snarky misguided jukebox reference adds nothing to what is a good and informative thread. Different opinion and perspective can be contributed without condescension for sure.

Charles

If all I wanted was loud, forward and dynamic I’d buy a Jukebox.....Jim

That's funny!

Mike

+2 @phusis 

Sorry, that was a bit snarky and defiantly not a fair comparison of some of the very nice and efficient speakers of today and even some vintage.

Back in the early 80s, I much enjoyed my Vandersteen, 2Cs but by mid 80s, while looking for something that would make a little larger, deeper stage in my large listening area I auditioned both the big K-Hornes and the large Altec Lancing speakers. I did enjoy the big full stage they presented but decided, even for my relatively large area, were a bit much. I Auditioned and bought a pr. of Quad ESL 63s and fell in love with their deep, wide stage and their organic rendering of acoustic music and voices. Even more so, the Duetta Sigs. I Have been a fan of Electrostatics and Planers since. Some years later, because of a change in living spaces I had to revert to smaller, monitor style speakers. After moving back into a larger home with a decent sized listening room, I had a chance to pick up a pr. of the little Maggie 1.7s and like them allot. If I could find a pr. of used 3.7i within a reasonable driving distance of my area I’d pick them up, without worry of their efficiency. If my old ADCOM doesn’t do a good job at driving them, I should be able to find a fair buy on a used Bryston, Krell, Coda, etc that would.

To be fair, except for Spatial Audio (which I did like) I’ve not auditioned or entertained much, the idea of going with an efficient speaker - so my opinion of them may be a bit limited and irrelevant and my love for electrostatics and ribbons, a bit biased.....Jim

Both speakers can have the same dynamic range assuming a sufficiently powerful enough amp for the lower efficiency speaker.

@jonwolfpell This statement is false; the reasons why explained on the first page of this thread.

Assuming the definition of dynamic “range “is the difference between the softest sounds & the loudest ones a speaker is capable of without minimal distortion, then high efficiency speakers don’t necessarily have a greater range. How dynamic they sound, to me, meaning how quickly they can start & stop & thus sound more like live music in this way, is another story. High efficiency speakers w/ reasonable impedances ( not silly low w/multiple drivers connected in parallel), generally horns of some type can sound much more dynamic than low efficiency ones. I’m a believer of this & own & love my Volti Audio Rivals @ a true 98db efficiency. They can image pretty well, pretty detailed, not crazy extended at either frequency extremes but with a good input, sound more like live music than most other speakers I’ve heard at anywhere near their price range. I guess I value true dynamics over etched, hyper detailed “hi fi” sounding speakers. We all have favorites.