I haven't read all of these post, so it might have been answered...The answer to the exact question is yes.... In theory. If all things are totally equal except for sensitivity, the two speakers will sound identical except in the area of dynamics. The more sensitive speaker will be more dynamic. Next... This is impossible |
I've read though the post... The op says "All things being equal" no debate on horns vs planars... Two identical horns, playing exact frequency curves, playing exact impedance & phase curves, playing the exact music... Or two exact matching planars or two exact matching dynamic drivers.... ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, The more sensitive speaker will be more dynamic... The answer is Yes. |
How Dynamic is an 83db sensitive speaker with 50 watts? and how dynamic is a 93db sensitive speaker with 50 watts?
If absolutely everything was identical, the 93db speaker is not more dynamic? Right. Wes, I've heard you make some outstanding well thought out arguments in the past.
Again, the BIG STATEMENT, "All Things Being Equal".
My current speakers are very Dynamic and 86db 4 ohms, but they aren't dynamic with any amp. In the theory above the more sensitive speaker, even when it is only sensitivity that makes the two speakers different, the 93db speaker would be More dynamic without question. |
Hi Ngjockey,
My experience with pro parts is not what you are referencing above.
6 inch are usually 93 to 99 sensitivity, next doubling 8 ohm drivers will add 3 db, but if your amp does not double its power to 4 ohms, you won't get a 6db gain. Same with the drivers you have labled from 10 to 15 inch. Typically the price paid for sensitivity is low end extention.
If you will look at a few parts from Eminence (they make some hi eff stuff for bag end), Audax PR series, some B&C, PHL & others you'll find plenty drivers that are mid to upper 90's in a single driver. I have participated in a few threads on Agon on this subject. I hope this helps,
Tim |
In a real world scenario, the ops question is impossible to answer. In theory "all things being equal" makes his answer yes. Maybe a couple of you guru's can figure it out, but when you leave theory, I see this as an oxy moron and not answerable. |
You know guys, it seems to me that the op really just wanted to know if if efficiency is something to seek out.
We have all blown this up. I have built speakers from 84 db sensitivity to 99 db sensitivity... The all sounded quite good in their own right. In my experience, there is no requirement of high sensitivity to make really fine sounding speaker, nor do really high or low sensitivity speakers sound one better than the other. They do have different requirements for power and placement and what type of amp that they sound best with.....
The good news is that the ops question as written is truly impossible. |
Atmosphere: "the simple fact is that any speaker that has high efficiency conforms to the Power Paradigm unless the designer went through extraordinary steps to prevent that"
This is fact:
My Current MTM's had a hugh power response hump about an octave above the crossover frequency to deal with. Power Paradigms are not as critical in all designs, but they always exist.... Always. |
Charles1dad:
"It seems the popularity and proliferation of low efficiency speakers can be traced to the advent of transistor amplifiers"
I didn't know the tracing of low efficiency speakers to be linked to solid state amplifiers. Could you please educate me on the evolution or tracing of such?
I am aware of basic speaker design and much of its evolution, I have never heard speaker design evolution linked specifically to solid state or tubed amps. I'm very interested to hear this. Thanks for your help. |
Speaker manufacturing has evolved. Technology has improved in the form of materials, software and the equipment that drivers are made from. All along, manufactures have done their best to produce a quality product. The solid state amp came to be commercially produced in the late 1950's is not what developed speaker technology. People wanting to build the best did. In the 1960's, raw parts manufacturers had a hard time maintaining 20% accuracy from part to part, in the 1970's we saw a huge improvement to more like 10%, today parts can be produced at under 5% deviations off manufacturing lines and better on hand made items. Magnet materials have improved, voice coil formers have improved, tighter tolerances for voice coil gaps have improved, flux has improved, linearity and excursion limits have improved, better materials for cones, horns and diaphrams. There have been changed in mylar materials in planers, there have been improvements in electrostatics, there has been improvements in damping on all levels... Speakers have evolved as technology has improved. The formula's for highly efficient speakers are the same today as they were in 1960, its just that today, we have much better tools and technology and materials to produce a more accurate product. That doesn't mean, nothing of old is good, accurate or even great, it just means that today, we can do it more consistantly. |
Acurus,
Rather than getting yourself so upset and others until you are called names, Why didn't you just click on another thread and ignore this one?
I completely agree that there has been alot of useless info passed, but in this thread some knowledge and experience has been passed that might help someone. There are a dozen or so of us trolls that posted on this thread with a wealth of knowledge and experience. As a whole, most were just trying to help. |
Atmosphere: "Its like I said, just follow the money. The advent of transistor amps and lower efficiency speakers was not about advancing the art (although the marketing certainly made it look that way) it was about *making money*"
Hi Ralph,
I really disagree that it was about making money. Or the way I feel that you portray it as "just making money". I have no arguement that they charged what they could for the technology they produced, I would do the same and I'm sure you do also. You know the manufacturing cost difference in a $1,000 retail amp and a $20,000 retail amp, it sure isn't $19,000. If it was only about the money and not advancing the art, why are there so many wonderful solid state pieces of equipment today?
Long ago among other lines, I sold Cerwin Vega. I have no idea if this statement is true, but Cerwin condented that they marketed the first Commercially available solid state amp in 1957.
Lastly, very sensitive speakers has realy never been difficult to produce. Great sounding Hi Eff speakers has. I believe my speaker technology schpeel to be completely accurate. There were certainly some great sounding old speakers, but today, our consistency is in another league.
Tim |
Unsound,
Atmasphere wrote about Power and voltage Paradigms.
Here is his article:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html |
Hi Magfan, I am no amp designer, I have built alot of speakers. Recently I built a nice MTM. I ended up with an 4 ohm bottom and an 8 ohm top..... In speakers anyway, where you deal with impedance dips and peaks of up to 30 ohm or more, it is not unusual for a speaker even in a network of speakers to get hotter than the others when an amplifier (in power paradigms ss peaks power to certain loads. That is one of the few reasons that impedance compensation is used and often resonance compensation. In this current MTM, I drop to 3.8 ohms in the bass through the midrange while the tweeter has a peak up around 12 or 14 ohms. I had to place the crossover so that the crossover point was low enough to stay away from where the power hump would be in the response & impedance curves, otherwise you would have clearly dealt with fatigue above the crossover point because of the power paradigm. I am not experienced enough in amp to design to properly discuss power or voltage paradigms in amps. I hope this is adequate explanation(90 % accurate for explanation)to make since of a power paradigm in speakers. |
