Loudspeaker sensitivity and dynamics: are the two inexorably linked?

Thank you all for this very interesting exchange, a little of which frankly goes right over my head.

Thankfully, the excellent results that I am getting from my setup indicate that I somehow figured much of this out intuitively, instinctively.

theaudioatticvinylsundays.com

If electronics slew rate is a limiting factor, obviously the more sensitive speaker is at an advantage because the equipment doesn't have to slew as many volts to reach the same volume level.  Assuming the same electronics (amp), the slew rate is directly proportional to the required voltage.

steve59 wrote:

I don’t believe my typical boxes will match the spl or dynamic capability of a lascala or K horn by adding a couple 2 kilowatt monoblocks to them, only that adding headroom helps bridge the gap.

This may come down to semantics, but "adding headroom" - unless a given pair of low. efficiency speakers are under- and/or inefficiently powered - requires of the root of the problem, i.e.: the low. eff. speakers themselves with a fixed and usually moderate power handling, to be replaced by a more eff. and potentially higher power handling speaker solution, assuming of course it’s properly powered.

Again, there is only so much that can be asked of a low eff. speaker package macro dynamically before thermal and mechanical issues become prevalent, but having an abundance of clean power to feed it will certainly maximize its SPL envelope - to a degree, and within the limitations of the design.

I had a really close friend that wanted to sell me his LaScala’s when he bought the K-horns, but while being dynamic they didn’t really appeal to me. different strokes I guess. The K-horns sounded much different and to my ears much better.

I much prefer the K-horns as well, both due to the more properly sized (but still too small) bass horn when factoring in the effective extension of the horn when corner mounted and assisted, as well as the higher and vertically placed mids and tweeter horn sections. The corner mounting emulates a non-truncated horn loading by way of the horn extension via the walls (the K-horn bass section itself is truncated), but there are still throat constrictions that causes the colorations heard in the upper bass and lower mids area. Being as it may the K-horns are still the much preferred outcome sonically compared to the LaScala’s, with a fuller, better scaled and more realistic overall presentation.

Further nitpicks: I’ve only heard the latest iteration of th K-horns (AK6) and found it too tipped up/coarse in the tweeter range, and while the mids sounded fine and open overall it veered towards a slightly lean character and with a hint of horn material resonance. Maybe finding an older, used pair of K-horns and replace the mids and tweeter sections with an upgrade kit provided by Greg Roberts (of Volti Audio) that incorporate more solid wood mids and tweeter horns with B&C drivers (most notably the DCM50 midrange compression driver) and upgraded crossovers would be the ideal scenario. I previously owned the Simon Mears Audio Uccello’s, which are an homage to the Klipsch Belle, that featured stacked ply Tractrix horns, named B&C mids and DE10 tweeter + modified Al Klappenberger crossovers, and they sounded lovely - way better in the mids and tweeter range compared to the orig. LaScala’s. The bass horns however were essentially similar and therefore marred by the same issues, apart from the height restriction of the horizontally mounted mids and tweeter section mentioned earlier.

Anyway, "bridging" the mids/tweeter section from B&C w/wooden horns with the bass horn section of the K-horns would be the best marriage and really lift the overall performance here. Worth considering.

P.S.: What would really be interesting with the K-horns, on top of the suggestions made above, would be stripping them of their passive crossovers and convert them to outboard active configuration. This way more of their inherent issues could be addressed, but that’s for another post/thread.

phusis, 

I don't believe my typical boxes will match the spl or dynamic capability of a lascala or K horn by adding a couple 2 kilowatt monoblocks to them, only that adding headroom helps bridge the gap. I had a really close friend that wanted to sell me his LaScala's when he bought the K-horns, but while being dynamic they didn't really appeal to me. different strokes I guess.  The K-horns sounded much different and to my ears much better.

steve59 wrote:

... adding power and dynamic headroom to less sensitive speakers can balance things out

Depending on the particular speakers you don't just "free-meal" add dynamic headroom with more power when sensitivity sits in the low end. Lack of sensitivity is the main culprit here, and more power will only get you so far until thermal compression/"modulation" sets in and becomes a negative factor. Usually inefficient speakers don't compensensate with more power handling - rather to the contrary compared to pro segment, and much more efficient drivers - and so the issue is really made all the more worse. 

In any case having prodigious power and/or otherwise efficient use of it, like with active configuration, is a good thing, and will certainly maximize the potential of a given speaker system macro dynamically - not least with high quality, higher power handling drivers - compared to a more anemic, inefficient power delivery when passive filters are involved. 

... and considering high sensitivity speakers often sacrifice low bass to get those high numbers sometimes it's worth the investment in source instead of integrating a subwoofer.

Unlike low sensitivity and the inherent, practical limitations with headroom here, high sensitivity and low end extension aren't mutually exclusive but rather a matter of proper sizing (so, in this case you actually have your cake and eat it too). That is, high sensitivity capable speakers are typically attenuated quite a lot of dB's with resistors in a passive, horn-loaded mids and tweeter section to meet their lesser sensitive and direct radiating woofer counterpart, and this is not without implications, both with regard to overall coherency and getting the most out of the horn-loaded sections (another reason to go active here and/or all-in with size).

When the system sensitivity in the rarer cases approaches or even, very rarely, slightly exceeds 100dB's with horn-loading it usually means a some 35Hz cut-off at the lowest with stand-alone main speakers. Listening to the bass of such a system however, like the Khorns, is certainly - by a wide margin - the preferred sonic scenario to my ears, also when factoring in a by-specs relatively limited low end extension; honest 35Hz gets you a long way in most cases, and reproduced via more unadulterated, higher sensitivity bass sections will come off feeling even deeper and more convincing. As it stands though few a willing to let size have its say..

I would agree with our op on this topic. dynamic impact helps recreate detail that in turn fills the soundstage that pulls me into the music. That said adding power and dynamic headroom to less sensitive speakers can balance things out and considering high sensitivity speakers often sacrifice low bass to get those high numbers sometimes it's worth the investment in source instead of integrating a subwoofer.

tlee

Never heard either model, but would love to. Have been particularly interested in the HRE1, but the ILE3's are intriguing as well.

Being you use the latter in your home setup, how would compare them sonically to other speakers you've owned?

Good morning audio lovers. Has anyone had a chance to hear the Danley home HRE or ile3? In my 30 years dealing with arena sound I never experienced the open baffle immersive presentation in an arena until i started using Danley. 

When I got wind of a few danley home specific speakers, i was on board 100%. From old school infinity irs gamma/beta, genisis 350se, vandersteen, b&w  and scores of open baffle speakers, the danley ile3(my current speakers) are simply magnificent.  These self powered ile3 speakers are to be experienced. Check out their site to find the next closest exhibition and go. I love the fact danley does indoor as well as outdoor demos with their home gear. the speakers are unbothered by the environment they are in.

 

 

 

 

I do not want to own speakers under 90 db efficiency with low impedances and sharp phase angles.  The speakers I have considered have been the Von Schweikert Ultra 7, Zellaton Plural Evo, Acora Acoustics SC2, Aequo Adamantis, Rockport Orion.  I currently own Legacy Focus (original) and Legacy Signature IIIs, not as resolving but superior musicality/listenability to most modern speakers which tend to be resolving over musicality.  The problem is so many audio equipment designers do not listen to live acoustic music.  They have untrained ears for music/sound.  I understand listeners have different music taste and hear differently, but live acoustic music should be the basis.  I do not discriminate between sources, only reproduction as I am a amateur singer, amateur recording engineer and livelong listener to live acoustic music (orchestral/opera/vocal/choral/chamber/jazz)  and minimum 2 hours recorded music daily.

Forty-five years ago, when I had yet settle on my Altec 604C speakers, I went through about a dozen different models. I found myself gravitating to speakers that sacrificed some detail for a life-like you-are-there - “dynamic” - presentation. These tended to be more efficient: 95db and up. My Altecs are 101db.  For what it is worth. 

I recently listened to the Cessaro horns demoed by Jeffrey and agree, it was the closest to live music that I’ve ever heard in a loudspeaker system.

@britamerican wrote:

I think you are barking up a tree there @alexberger . No way crossover parts are heating as much as voice coil. Inductors probably not at all and what are we paying all that money for fancy resistors for??

The relevance here, coming down to practical usage, is that passive filter components heat up sufficiently to impact filter parameters, thus affecting the sound of the speaker to deviate from its intended design goals at changing, progressive SPL's. Surely this is not desirable, and that's just the workings within the crossover itself, apart from the fact that it's a "roadblock" by its mere existence; it effectively acts as a bottleneck between the amp and speaker, presenting a more challenging load to the amp that then has negative repercussions in its handling of the speaker and its drivers. Throwing gobs of money at fancy components doesn't really "add up" to anything, but rather potentially minimizes a nuisance. 

@steve59 wrote:

Paul Klipsch gets quoted for saying he just wished somebody would make a quality 5 watt amplifier, (hopefully I didn’t butcher that quote too bad) I’m not sure how the math works, but I would think the difference in sensitivity can be evened out by using more powerful amps to compensate. Say, a pair of kilowatt amps for 86 db speakers could have the same dynamics as a horn design being driven by your favorite 12 watt tube amp?  Having no educated qualification I would think heat would have to be addressed when designing for maximum spl? 

Say you have properly sized all-horn speakers with a sensitivity sitting at no lower than ~105dB's (likely higher from the mids on up). That's a some 20dB discrepancy in sensitivity here compared to your 86dB speaker example. 12 watts on those horns, in theory, should be SPL-equalled by shoving ~1.2kW's into the low eff. speakers. Practically: good luck with that. Those horns by and large will likely cruise fairly effortlessly along with 12 watt peaks, whereas the low eff. speakers fed with +1kW's will be at the end of their ropes (if they haven't already passed unto those eternal audio fields) with power compression screaming its ugly face in heavy measure.

Look at the Tom Danley quote above - if power compression starts creeping in at 1/8 the rated AES power handling it suddenly makes sense to work towards maintaining prodigious headroom. That is, how to achieve any notable headroom with 86dB sensitive speakers and a fair max. peak SPL requirement at the LP of, say, 105dB's - without any effects of beginning power compression? The speakers would have to take no less than 1-1.5kW rated power just to avoid the beginning effects of power compression. Good luck with that, not to mention the amount of clean amp power that would require - with plenty of power to spare. 

Many get by with much less power handling and capacity while feeling no shortage of dynamic prowess at the LP with lower eff. speakers, and if their max. SPL requirement is no higher than in the 90-95dB range it certainly lessens the need for higher sensitivity, power handling and capacity. That however is not to say more headroom won't make a difference here, certainly to those who knows the difference it can make, and to whom it's an important and desirable trait. 

Having read the thread and at many points being out of my depth some questions remain that interest me. Small sample size here as to experience so bear with me. Recently changed speakers going from Zu Def 4s to my present speaker. The Zus being a really high eff speaker probably used just a fraction of the available power and could honestly project a tremendous sound pressure, hit you in the chest type of stuff. My electronics are pretty high end tube chain, so no  brightness, actually a very nice timbre and tone.

The 10" drivers, even when pushed hardly move. Dynamics in spades. New speakers, while they have better resolution don't have the immediacy or frankly the presence of the Zus. They are rated at 93db so probably not stressing the amps, which are rated at 100 amps.

Just assumed it was efficiency related but after reading the thread think maybe it's some other factor.

Having read the thread and at many points being out of my depth some questions remain that interest me. Small sample size here as to experience so bear with me. Recently changed speakers going from Zu Def 4s to my present speaker. The Zus being a really high eff speaker probably used just a fraction of the available power and could honestly project a tremendous sound pressure, hit you in the chest type of stuff. My electronics are pretty high end tube chain, so no  brightness, actually a very nice timbre and tone.

The 10" drivers, even when pushed hardly move. Dynamics in spades. New speakers, while the have better resolution and I guess you could say better resolutiont don't have the immediacy or frankly the presence of the Zus. They are rated at 93db so probably not stressing the amps, which are rated at 100 amps.

Just assumed it was efficiency related but after reading the thread think maybe it's some other factor.

Paul Klipsch gets quoted for saying he just wished somebody would make a quality 5 watt amplifier, (hopefully I didn’t butcher that quote too bad) I’m not sure how the math works, but I would think the difference in sensitivity can be evened out by using more powerful amps to compensate. Say, a pair of kilowatt amps for 86 db speakers could have the same dynamics as a horn design being driven by your favorite 12 watt tube amp?  Having no educated qualification I would think heat would have to be addressed when designing for maximum spl? 

Think of thermal compression at 1 watt at 84db vs. 1 watt at 99db!! 
I’ve heard the difference hundreds of times…… the 84db (low sensitivity) sounds stuffy and congested with no dynamics. Doesn’t really matter what topology 

 

When you figure out the difference in the cross section of voice coil wire and inductor wire in crossovers you get back to us. 

I did the work for you on resistors. 50-100ppm for good ones. 200-400ppm for cheap. 25C on the cheapest resistors is 1%. Maybe it makes a 1/2 percent difference in the circuit?   I doubt even the most expensive speakers are built to that tolerance and they won't use cheap parts.

A lot of people making up stuff to suit what they want to believe here. 

Lots if issues identified. Some relevant, some grasping at straws to explain what we hear.  We hear it, so there must be an explanation. I don't believe in magic, but I do hear things I don't know how to measure. 

We pay all that money for fancy resistors so the primary parameter is, of all things, resistance.  Non-inductive, non-Ferris, etc.  And despite one popular WEB salesman, dipped or sand cast packaging makes no difference. The element, leads and caps do. Most higher quality resistors happen to be dipped but not necessary. 

Ironic, we sometimes pay a pile for thicker wires in out inductors, and then put a resister in series with them.  I have seem claimed high end crossover filters with L-R in series and foil or 12 gauge wire where just using a 24 gauge coil would actually be better.  Same irony, LR in series and we pay for a low L resistor instead of measuring and designing on reality of the parts.  Super low ESR caps with a series resistor? Low leakage with a parallel resister?  Forgetting to look at DF or L!

Good thing, in my living room, even with my 60W amp, I am averaging less than two watts at pretty high levels in my speakers that I have measured, 87 dB, 1M on axis, outside on a ladder @ 1K. 

Do not forget about "false" dynamics as most drivers are not in a feedback loop so they overshoot or undershoot depending on their Qes/Qms and the enclosure alignment damping effects.  Many low efficiency systems have very high Q alignments trying to force a perceived deeper base response, read that "hump" or are forcibly eq'd to extend the bass and will have very poor dynamics. I target system Q's of about .6 as I find their dynamics better than the .8 or higher in many bookshelf speakers.  Actual efficiency does not change as it is a function of the driver, not the alignment even though lower Q sounds louder. 

Talking conventional dynamic drivers, usually, the smaller the driver the lower the efficiency.  Usually, speaker systems with very flat responses have pretty severe filtering to achieve that flat response, BSC, Zobels, notches etc.  All these can change the Q and can really effect the cone excursion pushing into mechanical compression.   So, a 2-way 5 inch may at higher levels have not only more compression and bass distortion than an 8 inch 2 way for the same SPL,  But it may have a lot easier time reaching the tweeter, so everything is a tradeoff.  Or instead of that MT 5 inch, do an MTM, but now you get additional comb filtering issues to deal with but gain efficiency, lower bass harmonic distortion and likely higher perceived dynamics. 

Do remember Paul Klipsch's original paper which basically set the rule: efficiency and distortion are inversely related.  Of course, he ignored frequency domain and IM distortion so he built super efficient big horns to optimize the feature he considered most important.   Everyone has their thing. None are wrong, none are correct.  And yea, for decades it was hard to beat a couple LaScalla's and a DC300 for a band PA.  Until THX, a lot of theaters still had a stack of VOT's. Dynamic? yes. Flat? heck no. 

Also remember, the higher the volume, the less articulate our hearing and at some point, regardless of the efficiency, it is a wall of mush sound.  And if you listen to those levels very much, maybe you need wider dynamic range than someone without so much damage to get any perception of dynamics.  You, not the speaker. 

In other words, a blanket statement like " high efficiency speakers are more dynamic" is false.  Truth is it depends.  Reality is the design choices that lead to a low efficiency speaker may, and again may, lead to a less dynamic sound. 

There’s no way in hell the crossover is heating up as much as the voice coil!!

Think of thermal compression at 1 watt at 84db vs. 1 watt at 99db!! 
I’ve heard the difference hundreds of times…… the 84db (low sensitivity) sounds stuffy and congested with no dynamics. Doesn’t really matter what topology 

The volume (db) can be there with low sensitivity (with high wattage) but never the punch and drama…it’s just a wall of high db….

IME

 

@alexberger Wrote:

Another factor is - the crossover parts like resistors, inductors are heating when you push dozens of watts on a speaker. As a result, parameters of drivers and crossover parts are changing with the power. As a result most low sensitivity speakers can sound good only on one particular volume level.

I agree!

Mike

I think you are barking up a tree there @alexberger . No way crossover parts are heating as much as voice coil. Inductors probably not at all and what are we paying all that money for fancy resistors for??

Another factor is - the crossover parts like resistors, inductors are heating when you push dozens of watts on a speaker. As a result, parameters of drivers and crossover parts are changing with the power. As a result most low sensitivity speakers can sound good only on one particular volume level.

Just imagine speaker voice coil even with most effective dissipate heat is possible. When you need dozens of watts to drive the speaker the heat on this voice coil is huge. You can’t cool it in closed small box without fan. Another story if it is just around 1 watt of power. I don’t like sound of any dynamic speakers that need 100+ watt amplification. For me all of them sound tiresome, boring and lack of live and real musicality.

Most people can't understand how much heat produces just 8 watts. I have a DIY phono stage in a big metal box with a resistor with heatsink attached to the chassis. The heat dispersion on this resistor is around 8 watts. Despite the phono stage sitting on an open stand shelf it is getting pretty warm when it is on.

@tvrgeek wrote:

Thermal compression happens to all drivers, high sensitivity or low. How much depends on how well the motor can dissipate heat.

It happens to all drivers regardless of sensitivity, yes, but obviously at different stages; all things being equal a 10dB gain in sensitivity means a given SPL has less heat build-up in that voice coil than the lesser sensitive variant being it handles 10x less power. To boot the more sensitive driver, typically a pro segment ditto, has better power handling with a larger diameter voice coil and usually better gap cooling, so it’s not even an "all things being equal" scenario but rather one that generally favors the more sensitive driver as well with regard to heat dissipation.

For example, fero-fluid may dissipate heat better and have lower thermal compression ( re increasing with temp) but it is not without other issues that can effect perceived dynamics.

True, on both accounts, but here the basis of comparison is other tweeters with similar-ish sensitivity, where ferrofluid-using variants may see an advantage in regards to power compression "fatigue" for a given SPL. (At a panel discussion some 30 years ago with the late Hother Bak of Dali, he argued ferrofluid could have resonant damping qualities in the voice coil, but they ultimately worked towards avoiding ferrofluid in their tweeters due to, as you put it, "other issues")

Same goes for the flexibility of the suspension, that can actually get "looser" with heat for less compression. Drivers are a combination of parameters, some working in opposite directions giving a better all things considered performance than any one part looked at in isolation.

This is an interesting field of discussion. Question is if there’s basis for speculating into mechanical "compression" at lower SPL’s with more stiffly suspended pro drivers. They are, some of them, thought to be less adept sonically at lower volumes, only to open up with more prodigious SPL’s - which is their intended target range anyhow. Myself I’ve invested some effort into selecting my particular pro cinema speakers and knowing their drivers in these regards, but usually high efficiency speakers are known for their great low-SPL capabilities, coming-to-life and overall attentiveness here. Some guys, like Devon Turnbull of Ojas, are keen on selecting rather low power handling, high efficiency pro driver designs of yore with their lighter voice coil assembly, overall moving mass and higher compliance, matching them up with low powered and topologically simple tube amps. The rationale likely being (if it doesn’t simply come down to a preference based on listening only): why all that power handling (and amp power capacity) from pro drivers with their high efficiency for use in a domestic environment? Devon finds some of the modern pro drivers "lethargic" sounding compared to the older designs he prefers, and while in certain contexts at least his views here are not without merit, I don’t entirely agree with him.

However, all things considered, thermal compression is most likely a wash between technologies. Other factors already mentioned ae greater.

It’s not that complicated. Pragmatically speaking sensitivity and power handling are the primary factors, and ones that have direct implications on dynamic capabilities. And as already mentioned, passive crossovers is a factor as well.

Thermal compression happens to all drivers, high sensitivity or low. How much depends on how well the motor can dissipate heat.  For example,  fero-fluid may dissipate heat better and have lower thermal compression ( re increasing with temp) but it is not without other issues that can effect perceived dynamics.  Same goes for the flexibility of the suspension, that can actually get "looser" with heat for less compression.   Drivers are a combination of parameters, some working in opposite directions giving a better all things considered performance than any one part looked at in isolation. 

However, all things considered, thermal compression is most likely a wash between technologies.  Other factors already mentioned ae greater. 

@timlub wrote:

I was really trying to deal with the idea of dynamics only. I did bring up efficiency a few efficiency issues, but tried to keep it in an understandable format.  To those that don't have a better idea of sensitivity vs efficiency.  The short answer:

Sensitivity measures the volume out vs the power in.  Example 90db output with 2.83v input or 90db output with 1watt of input @ 8 ohms. 

Efficiency measures the amount of output vs the amount of input in power or how much power is lost due to heat dissipation.  Example would be 100% of power in, 90% of power out, 10% loss.  

I'm fully aware of the distinction between sensitivity and efficiency. Now and then may use both terms in the same post, but without getting into numbers I take most get the basic idea on how high sensitivity and high efficiency relate in opposition to low one and the other. 

I tried to express in simple terms what for most is the culprit when it comes to dynamics and transparency.  We can discuss crossovers or thermal compression in another thread

I fail to see the need for that when what's brought up is interconnected. 

bobbydd

You hit the nail on the head....High sensitively speakers typically do not have large and music sucking  crossovers. Crossovers are detractive, meaning they do not add music, rather just the opposite. I would caution you that when you have high sensitivity speakers it is best to get a smooth tube amplifier ie. 300B and your micro dynamics will shine. 

Jim

@phusis     I was really trying to deal with the idea of dynamics only. I did bring up efficiency a few efficiency issues, but tried to keep it in an understandable format.  To those that don't have a better idea of sensitivity vs efficiency.  The short answer:

Sensitivity measures the volume out vs the power in.  Example 90db output with 2.83v input or 90db output with 1watt of input @ 8 ohms. 

Efficiency measures the amount of output vs the amount of input in power or how much power is lost due to heat dissipation.  Example would be 100% of power in, 90% of power out, 10% loss.  

I tried to express in simple terms what for most is the culprit when it comes to dynamics and transparency.  We can discuss crossovers or thermal compression in another thread

I want reflect on this aspect:

Using high sensitivity speakers requires a lot of attention to noise- grounding anomalies, other stuff that you would not necessarily hear through a less efficient system. 

If we consider that we have that sensitive speaker so that we are able to hear the noise floor of the system even if all is optimal and optimized.

 

Now considering also that that system is a constant and NOTHING else is changed except the speakers. Everything is the same.

 

With the sensitive speaker we have "found" and have verified that we can hear right down to the noise floor of the system. (Yeh it don't need to be enjoying at the sweet spot and nearly inaudible.

 

Now that would mean that when the softest and the most faint sound that is just breaking and is near the noise floor we will and we can hear it! We have just the whole system setup for being able to do that.

 

On the other hand if we have the exact same system and just swap out the speaker to a low sensitivity that is dead silent and no noise floor is nowhere to be found.

 

The question is where is the noise floor if you can't hear it. Are we 3 dB above the noise floor or 10 dB.. nobody really knows exactly.. but let us call it X dB.

But now there is a GAP of loudness (dB) the difference from the noise floor and up to the lowest sound we are able to hear at the sweet spot.

 

That GAP that is X dB of loudness range that the inefficient speaker has "wasted away" will give the inefficient speaker in total a lower dynamic range.

 

And if you have that sensitive speakers that you can hear the rest of the system noise floor. Then you also have a tool that you can find and swap out the component that generate most of the noise. And in that way lower the noise floor even lower so that you get even more dynamic range! 

 

But all opportunity to that optimizations is not there with the low efficiency speaker when it MASKS away the whole dB range and you can put whatever components in your system and even if they're better and have a lower noise floor and do a better job to play the softest sounds. 

Then you will not reap the benefits of that positive contribution in this area and those efforts of the component design to make it better is wasted.

 

Just my 2 Satoshi.

@timlub --

Good post, in which you did however only touch upon the amp side of things and not the speakers, which with low efficiency in particular will potentially further complicate issues with thermal compression/modulation as heat build-up in the voice coils, even if it’s only for short periods of time as a rather "dynamic" phenomena.

I might also add that removing the passive crossover between the amp and drivers for active configuration will have the amp(s) seeing a much easier load, with the better driver control and sonic benefits this entails, while also thriving on load independency between the amp channels coupled to their respective driver segments and limited frequency spectrums. So, a combination of high efficiency, good power handling, active config. and sufficient quality power will be among the core parameters to ensure the most optimal outset for dynamic prowess, as well as other aspects in sound reproduction.

As the article supplied by poster @ditusa points to, not everyone is in the need of the same effective headroom (if there even is any to speak of) for their specific requirements and setup context, and so to their needs may be dynamically well served with smaller, low efficiency speakers. That’s however also a clear indication of what's relative to the individual benchmark one sets about to work from, and the importance that is assigned to this specific area.

Tom Danley on headroom and power compression (excerpt):

Well before a speaker burns out, it is severely compromised in it’s performance.

With the heating of the voice coil, one finds the SPL decreases relative to the expected level with increasing power, also the systems tuning / frequency response changes at the same time, for the same reason.

For modern drivers, this power compression begins about 1/8 of the drivers rated power, if rated using the AES procedure.

Honestly there is so much BS regarding specs and such in commercial sound that to add a sense of realism or something to that mess, we have a 3rd party laboratory specify usable rated power. Hifi, don’t get me started.

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/danley-dts-10-super-spud-diy-kit.1189404/post-17409024

Hello all,  I don't dive in much these past couple of years. The old timers know that I have a speaker back ground and it is where I occasionally chime in.  So the question:  Are they inexorably Linked?  No, not inexorably at all, but they are somewhat linked. So what is Dynamic Range in speakers?  For easy terms, lets call it speed, the ability to move from very low volume to high volume and back without breaking a sweat or touching the volume!

Whether you have a 10 watt amplifier or a 1000 watt amplifier, there is no doubt that the amp will drive a 97db sensitivity speaker dramatically easier than a 83db speaker.  I have both right now.  When you have a high sensitivity speaker, an amplifer has power reserve,  it can loaf and still drive that speaker easily.  There are amplifiers that may be decent, but not enough current reserve to handle difficult loads, then when you combine that with low sensitivity , you have a combination that sucks the life out of dynamics. Remember, you have to double your power to add 3db in volume.   When you gain the factor of high sensitivity, say 10db more sensitive that same decent amplifier now never has to be pushed hard to deliver great performance, you will find pace and dynamics both improved when an amplifier is not pushed. When an amplifier is well built with a great power supply and has CURRENT to spare and is loafing to boot,  you will find dynamics galore in a high sensitivity speaker.  Mind you, you can have a high sensitivity speaker that may not be so dynamic.  Difficult impedance loads and inductance clearly matter with an amplifier producing its best dynamics. 

So in the big picture,  a highly sensitive speaker that is well designed for a smooth impedance curve and lower inductance definitely will be more dynamic with most amplifiers than with the opposite type speaker,  but that doesn't mean a low sensitivity speaker cannot be dynamic.  If you have a well designed amplifier with the proper current capability,  Lower sensitive, well designed speakers can have great speed, air and transparency, no doubt.  

@phusis 

86 dB

@deep_333 wrote:

... Since high fidelity gobs of power is quite affordable these days, it is largely silly to chase high sensitivity speakers any more.

If only it was that simple. 

High sensitivity folks (not efficiency)

Ive had lots of all the above (and still have many of both). One mans "dynamic range" is another mans "loud" or "in your face" so its a hard subject to discuss.

IME yes, high sensitivity = more "dynamic range"

I've heard plenty of high efficiency speakers: Klipsch Forte, Heresy IV, La Scalla, etc., JBL L82, Zu, and others, and all the ones I've heard,  trade off their efficiency for (IMO) less than optimum timbral accuracy, lack of a focused and layered soundstage, greater frequency response aberrations. And most of them, to me, seem to create a veneer of sounding like a PA system, that overlays everything. 

@simonmoon , this has to be the post of the month!

@bobbydd 

Not 'inexorably linked' at all....Since high fidelity gobs of power is quite affordable these days, it is largely silly to chase high sensitivity speakers any more.

My Schweikerts rated at  88db are explosively dynamic and will startle the living daylights out of you.

@ditusa —

+1

@bobbydd Wrote:

Loudspeaker sensitivity and dynamics: are the two inexorably linked?

I think George Augspurger article below makes sense:

Mike

https://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/reference/technical/efficiency.htm

As others have already said, low efficiency does not translate to lack of dynamic range.

Dynamic range in lower efficiency speaker, given high power, high current amps, can, and does equal the dynamic range of high efficiency speakers. 

And for me, that 'liveness' that people talk about with high efficiency speakers (although I don't concede that this is an attribute of high efficiency), comes at the expense of too many other attributes, for me to make the trade off.

I've heard plenty of high efficiency speakers: Klipsch Forte, Heresy IV, La Scalla, etc., JBL L82, Zu, and others, and all the ones I've heard,  trade off their efficiency for (IMO) less than optimum timbral accuracy, lack of a focused and layered soundstage, greater frequency response aberrations. And most of them, to me, seem to create a veneer of sounding like a PA system, that overlays everything. 

Unless one gets into the higher echelon of high efficiency speaker; Cessaro, Acapella, AvantGarde Acoustics, etc, at which point, there seems to be no real tradeoffs between high efficiency, and most of those other attribute missing from most of the other high efficiency speakers, at lower price ranges.

 

 

@bobbydd wrote:

I’m not referring to maximum loudness or volume, rather that the music sounds less reproduced and more that the instrumentation and vocals are more real sounding through higher sensitivity speakers.

Is this a real phenomenon? Or is it more the particular gear I’ve experienced?

Oddly it’s rare to read such fine expressions uttered here, what sounds "less reproduced." It says a lot without stepping into the realm of pretending what’s heard is a facsimile of a real, live acoustic event, and yet it’s at the heart at what can be more readily offered with the attainment of certain physical attributes of a speaker, of which dynamic capabilities are a core aspect and intricately linked to both high sensitivity and prodigious air radiation area.

It’s also about how one assesses and is habitually exposed to ’dynamics;’ I’ve heard quite a few low eff. speakers that, on the face of it, sounded rather dynamic, but when compared to larger and more dynamically capable speakers (because such, factually, there are) it becomes obvious that the latter is somewhat more relaxed yet visceral, effortless and "liquid" sounding in its dynamic portrayal, which to me can be condensed into a more singular impression as a "less reproduced" presentation.

I’ll concede to poster @mijostyn’s findings on at least very large, high-passed (and properly subs augmented) ESL’s that can be dynamically astute, but they also have plenty of displacement to yield while being transiently excellent (with narrow dispersion) - a powerful combo on top of being a crossover-less speaker plane. I do believe the Soundlab’s aren’t that inefficient but rather in the 90dB range? So hardly a typical representative of a low eff., direct radiating speaker - of limited size, no less.

I drive my 91dB B&W 804S speakers (plus REL T5/x) with 12 glorious tube watts from an AudioNote Oto Phono SE. I’m very happy with the combo. Should I upgrade my speakers to something different? Probably. But for the moment I’m good. Dynamic range is excellent.

As others have more or less said, given enough high quality power, even good lower sensitivity speakers could sound very dynamic although the system may “struggle” to do so. 

in my experience, high sensitivity speakers ( maybe 95+ db) can have the ability to sound more live than others & I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand the details of the physics involved. It’s simply what I hear. 

 

All drivers have a bit of a built in "dynamic compression" due to the suspension. So a high efficiency of the same sd, may in fact be more dynamic as it is in a lower excursion so not suspension "compressed". This may not be noticeable at all (should not be) at medium levels if you chose the correct speaker, but as you crank it up, it may become more noticeable. This is still within the gap. A cheap or poorly designed driver will also get increasing compression if the coil moves out of the gap. To be complicated, gap strength is not linear. 

Amplifiers also have a non-linear gain with respect to power, and it can differ with different loads. 

So to each their own and enjoy.   Build a Kleinhorn and power it with a Schiit REKKR.  Use an active crossover on your mains to take the deep bass out of them so they are not trying to produce midrange while approaching XMax. Pick an amp with sufficient overkill as to be on the more linear portion of the transductance curve and sufficient dynamic current.   

Do be careful lumping technologies together. All ESL are not the same, all direct radiator, all horn, all panel...   

 

In my experience there is no direct correlation at all. I own a pair of Thiel CS6 speakers which are some of the least sensitive speakers out there (86 dB) and I drive them with a Krell KSA 300S. I've been to 3 audio shows (AXPONA, Tampa, and PAF) and I've heard quite a variety of horn speakers. There was a large variation in the sound quality from the horns I heard but none of them were more microdynamic than my Thiels. You can blame the room or many other factors but my point is that in my direct experience I can't make a blanket judgement that horns are better at any aspect of SQ. I also can't make a blanket judgement that dynamic cones or any other design is uniformly better. I have heard fantastic speakers that had horns, dynamic drivers, and film diaphrams. And one of the worst sounds I heard at a show were from speakers with horns.

@cleeds 

1+ There is no connection at all. Good examples are Horns and ESLs two vastly different types of loudspeakers. Horns are very efficient while ESLs are not. Both are very dynamic in the portions of the frequency range they can handle correctly primarily because their transient response is so fast and they are not spraying sound all over the place both being very directive in specific patterns. An excellent example of an instrument that both get right while other types of speakers struggle is the snare drum. Both ESLs and Horns have limitations in terms of frequency response requiring crossovers and low frequency support. While you can make a bass/subwoofer horn, the size requirement is extremely prohibitive so most horn systems revert to regular dynamic drivers. ESLs do well down to 100 Hz then suffer greatly actually limiting their dynamic potential. Supported by subwoofers people can't believe how loud an dynamic ESLs can get. Just ask skos.

Magnepan's sensitive and dynamic?! I like Maggies as much as the next guy, but those are not two adjectives I would ascribe to them. In fact, Maggie detractors have long found them lacking in exactly those two areas. They are in the range of 82-84dB, and require huge amounts of current to "come to life".  

Efficiency is simply how loud a speaker will play at any given wattage, but is measured at 1 watt. It has absolutely zero to do with how it sounds. Magnepans are not very efficient but sound glorious. 

Bobbyd,

“I'm not referring to maximum loudness or volume, rather that the music sounds less reproduced and more that the instrumentation and vocals are more real sounding through higher sensitivity speakers.”

this is my exact experience when moving to horns. I don’t see myself going back as I have learned that dynamics is what I was missing. 

I like some high efficiency speakers for how lively they sound at LOW average volume.  That, to me, is more important than dynamic range—the ability to play at both extremes.  There are not that many high-powered amps I like a lot, in particular, I don’t care for most high-powered tube amps because they tend to sound hard and have an unpleasant “glare” (sharp upper midrange peak) I don’t like.  High efficiency speakers and the modest volume levels I prefer allow me to use the 10 watt or less tube amps I like the most.

Not necessarily. My Apogee Acoustics Duetta Signature full range ribbon dipole planar speakers (fully restored/upgraded a year ago) are quite inefficient. To sound their best they demand a lot of current. When properly matched with components, particularly well matched speaker cables (Symo LS4X or their equivalent in production today - Artech Prism Time compensated cables), the dynamics are stunning and effortless across the entire frequency range.