2. speakers
  3. 154691-139155

Low-sensitivity speakers — What's special about them?

I'm building a system for a smaller room (need smaller bookshelves), and I did a bunch of research and some listening. I am attracted both to the Dynaudio Evoke 10's (heard locally) and the Salk Wow1 speakers (ordered and I'm waiting on them for a trial). I have a Rel 328 sub.

Here's the thing — both of those speakers are 84db sensitivity. Several people on this forum and my local dealer have remarked, "You should get a speaker that's easier to drive so you have a wider choice of power and can spend less, too."

That advice — get a more efficient speaker — makes sense to me, but before I just twist with every opinion I come across (I'm a newbie, so I'm pathetically suggestible), I'd like to hear the other side. Viz.,

QUESTION: What is the value in low sensitivity speakers? What do they do for your system or listening experience which make them worth the cost and effort to drive them? Has anyone run the gamut from high to low and wound up with low for a reason?

Your answers to this can help me decide if I should divorce my earlier predilections to low-sensitivity speakers (in other words, throw the Salks and Dyns overboard) and move to a more reasonable partner for a larger variety of amps. Thanks.
128x128hilde45

Showing 8 responses by atmasphere

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
I prefer low sensitivity speakers. Mine are listed at 91,
@arcticdeth  91dB isn't low sensitivity. Its more of a medium sensitivity.

To put this in perspective, the low eighties is near-criminal inefficiency (its very hard to find an amp that sounds like music and has the sort of power needed unless you are nearfield). This would make them nearly impossible in a larger room.

About 89dB is the bottom of what might be considered 'medium sensitivity. 94-96dB is about the top of that range.

97dB might be considered the very bottom of what is considered 'high sensitivity'.

 
They seem very warm to me, which is what I love. Never any ear splitting/searing/molar grinding treble at all!
The quality of 'ear splitting/searing has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with distortion caused by either the amp or breakups in the speaker. So this can happen even if the speaker is only 85dB (and often does). People often blame the speaker because that is what is making the sound, but often the electronics carry a lot of the blame.


atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
@lonemountain  If I was setting up a nearfield situation (like we use in my studio) I wouldn't use horns either; they're just too big- and how do you get the midrange and tweeter to blend? Nearfield I don't think I'd be very concerned about efficiency either. 
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
In home audio, they are not your friend when it comes to dispersion and low distortion.
This statement is false. Horns are well-known to have extremely low distortion if properly designed- the first paper I saw in this came from the 1950s when slide rules were how things are done. Nowadays people use computers to optimize the shape of the horn and get very good distortion figures as a result.


The second thing horns can do for you has to do with controlled directivity which they have and other speaker types do not. This allows you to minimize side wall reflections (which are interpreted by the ear as harshness due to their short delay times) if you so choose.


As a result you can get excellent imaging and depth with very low distortion easily rivaling the best ESLs.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
Al was a really nice guy. I miss having him here.
A 86/87dB 1w/1m speaker referred to often as "low sensitivity" is only 3dB away from a 90dB 1w/1m - referred to as a "high sensitivity speaker".
Although most of the post from which I extracted this is good information, this statement really isn't right. A 'high sensitivity speaker' is really going to be more like 96dB at the lowest; there's something called 'medium sensitivity' which is about 90 to 96dB.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
Judging by this thread I'd say low sensitivity speakers have the advantage of not having an hysterical cult following that refuses to accept that what is most important to them isn't necessarily what is most important to everyone.  
A bit of innuendo here so if I might flesh this out a bit... The reason lower sensitivity speakers have a following is two things. Size, and the idea that efficiency is sacrificed for resolution. The first is very true the second is market- and not true. What this means is that if you want a wider bandwidth speaker, and in particular one that goes lower in the bass, in theory you can go lower with a smaller cabinet if the speaker is less efficient.


IMO/IME that is something very different from saying that there is something special about them as in the OP. And for the record there is nothing hysterical about me stating this; these simple facts (see Occam's Razor...) are well-known.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
Low-sensitivity speakers — What's special about them?
I regard this is the wrong question - better to ask what is special about high sensitivity speakers. I don't find anything special about low sensitivity as thermal compression is a common problem. People that listen to high efficiency speakers know this. I can't think of an advantage of low sensitivity- its not that they might be more revealing; IME they are less so.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
What it comes down to is... really good mids with any type of top end extension without cone break up is hard to find in true high sensitivity speakers.
The Classic Audio Loudspeakers use a beryllium diaphragm with Kapton surround in their compression drivers; the first breakup is at 35KHz. The model T3 which I have at home is 97dB and 16 ohms, flat to 20Hz owing to dual TAD 15" woofers.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,632 posts
 
Generally speaking if you do have to play the speakers at volume, lower efficiency speakers have something called 'thermal compression' where the voice coils can heat up, significantly curtailing musical peaks.


But if size is an issue and your room is not large (and so not requiring a lot of power), a lower efficiency speaker can offer better bass as Al pointed out.


But a nice sub option if space is an issue is the Swarm by Audiokinesis. It is 1 foot square by 2 feet high so its not the smallest sub around and there are 4 of them to be used to kill standing waves in the room. But they are unlike other subs in that they are designed to be placed directly against the walls, and work best if asymmetrically placed. So they can work very nicely in a small room. This allows you a smaller or more efficient main speaker, since that speaker only need to down to 80Hz. 
More to discover