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.
timlub1,887 posts02-13-2020 7:59pmWhat 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think AER and Voxativ has made some advances in these issues vs the earlier labs, attempts in high sens wide band drivers, Lowther/Fostex.
basically now its a contest between the best of xover traditional designs , Wilsons and the hih end wide band designs, AER and Voxativ.
If we list the +'s/-'s of each speaker. You'll find the xover traditional full range style will end up with more -'s in the tally of specs/practicality/audiophile happiness.
mrdecibel2,476 posts02-13-2020 8:01pmEvery speaker, to some extent, makes some trade offs, and, at all price points, imo. The thing is, as a listener, we need to determine, what musical parameters of recorded music, are most desirable to each of us. And as explained above, the speaker / amp / room combination, should be matched as close as possible, to work together. Someone above, although appreciating the efficiency of horns, prefers other things. I, on the other hand, prefer horns, and the efficiency, is simply, icing on the cake. Advice : Take you time, and listen to as much gear as you can. Also, go listen to some live, " un-amplified " music, as this will give you an indication, as what to listen for, in audio gear ( speakers, specifically ). My best, and Enjoy ! MrD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Great insight, assessment. Price point/budget constraints. Going to live musica events, then go back lsiten to ones speakers, = Higher sensitivity = near as live as you are going to get. I madea experiement One channel Seas Thors, with Mundorf Silver Gold caps Other channel cheap chinese full range 6 inch. The winner, cheap single chinese 1/2 full range (lows/highs rolled off) Judging midrange only as thats all this cheap chinese 1/2 full range could pull off, Specs claim 91db, about right. Seas Thors 87db. sounded likea wet blanket was thrown over them. Next minute ripped the brand new Millennium's out the Thors , placed them on Ebay at 60% off my debt of $700 sold in 2 hours. Free shipping. Never will ever consider low sens drivers for my 1khz-10khz range. can't, My classical music demands at least 92db. For low bass 30hz-800hz, yeah OK midwoofer/Mundorf caps, = doable. But I'm expecting the new high tech wide band to take care of the lower fq's. Won;'t know til I order a pair.
I’ve not bought any power yet. Thanks for the replies. I understand the technical trade offs better, now. If one had the bass covered by a subwoofer, it seems there’s no positive, specifiable, aesthetic reason to prefer low sensitivity speakers. I think that captured every remark so far, no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes EXACTLY
If one has a Scanspeak super woofer (retails at $500-$1500 EACH!!!) then you already have all the bass your dreams could ever dream. There 100% pure rock solid bass, Done Now we move on to 800hz-15k hz range Here is where higher sensitivity speakers shine in all the glory over the muddling lower sensitivity speakers, This is the range where the battle gets gutsy. Higher sensitivity wide bansd will out shoot xover designs every time. well lets limit the highs, to say 10k, Although if you ck AER’s web site, they claim 80khz. top end, which we all know the ultimate top end is 15khz, and really there is not much above 10khz. My tech geek mentioned we want a certain **ambience** to be present in the 12k-15k range, sort of like a sparkle and shimmering on cymbols and other percussion. , Piano’ high notes and such. But I have no idea on how the new wide band’s voice the 12k=15k range. The earlier designs had roll offs. I am waiting to order a pair as i type. the newer wide bands that is,
So back to your point Exactly, If one has a Scanspeak Super Woofer acting as sub, There really is not need to use a xover design traditional speaker for the 1k-10k range. This range under lower sensivity speakers sound like a wet blanket has been thrown over the front. vs the live soundstage of a newhigh tech wide band. If you purchase a wide band and you feel the low bass is a bit thin, well go ahead and get a super Scanspeak Woofer for extra bass. Bass that will beat out Wilsons' higher end speakers.
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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I sure wish I had UNDERSTOOD These Q's way back when And after grasping this high sensitivity vs low sensitivity issue, Made some honest answers to MYSELF IN all honesty. Its kind of like Jimi Hendrix's *Have you EVER been experienced? WEll I have*
Most audiophiles do not understand what a higher sensitity wide band driver is, does/how it works/how it sounds. Second, they have noo interest to understand, NOR ask any Q's.
Your Q's show your ~~puzzle-ment~~ over how folks can continue down the xover/lower sensitivity path to musical reproduction. No doubt over the comming decades as new audiophiles enter this hobby, they will be asking more Q's , wider interest in whats avaliable Before they make a purchase. Xover/lower sensitivity designs sales will take a hit, Most labs will not survive the economic downturn.
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.,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Look the reason you seem to be a bit skeptical about going towards the high sensitity speakers, is all due to 50 years of marketing ploys from The Industry. Likea carrot ona stick we were all led down that path,, Look at homw many xover designs came out in the past 50 years, Hundreds. The odds of us ever comming across a good quality high sensitivity speaker were slim to none. All the audio shops jhad the box xover designs. It too me 20 yrs to figure out that maybe xover low efficiency was not voicing my clasdsical music the wauy I REALLY wantedd to hear it. And so after some hesitations, I FINALLY began ordering several cheap chinese wide band speakers. After 4 months experiementations, pay off was nice. It occured to me to jump the xover ship forever. Its takes some curiosity and guts to make this ship jumping.
I'm glad I do not ever again have to hear my classical througha xover./low efficient speaker ever again. Its like my music is playing for the very 1st time via a higher (91db) full range 4 inch cheapo chinese speaker. $20/pair, And you get what you pay for, = Not worth 1 cent more than $200 = Avoid all chinese full range = trash.
When designing a driver, its a choice you make: efficiency or bandwidth. This choice doesn't change if the driver will be used in a horn or infinite baffle,
@lonemountain Your answer is so simple and logical. I suppose if some of the good stand mount speakers out there didn't try to do it all, they would be easier to drive and more easy to match with a variety of amps. It would be hard, though, for a speaker manufacturer to tell the consumer to get a sub with it if they want full bass.
Low-sensitivity some design for such have complex networks or need a small size. But in general, it means cheap low-powered magnets undersized transducers, and cabinets. It means the loudspeaker and owner of such has to purchase a massive power amplifier thus putting that speaker's cost savings back on the owner since now his amp costs more is larger and uses more energy. It also means thermal compression in most designs since amps heating VC.
The benefit if done well (like Dynaudio in general) is more bass extension from a smaller box, but you need a beefier amp than otherwise typically to be able to deliver that bass. Power needs increase exponentially with lower frequency.
Its easy to have a very efficient speaker. Just skimp on the bass extension. Most cheap speakers with limited bass extension are very efficient. THey have to be much larger to bee both efficient and have good quality extended bass.
Or just offload the bass to a powered sub or two or 4 and most any decent quality speaker can cut it.
johnk1,596 posts07-14-2021 10:37amLow-sensitivity some design for such have complex networks or need a small size. But in general, it means cheap low-powered magnets undersized transducers, and cabinets. It means the loudspeaker and owner of such has to purchase a massive power amplifier thus putting that speaker's cost savings back on the owner since now his amp costs more is larger and uses more energy. It also means thermal compression in most designs since amps heating VC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Smack Down~~~~One punch knock out
I just tried this just today with my Defy 7 100 watt amp, The more I pushed the gain, the less I got out the 87/91db speaker = distortion, coloration/unlistenable.
Its easy to have a very efficient speaker. Just skimp on the bass extension. Most cheap speakers with limited bass extension are very efficient. THey have to be much larger to bee both efficient and have good quality extended bass.
~~~~~~~ Thing is the real orchestral music kicks in at 160hz. Why the need for 20hz-40hz?? But we will soon find out what kind of bass a wide really has. 2 weeks mine will be up N running. The wide band will be going aginst dual Seas W18's/per channel.
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.
I started this thread early in my system building. Jim Salk's lower priced smaller speakers provide the bass extension needed -- and you're right, Ralph -- it's not "special" in any real way, unless one is comparing what Jim is able to accomplish in his small speakers that others don't, as well.
If you want or need smaller speakers for whatever reason I’d say that is certainly special. So is higher efficiency that does not ask as much of an amp. Two different things. Both special but in different ways for different purposes. I will agree though that size does matter when it comes to speakers. It’s always a matter of trade offs.
I concur with johnk. My speakers have an efficiency of 2.7% and a low frequency response of -3 db @ 24 Hz. To get that high efficiency and low bass response and low distortion without a subwoofer requires large main speakers. No way around it. BTW; Some people prefer low efficiency speakers over high efficiency speakers and that's fine too.
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.
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.
One need only look around us to know that the phrase "hysterical cult" could never apply to people with preferences about speakers. We have hysteria, and we have cults, and they ain't talking about this.
"Low-sensitivity some design for such have complex networks or need a small size. But in general, it means cheap low-powered magnets undersized transducers, and cabinets. It means the loudspeaker and owner of such has to purchase a massive power amplifier thus putting that speaker's cost savings back on the owner since now his amp costs more is larger and uses more energy. It also means thermal compression in most designs since amps heating VC."
I have to address this very confusing post.
Low sensitivity has little to do with the complexity of the crossover. A horn loaded design could use a simple 6dB per octave crossover and be very efficient; a sealed box design could be lower sensitivity and also have a 6dB/octave simple crossover, or a more complex 3rd of 4th order design for steeper slopes.
Low sensitivity is not a by product of reducing cost. A manufacturer could decide to build a cheap system with low or high sensitivity. A high quality company, like the one I work for (ATC), chooses lower sensitivity to improve bass response in a smaller speaker. Most high end companies with lower sensitivity speaker systems do it for the same "better performance" reason. Sensitivity is simply a measure of how efficient the complete system is, which is dictated by a whole series of choices like drivers, box, porting, etc.
Implying low sensitivity is a purely low cost choice/cheap system option is a not correct. Lower sensitivity speakers do not have overly complex networks by nature, or require massive power amplifiers. 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". This 3dB difference represents twice the power, so 100w/ch instead of 50w/ch or 200w/ch instead of 100w/ch. In this modern era where very good amplification is available at relatively low cost, a large power amp is inexpensive compared to their predecessors of even 10 years ago. Our own 150W channel P1 is roughly 3500 and the double the power (gaining +3dB) is only 4500. This $1000 is a far lower cost difference than many speaker upgrades.
Your comment that low powered magnets (I assume you really mean "smaller motors") are always related to low sensitivity is also not true. Small motors can be found in very expensive high efficiency loudspeakers. I remember my old Klipsch La Scalas (mid 70s era) used EV OEM components that had tiny motors, yet were very efficient. Small motors are usually a choice made by an engineer for price or some other reason, not efficiency. The massive motor in our 7 inch SL woofer in an ATC SCM19 with 86/87dB 1w/1m sensitivity is larger than most 15 inch LF drivers used in other consumer speakers. This larger motor gives us more control for lower distortion, not less control and higher distortion. No massive power amplifiers are needed to make up for the 3dB lower sensitivity issue and the benefits in clarity are measurable and very audible.
The thermal compression you speak of is purely a function of the driver's ability to dissipate heat, not the amplifier, as all voice coils get hot when "powered up" by any size amplifier. Its the inability to cool the driver that causes thermal compression and reduces driver performance. Thermal compression happens to high and low sensitivity speakers at all price points. Listeners will wonder why their speakers "sound different" when played loud for periods of time, this is a voice coil heating up and reducing its dynamic range. Since its impossible to see this in action, its within the driver itself, we cannot assess this externally or by any spec.
Brad ATC importer to the US Lone Mountain Consumer TransAudio Group Pro
@lonemountain Thank you so much for your informative post. It's been a while since I started this thread, but your answer is probably the best one so far.
Especially important is your statement:
Low sensitivity is not a by product of reducing cost. A manufacturer could decide to build a cheap system with low or high sensitivity. A high quality company, like the one I work for (ATC), chooses lower sensitivity to improve bass response in a smaller speaker. Most high end companies with lower sensitivity speaker systems do it for the same "better performance" reason. Sensitivity is simply a measure of how efficient the complete system is, which is dictated by a whole series of choices like drivers, box, porting, etc.
Implying low sensitivity is a purely low cost choice/cheap system option is a not correct.
Jim Salk makes high quality, beautiful, and well-reviewed speakers, and I started this post because some that I ordered were 83 db. He is a very good example of why the claim you've just rebutted is wrong.
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.
Indeed - a very knowledgeable guy, well-spoken and always with a balanced and to-the-point approach.
.. 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.
Was going to bring this up as well. I guess it's illuminative into the inertia of hi-fi speakers being by and large rather inefficient, and that anything that hits higher at 90dB's or slightly above this number is then deemed "high efficiency." It certainly is not.
@lonemountain --
The thermal compression you speak of is purely a function of the driver's ability to dissipate heat, not the amplifier, as all voice coils get hot when "powered up" by any size amplifier. Its the inability to cool the driver that causes thermal compression and reduces driver performance.
Definitely, and therefore it also goes to show that compensating for low efficiency by simply adding more wattage will, all things being equal, more easily meet the drivers saturation point in regards to thermal compression.
Thermal compression happens to high and low sensitivity speakers at all price points.
But at different SPL's, that's the whole point.
Listeners will wonder why their speakers "sound different" when played loud for periods of time, this is a voice coil heating up and reducing its dynamic range. Since its impossible to see this in action, its within the driver itself, we cannot assess this externally or by any spec.
Speakers like ATC, certainly the bigger models, use large diameter (though sometimes rather short) voice coils that will more effectively dissipate heat. Large voice coils (+3") generally are not not implemented in low(er) efficiency hi-fi speakers, and so thermally are more challenged. Moreover many ATC speakers - when best, to my ears - are actively configured, and this makes them impervious to the influence and effect of a passive cross-over at higher SPL's, while also having the amplifiers work seeing into an easier load - all of which contributes to a sound that is less "stressed" at higher levels.
Nothing “special” bout them. You may need a more powerful amp. Or depending what the speaker load is 4Ohm?
Mine are somewhat higher, BUT, the highs are rolled off, so they seem and ARE warmer sounding. Recording dependent is huge, a good recording is fine, a HOT recording will sound too bright, even on my speakers
especially the scorpions remasters several years ago, they are so bad, it’s like the sound guy, pushed up every lever of the treble, they are not even listenable,......which is why I use my old original pressings. I personally like warmer speakers, so, if you like the sound of them, keep, and enjoy the NON fatiguing sound. Enjoy.
Focusing on efficiency as a measure of speaker technology or quality is like judging a passenger car based on miles per gallon. MPG does not measure or reflect the quality of seating, the quality of materials in the car, the car's performance, its reliability or safety. There have been many terrible high MPG cars that are uncomfortable, don't handle well, don't look good, are unreliable and unsafe.
There are decades of scientific research, testing and effort on this subject. Old ideas about horn loading have not been disproven or debunked; rather the audio community, led by science and research, now understands better where horns pay off and where they don’t. Live sound could not exist without horns. In home audio, they are your friend if all you have is a 20W tube amp and you want to recreate the experience of a live orchestra. In home audio, they are not your friend when it comes to dispersion and low distortion. Personal anecdotes do not overcome the extent of verified research done on the subject by audio’s superstars such as Raymond Cooke (KEF), Floyd Toole (JBL), Billy Woodman (ATC) and all the unknowns from companies that got us here, such as Advent, EV, James B Lansing’s brother Altec, on and on.......
Talk about old technology, I have a 1929 Stromberg Carlson radio with a 15 inch 2 way coax (discrete hand made coax, not an acoustic coax "whizzer cone") sitting on what I think might be the worlds first home use transmission line. It was the beginning of high end audio. Brad Lone Mountain
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.
The problem is if you put more than 20 Watt to your speakers voice coil you will get huge TD. For me it is rule of thumb, if speakers can't be driven by 20 Watt amplifier their compression level cause me fatigue.
Thanks for linked article, @alexberger. In real-world scenarios with mostly passively configured, inefficient speakers - certainly approaching to some extent live acoustic (or amplified) levels - Thermal Distortion is an inescapable factor.
@lonemountain --
Focusing on efficiency as a measure of speaker technology or quality is like judging a passenger car based on miles per gallon.
That’s only assuming high efficiency has main priority regardless of other aspects and ultimately sonic outcome - a convenient position trying to make your own point, but hardly the bigger picture.
Low efficiency is a hindrance; never a trait, and as such has that to fight as well in addition to all other areas in speaker design. They’re the product initially of a desire and need for smaller size to cater to a commercial market, NOT because they were deemed better sounding (but of course marketing efforts made their best to sell the acoustic suspension principle as such).
High efficiency and large size as a foundation is giving acoustics their more proper due, but also moves the design, at least partially, into the realm of acoustic transformation. The most predominant enemy of horns it seems, except when they’re bad designs and too small, is passive cross-overs and too shallow slopes. Horns generally don’t like working outside of their "comfort zone" or design specifics here, something active configuration can more readily accommodate with steeper cut-offs compared to (the side effects of) complex passive filters.
So, a high efficiency design properly (and actively) configured is a win-win scenario from my chair, the only real drawback being - to whom it may concern - large size.
There are newer generations of horns that are much better no doubt. But well known to have lower distortion? That gem is not in my physics text book! Maybe I should qualify my comments to apply to normal SPLs in nearfield applications (home audio)? Maybe that's what you mean, that at higher SPL horns can measure better? Over long distances or high SPL I would think could be true, but I'm not sure. But nearfield? I very much doubt that horns beat direct radiators in the low distortion game. Certainly isn't my direct experience in my years in the audio business. One only needs look to what the best of the best speaker designers of the industry are using for their best nearfield designs- and only in very rare cases (the JBL M1 comes to mind) are horns used.
Does this mean there aren't horn based systems that sound good? I've heard some that were very impressive. But if you want Tom Petty's guitar to sound exactly like the real thing in the studio or at home, off axis and on axis, at listening SPLs we'd really use at home or the studio, Tom's engineer and Tom himself chose direct radiators. Most of the great records over the past 30 years used direct radiators for monitoring AND mastering.
Controlled directivity- In a nearfield setting, highly controlled directivity can be a negative for audio quality as off axis reflections are now significantly different from on axis speaker output. This is a big no-no for authentic reproduction. In real life a trumpet or a guitar don't create a limited dispersion sound. Reflections are a natural part of real life music and are needed for authentic imaging. So authentic imaging needs its off axis output to look very similar to the on axis output, only lower in SPL (level). Like a guitar playing in your living room, the guitar radiation pattern bounces energy off side walls that recombines with the direct sound at your ear. This is one big reason why some rooms sound different. .
A room with highly reflective surfaces (lets say glass sidewalls and tile floors to illustrate the point), doesn't sound good by nature. A wide dispersion speaker does not sound good there. These super reflective rooms can benefit by avoiding sending energy to these highly reflective walls. This is the time where a highly controlled dispersion loudspeaker (such as a horn) at home pays off. It could also be controlled by acoustic control, such as drapes or absorption on the sides and rugs on the floor. .
This efficiency issue is one "spec" out of many that a designer must balance. All these performance parameters are evidence of the enormous number of trade offs in creating a complete driver/box/electronics design. So designers make their own choice ("I want a horn, that’s what I like") and balance everything to favor their choice ( it will have limited dispersion, HF narrowing, but that’s okay I’ll try and minimize it, etc). This is the way speaker design is, balancing hundreds of issues that represent hundreds of choices and all of them have resulting tradeoffs. You may want a low distortion driver but its too expensive, or the OEM manufacturer can’t build it till next year and you’ll be out of business by then. Or, the horn you want to use wont fit the box you already bought or built, or you don’t care about efficiency as amps are cheap so you want the widest bandwidth possible, ..on and on.
There is a practical science at play here, with product development controlled by economics, engineering principles, sales, marketing and a whole bunch of other factors we’ll never know about at the factory that drive those choices. In the end, the company "sells what they have" as ALL speakers are a sum of trade offs. Many of the issues debated are really arguments over someone’s clever marketing points and we as consumers take these marketing issues as gospel, as facts. Since everything is choices, it may be these performance features are important only in THIS type of design. To another design, they don’t matter. Like wide dispersion is not desirable when you are trying to throw sound over a long distance (think football stadium). But to home audio, and wide dispersion means I get to sit on both ends of the couch and hear it properly, that matters a whole lot to me.
The company I work with makes perhaps the best cone and dome drivers on the planet but their speaker cabinets are plain rectangular boxes. Some say the box is everything but in this design 2 of the 3 drivers have their own chamber and the box is not involved in the driver at all. The baffle is more or less "a holder" for position and improves output as there is acoustic gain by sealing drivers to a surface. Some say the box looks old fashioned- so to balance that we use some exotic woods and make them look like beautiful furniture. The best you can do is find a way to make some happy and others will just not see it/hear it the way you do.
These are trade offs made all the time by speaker builders and then we as purchasers and users get to choose if we agree and make the same choices. The funny part is how people, who aren’t acoustics scientists, want to insist their isn’t a choice, there is only one way to do it, and this is it! I know, I read the entire brochure! Or, I saw this demo once that showed XYZ and THAT was the truth let me tell you! "Their" speaker maker’s choices are the only right ones, they understood it and no one else does. A comment like this company is the only one "that really understands cabinets" is a very simple view of a very very complex business. Speaker engineering and building is HARD and because its physics, many of the choices are not flexible or open to interpretation. There is a large body of science behind all this that is available to everyone to draw on. I certainly don’t think the brand I work with has the only solution. There IS more than one way to do it and many good sounding speakers out there. Each has its own application set that it excels at and other applications that it doesn’t do well with. We have not arrived at a universal solution.
@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.
Oceanway is a relatively new player to studio monitors, Alan Sides always "built his own" when he owned Ocean Way. He was from the old school days of large format horn loaded 2 ways soffit mounted, a type of speaker most studio people call "bigs". Now's he's entered the consumer speaker building business and he has Phil Hendrickson, who is a really great guy BTW, talented as heck, working for him. Phil is a highly experienced transducer designer who's developed several new ideas like vented gap technology in EV's early "DL" woofers. I first met him at Electro Voice in the 80s. He later went to Bose, now working for Alan. I think Alan has something going and is getting some studio sales but is really targeting the international market for consumer. Oceanway has significant brand recognition.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
