Speaker sensitivity vs SQ

Thanks Alex.
In terms of my original question, I am rather afraid you are saying high efficiency speakers are rare because they're rare.  That won't get us far.

And on your second point. Or are systems electronics commonly used to drive them often flawed?  I have always felt that in many cases it is the flaws that make them less 'boring'.

Thank you nwres, bache, atmasphere for responding to my question.

Which was:  If there are such big advantages in high sensitivity speakers why do so many manufacturers build low sensitivity speakers?

Thank you jetter for your kind words.

To miller: I don't want you replying to my posts if you will not answer the question.  It helps if you can read and your mind is not closed.

John DeVore's informative and well presented video does not bear on my question at all.

To everyone else: I am not interested in what speakers you like.  Nor in how to build a high sensitivity speaker - I just want to know why most aren't doing it.  There must be reasons and they are probably technical, or related to cost vs SQ.  We are not there yet.

We're nearly at the end of this one.

Thanks for your post mapman and a couple of others on the same point.
A large part of the answer to my question seems to be that efficient speakers cost more to build to the same SQ level in part because need to be a lot larger, in part because driver manufacturing tolerances are more critical.  This accounts for the huge growth in low-efficiency small box speakers since the 80s.

Indeed, since the 60s - does anyone else remember the introduction of the Goodmans Maxim?   https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/133504369128

Just out of school a friend of mine had a pair.  Only 10.5 inches high.  Great for a student room.  Maxim has impressive sound quality for the size and surprising bass if you backed it against a wall.

One might observe that avoiding high amplifier costs with efficient speakers is one side of a coin with high speaker costs on the other side.

No free lunch after all.

Thank you Tomic.  I have heard it said that speakers for use in home music applications should NOT be voiced in an anechoic chamber as the effect of the room boundaries will be entirely lost.  The result will be an artificial sound environment unrelated to the venue of any real performance.  That seems to make sense to me.

For some comment on 18 inch woofers see my earlier posts.

Hi Alex.  9w SETs.  You love 'em or hate 'em.  They're not for me.  I don't like high levels of third and fourth order distortion.  For those that want it they do offer a caricatured inaccurate presentation of the programme, particularly in the bass where their lack of control allow the cones to slop all over the place.
Neither are they relevant to my thread - it's about speakers.

There I don't buy your simplistic statement that efficient designs sound alive etc and inefficient speakers are compressed, mask important information and are fatiguing.  That's just an unhelpful generalisation.

Hi ctsooner.

Others have said that higher sensitivity speakers have to be larger in order to transduce low frequencies at the correct levels.  Also that driver manufacturing tolerances are tighter.  Both these increase costs.

But if that's not correct then you must go back to my original post and tell me why all manufacturers don't build high sensitivity speakers, rather than only a small minority.

Thank you phusis.
If I understand you correctly, you make a new point after 119 posts to this thread:
A large majority of audiophile speaker designs are low efficiency because a large majority of audiophiles don't like some of the sound characteristics of high efficiency speaker designs.  Or, as you say, they think they don't.

If that's correct, I wonder how much the sound characteristics of the puny 10 watt often SET amps that are commonly used to drive high efficiency designs have got to do with it.  Like some of the posters here, I certainly don't like them.  Would they sound different (better?) driven with a high current amp with a big power supply, even if the wick has to be turned a long way down?  They would be under better control, particularly in the bass where most of the problem lies.

Alex
We shall agree to differ and remain friends.
Doesn't happen much here I know.
But I'm hoping for some changes and to expose the trolls and the bigoted and closed minded for what they are.  Know who they are but don't name names.
Different opinions honestly and humbly held are the lifeblood.

My first thread has been quite a success with 120+ contributions.
Thanks to all.

Thanks realworld.
Congratulations on your perceptive first post here.  Keep 'em coming!

I note this thread is well into its 4th page.

You mention equipment mismatching.  How true!
In another recent thread dealing with: What's the most important element in getting good SQ, nobody had mentioned this in 40 posts, so I chimed in.  I say it may be the MOST important single element.  Certainly if you get it wrong.

But I am not in agreement with a generalised preference for H.eff speakers and tube amps.  My Martin Logan CLXs are 87dB so fairly inefficient.  But 400w of Krell Class A (real 1980s Class A, not today's pseudo stuff) does the trick. With +12dB on my pre-amp it's actually very loud at a quarter up.  I have no doubt that some big tube monoblocs would also do a good job. 

My speakers are big but panels.  As you say, to get this kind of SQ and H.eff I would need very big speakers indeed, probably with very high associated cost some of which I would recoup on smaller amplifiers and electricity bills.