Speaker sensitivity vs SQ


My first thread at AG.

Millercarbon continues to bleat on about the benefits of high sensitivity speakers in not requiring big amplifier watts.
After all, it's true big amplifiers cost big money.  If there were no other factors, he would of course be quite right.

So there must be other factors.  Why don't all speaker manufacturers build exclusively high sensitivity speakers?
In a simple world it ought to be a no-brainer for them to maximise their sales revenue by appealing to a wider market.

But many don't.  And in their specs most are prepared to over-estimate the sensitivity of their speakers, by up to 3-4dB in many cases, in order to encourage purchasers.  Why do they do it?

There must be a problem.  The one that comes to mind is sound quality.  It may be that high sensitivity speakers have inherently poorer sound quality than low sensitivity speakers.  It may be they are more difficult to engineer for high SQ.  There may be aspects of SQ they don't do well.

So what is it please?

128x128clearthinker

Showing 3 responses by elliottbnewcombjr

You can find great sounding speakers at any efficiency level.

I also advise avoiding low sensitivity speakers for a few reasons.

1. less power needed
2. less power makes it much easier to try tubes
3. lower power amp, tube or ss: smaller, less weight, less heat, greater flexibility of placement
4. less cost gives more money for the speakers, the most important determinant of SQ.
5. less money in the future when making changes.
6. less money leaves more to spend on content!

When you hear an inefficient speaker and fall in love, you are doomed! 

OP,

It is about the cost of building/selling/ever decreasing market for large speakers as many have said.

I wouldn’t want to pay for the speakers I luckily inherited, and the typically large house with large listening space they would sound best in.

likewise, I wouldn’t want the challenge of finding small speakers that sound so good I have to have them, nor then have to pay for the additional power they would need.

audiokinesis

8 CF!

You made me drag out my drawings for the enclosures I designed, for the drivers I inherited, with the help of Electro-Voice Engineers and my AV Consultant for my current speakers.

Deducting elements within the enclosure, I ended up with net internal volume 6.01 CF

And, responding to my youthful excess, we designed a rear tuned port to squeak out a bit more from the 37 lb 15" woofers. I left the ports open in prior location, ’hear/feel those canons! I closed them when I moved here. Bass is tighter, bass imaging very good, I frequently advise front facing subs located near the mains to achieve imaging of bass. I advise against ports, if any front firing.

They shouldn’t fit here. They are big, this house is a small split level. I got very lucky here, they fit, look, sound great. Whenever we go to other people’s houses, or look inside a house when they are for sale, I always look for where they would go. I see very few houses with a good space for them, even the big Victorian Monsters in the six historic districts of my town.

They are in the background of my ’cleaning LP’s photo’ in my listing on eBay

https://www.ebay.com/itm/133612076659

They are extremely efficient, I could shake the walls with 5 watts probably, I sometimes think about trying my friends 8 wpc amps, but they were driven by 30 wpc mono blocks originally, the amps still work, I have stayed in the 30-35, now 45 wpc size, not too big, not too heavy, not too much heat range. That is the max size tube amp I would want to pay for, or less.

Thanks for inspiring me to look at those old drawings, jogs some great memories.