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 2 responses by realworldaudio

Thank you clearthinker for your welcome! I agree with your perception, equipment matching is the essence of a good system. Essentially, any amplifier topology or speakers design can bring us to musical bliss when every element is in perfect synergy. That takes long experimentation, decades of trying combinations out, and ultimately sheer luck on stumbling onto it. After much experimentation we know more, and can hit synergy more often. I do not hold any technology superior to any other, each have their own compromises, and cater for different experience.

In my audio journey my experience is that the major cost element is the time and work I put in it. If you are willing to build the cabinets and crossover, then high efficiency can be built for 6K$ or less. (Sure, a comparable commercial design would be around 35-60K$, but then there’s no need for 10,000 hours invested into R&D.) So, compared to even meager speakers costing today at 10K$, and SOTA around 250K$+, I think that cost is not an issue anymore to high efficiency for a dedicated serious DIYer, who had serious mentors and experience.

To audio2design: I respect where you are coming from, and all of us have different sets of experiences. Thus, I will refrain from holding my experience base superior to yours, and I am open to new experiences. I have heard and seen enough not to pass judgment blindly, and to find treasures at corners where I would never suspect them. That’s the point of this thread, to open our minds to new possibilities. When I wrote about the low level listening with SE, I wanted to convey that it can reproduce music when played at soft level, while complex big amps fall into anemia (crap out) when played at the same soft volume. The SE amp with the H.eff speakers can play distortion free up to 100dB/m levels. While my SE amp has super low, less than 1W output into the 16R H.eff speakers, the output transformers are rated at 25W, and the power supply is build to deliver enough for 300W output. Most SE amps fail at rating the PS and the OPT close to the output level, (and fail even more miserably at supplying a well filtered quiet B+) and thus operate close to transformer saturation, starved PSU and lack of low level detail. When built right, the 1W amp sounds as dynamic and strong and distortion free as an absolutely massive amp would sound. Indeed, you are right, most of what I said depends on implementation. Actually, everything depends on implementation, so I’m glad we can agree. There’s no single immutable point, everything is just a generalization, as basically not a single parameter is kept constant for all equipment installations. I was trying to rack my brains to come up with the difference between H.eff and L.eff that would be a constant. I could think of two aspects, which I found immutable regardless of setup conditions. One is that with H.eff the concept of volume becomes obsolete: adding volume gives the feel of greater dynamic range, but I do not get the impression that the average sound volume is getting significantly louder. It’s the dynamic range that expands. Still, this can depend on the system, and if preamp is not up to spec, you might have different experience. My second observation is more versatile: H.eff allows you access to EVERY record. Labels and pressings one would never think as capable of providing music experience become playable and at shockingly good quality. Not as good as a perfect recording, but they allow you to ENJOY them, and they will sound much better than you ever heard them on any system, while on L.eff they are intolerable.

Getting back to the amp issue: laws of physics dictate that even if we had a perfect way to amplify signals, then the amplification to 1000W introduces x1000 times more entropic distortion than amplification to 1W, and there is no mechanism to get back that loss. As technologies are imperfect, the actual distortions with increasing power are even greater. My experience showed me that tube amps have a much, much greater potential to present microdynamics, harmonic and spatial content. Not the 100+W ones, the small ones. The higher the power the more the intricacies fall apart, and a big fat 200W tube amp just becomes a wannabee solid state amp.

To me, SS amps sound inhuman, with extremely few exceptions. Sure, lots of power and control, but lack of harmonic riches and low level detail. I agree, they sound as perfect PA amps, and that’s king when one is going for the ultimate amplified sound. My comparison is to live, unamplified classical instruments. Tubes do a much better job for me to portray the message that the acoustical instruments portray. 

I understand that systems preferences ultimately boil down to our listening habits, subjective preferences, and how far we came on our audio journey. Thus, such debates will never come to a closure. I hope that everyone find his and her source of joy.

Clearthinker, good questions, great thread!You brought up all the eternal questions in audio - high power vs low power and high vs low efficiency, and of course, cost issues. Looking at the average audio product, 1 in 10 sounds very good, while the rest is mediocre to bad. (Due to flaws, or more frequently, due to equipment mismatching. Even for low efficiency speakers, you have to hear about 20 to find one great sounding. The same is true for high efficiency speakers, and given that it's rare to hear even a single one of those, and you need to hear 20 systems with them to have a comparable basis to low efficiency speakers. Most people do not get to that point, and as there's a minuscule chance that one trips onto a great sounding one right at the first try, the automatic assumption is that H.eff speakers are inferior.
The true difference between low and H.eff speakers is that H.eff speakers couple cone movement to the air much better, hence they translate much more of the audio signal to sound. As a result, you hear much more dynamic resolution, and you also hear much more of any defects the system has. It's not just the speakers issues are magnified with high sensitivity, but also the rest of the audio chain is forced to come out of hiding, and their flaws are exposed. That's why slid state amps sound generally quite bad or at least disappointing with them. Indeed, most tube amps have issues as well, but a good tube amp can be built in a reasonable budget that will sound good, while I have yet to hear a solid state amp that sounds even remotely acceptable once efficiency goes beyond 100dB/Wm.
The issues with H.eff were not just affordability but availability as well. The retailer can stock half a dozen to a dozen plus speakers in the same space that a single pair of H.eff speakers require. When a store owner can stock 5 pairs of speakers total, he's not going to stay in business. Also, while nowdays the price range for H.eff drivers went down, in the 50s-60s when the low efficiency speakers changed the scene the driver costs for H.eff drivers were much much higher than low eff drivers, and the relative cost of even a simple audio system rivaled that of a motor bike or a car, so the only choice really was the low efficiency version. Plus, who wants to give up half the living room space to a stereo system when you can get one that can be shoved onto the shelves? Also, you cannot sell the weak amps and sources with H.eff speakers as any deficiency will be glaring at you, so that's another key factor that limits H.eff and favors low eff speakers.
Class D for the low end is a very enticing solution, and is a fantastic compromise if you want H.eff midrange and top end. Yet, the stark difference in sensitivity between the two parts of the spectrum will come and bite our donkeys (or, asses). Your ears will come to realize after a while that there is a huge disconnect, and you will loose interest in the sound. To me, one of the biggest advantages of high efficiency is the efficient bass. It sounds first as if there was lower bass extension, because you are not getting that "pressurized" feeling that your head is about to explode with the sound pressure. However, you will notice that the sound is not a porcelain muppet freakshow anymore with angry goblins kicking your seat, but you are hearing much more natural presentation - base will sound breathing and alive, and when you turn the volume down the soundstage does not collapse.Amplifier power: for 100dB/Wm efficiency you need 60 milliwatts for a VERY LOUD volume, and you still have tremendous headroom even when using a 500milliW (half a W) amplifier. The quiet passages will play at microwatt levels - that is a few millionth of a watt! So, if you have an amp that excels at 6000W that;s not necessarily going to be a virtue here, as does it also excel at a millionth of a watt?
I have a youtube channel dedicated to audiophile education, (Real World Audio), and most of my videos are about these subjects, distilling my 20+ years of experience building & designing speakers and amplifiers.