Good topic, Erik.
A difficult speaker load is created foremost by its passive crossover, more so really than (a purer load) low impedance and low sensitivity as a function of the drivers sans passive XO. Combining higher sensitivity, higher driver impedance (i.e.: 8 ohms minimum, as pointed out by @atmasphere ) with an active approach would be ideal in making the most of both amps and cables, and in effect the sound coming from the speakers with the better, direct amp-driver coupling.
What I don’t get is seeing these complex passive filters in many a high-end segment speaker that really only nurtures the forced existence of crazy expensive amps, and which comes down to the need for them to be more or less impervious to load in the face of steep phase angles and the occasional ultra-low impedance dips in the lower frequencies. All the more reason to go active and start throwing those mega amps under the bus, because actively they wouldn’t be needed any longer.
If indeed there’s merit to the claim of people consciously looking for speakers that are known to be a difficult passive load, for reasons apparently that it’s somehow deemed a desirable trait in a speaker, it would seem a fool’s errand; to my ears difficult-to-drive speakers usually can’t shake off an inherent sensation of them actually sounding like a difficult load, irrespective mostly of any beast of an amp thrown at them, so why bother with such speakers in the first place?
|
I think I understand where Eric is coming from.
In my view, it is all right that there is a wide range of speaker technologies, ranging from ultra-efficient to very much inert such as certain panels and plasma tweeters. They all have their unique sound characteristics, their inherent strengths and weaknesses. So we have a wide range of choice and experience.
However, what I find sad is the fact that there has a been a trend to make such speakers hard to drive which necessarily need not be hard to drive. That tendency was fueled by folly to imitate the more expensive hard to drive technologies with the much cheaper regular electrodynamic drivers - just plop in a crossover to kill the output level and suck out the amplifiers energy and waste it as heat. That way manufacturers can boast that their normal speakers are now hard to drive, just like the coveted hard to drive technologies.
What the unsuspecting customer is unaware of, is the fact that their inefficient beast would likely sound much better if it had been designed with a proper crossover, and used proper driver complement in the first place. As, the second reason for speakers being inefficient is that the driver compelemnt does not match each other and the designers need to use excessive crossover EQ to match them, So, effectively, covering up poor parts choices (which are always driven by the lower cost).
Now, as far as getting these insensitive speakers at low prices - there's nothing wrong with that. The folly is though, that these badly designed speakers are often sold at a premium.
Now, that's the reason for rejection. But I do understand varietas delectat, and people while being very frugal im most situations, are willing to be completely vulnerable when it comes to well-marketed products.
After all, who would question the integrity of such companies, as for example B&W?
PS: while a high power amp CAN drive a 2R load, it sounds much better, with a fraction of distortion driving an 8R load..... had that 2R speaker been designed with proper driver complement & crossover, it would sound significantly better with the same beast of an amp...
|
@ricred1
My room is L-shaped...front wall is 20’ wide, length is 26’, rear wall is 26’ wide, and 9’ ceiling. My room is rather "neutral", not too lively and not dark.
With those speakers in a room of that size I would expect you'll need about 200-400 Watts. I don't know of an integrated amp that makes that much power.
|
I have tried, relentlessly, for 30 years to find a high efficiency speaker I enjoy. It has been a total failure, I have tried hundreds if not thousands of pairs. Everything by Klipsch makes my ears bleed, Zu's excite my cats too much, Tannoys and most others are ridiculously expensive and leave me completely cold. When amplifiers with more than 30 watts were expensive it was worth the effort. I now use a 40 watt tube amp to drive Audio Physic speakers that are 89dB and 4 Ohms, the work effortlessly.
|
I have owned several of both types, 86db to 100db efficient and I have found that the more efficient speakers play more effortlessly without sounding forced…more relaxed with better dynamic scale.
|
As @bdp24 noted, if you can drive the bottom 2-3 octaves with a separate amplifier, it provides many more options for the rest of the range.
I have planar-magnetic dipole line arrays which are ~98db/w sensitivity, nominally 8 ohms with a minimum impedance of about 5 ohms. I'm driving these with a 300B SET amp and they sound glorious, but they only play down to about 170Hz.
The woofers for the bottom few octaves are considerably less efficient and driven with their own 370W class A/B amp and provide plenty of output to below 20Hz.
The combination can play full-range music louder than I want to listen in my 27' x 17' listening room.
Obviously a bi-amped system is not for everyone, but by splitting out the bass, the rest of the range can be much more efficient without sacrificing sound quality.
|
atmasphere,
My room is L-shaped...front wall is 20’ wide, length is 26’, rear wall is 26’ wide, and 9’ ceiling. My room is rather "neutral", not too lively and not dark.
|
Please suggest a couple of integrated amplifiers that can drive MBL 101e speakers.
My experience is limited to the mbl 101e. It was rated at about 81 dB which you would think is crazy inefficient. Its also a 4 Ohm load, climbing to 8 Ohms in the upper midrange. But it does not have any weird phase angles so there's that.
So add 6dB and you're at 87 which still isn't great, but that's a lot better than 81!
Now you have to figure the size of the room. In a moderate sized room most of the time a 100 Watt amplifier would do the job fine. So there you have a bit of info as to what to look for. I can't say more without knowing the room size and liveliness.
|
"@ricred1 MBLs are easier to drive than they might appear. That is because they are omnidirectional and when measured, the microphone is placed 1 meter away from the speaker. Most of the output of the speaker is thus not picked up. Effectively in a room you can add 6dB to their rated sensitivity. So they can be driven be amps of much less power than you might expect!"
Please suggest a couple of integrated amplifiers that can drive MBL 101e speakers.
|
Interesting...I’m considering MBL 101E speakers, but I’m hesitant due to them being hard to try.
@ricred1 MBLs are easier to drive than they might appear. That is because they are omnidirectional and when measured, the microphone is placed 1 meter away from the speaker. Most of the output of the speaker is thus not picked up. Effectively in a room you can add 6dB to their rated sensitivity. So they can be driven be amps of much less power than you might expect!
OK, thinking about this this is less about the gear and more about the awe created by hard to drive speakers. Like we somehow want to make the speakers happy because they are so demanding. Maybe we should get speakers that are happy with any amplifier instead??
@erik_squires This is a good point.
I’ve been telling people for years now that the harder the speaker is to drive, the more distortion your amplifier will make. Especially with respect to lower impedance, this is easy to see in the specs of any amplifier. Its also audible by making the amp less detailed (since distortion obscures detail) and often harsher (since more higher ordered harmonics are created).
So what I tell people is that if high quality audio reproduction is your goal, your amplifier dollar investment will be best served by a loudspeaker of higher impedance (8 Ohms or more) that is also easy to drive (no weird phase angles and higher efficiency).
Lower impedance speakers have a hidden cost of the speaker cable being far more critical to best performance. Lower efficiency speakers suffer thermal compression in their voice coils. There are some attempts to mitigate the latter problem, but whatever the technique is can also be applied to higher efficiency speakers with no downside.
If your speaker requires more than 100 Watts to really make it sing, you have an impractical speaker! This is because of the logarithmic nature of the human ear (which is why we use deciBels). If 100 Watts won’t do, how much power will you need? To make the speaker play twice as loud subjectively, you’ll need about 1000 Watts. How many amps of that power really sound like real music without being oppressive? How many can afford that? For this reason, even very expensive loudspeakers are often fairly easy to drive.
The only real advantage of 4 Ohms might be that your amp can make 3dB more power if its a solid state amp that can double power into 4 Ohm as opposed to 8. So you have a weak 3dB argument for that, if sound pressure as opposed to sound quality is your goal- good luck with it; 3dB is a slight increase in volume to the ear...
So if you want a really decent, musical system, difficult low impedance loudspeakers should be avoided. It does not matter ’how good it sounds’ to you; if that same speaker were simply higher impedance it would sound even better (speaker designers take note of this simple method of causing your speaker to sound smoother and more detailed at the same time).
|
I’ve owned many of the aforementioned hard to drive speakers and overall, they could not sound as natural and relaxed as an efficient horn speaker.
|
It’s funny how them junk infinity’s as some call them
still sound as good or better in some cases then what is being
produced today at 5 times the cost. Yes the crossovers was
a pain to work with but back in the early and mid 80’s they was state-of-the-art the art. The IRS beta can go against about any 30,000 dollar speaker made today. And yes you should have to rebuild them now hell they are going on 40 years old. So yes stuff wears out. I own a set of Kappa 9.1 series 2 and I would put them up against any speaker made today under 15,000 dollars.
|
For clarity ( no pun intended ) it is the Klipsch model Lascala, Revision AL5 that was just reviewed by Stereophile, but it IS part of the Heritage line. Klipsch does have a model called the Heresy, which also has been around a long time, which has also gone through many iterations. My best always, MrD.
|
this month's Stereophile has a review of the Heresey speakers, which are super efficient. The reviewer used a coupe flea 2-3 watt amps then used a Parasound 21+ which had more balls and sounded more organic
|
Since my wife doesn't like my speakers but we both love of tube gear, we're keeping our tube gear and now looking for efficient 'enough' speakers. I mean, my amp has 150wpc in pentode mode so what might be the problem? Woofers. But there are efficient speakers with built-in class D amplifiers that release the burden of your fine tube gear playing full range. Let the tube gear focus on the mids and tweets where the majority of the music lives.
Maybe I'll find out one day.
|
@bdp24 I'm appreciating your comments and I've heard DeVore speakers and the SuperNines sounded awesome. There are so many excellent speakers available, so when I saw the price the speakers didn't make there way into my home.
To be fair there's a lot of excellent audio equipment my wallet has eliminated from consideration...
|
@wolf-garcia: Well whatta ya know, someone else who considers John DeVore a smug, sanctimonious kinda guy! I haven’t heard any of his speakers (which may sound great; Art Dudley, Ken Micallef, and Steve Guttenberg certainly thought/think so), but they sure don’t appear to be priced according to the industry-standard price-of-parts X 7. I guess DeVore considers his time much more valuable than that of mere mortals.
|
There are plenty of people enjoying their "hard to drive" speakers likely with no idea they’re hard to drive. They somehow managed to buy an amp that works (i.e. just about any decent amp)...for shame! Don’t they sit through endless egomaniac John DeVore youtube videos? (and maybe pay through the nose for a plywood box with 2 drivers because, hey man, it's 10 ohms) Or read every tedious tech review attached to Stereophile reviews? You mean they just sit there and enjoy music and have NO IDEA their speakers are horribly flawed? Wow man...what a shame...
|
|
I’ve generally been keen on having speakers that are higher sensitivity.
Recently, I built a pair of Seas coax speakers. 4 ohm, 80dB efficient.
Driving them with a 30w class A amp wit( a large power supply
Not where my sonic interests are - or so I thought.
These things sound amazing!
Don’t get me wrong. I very much want to build a 15” 100dB coax set up in a coffin sized box, drive them with a SET. But, that’s not an option at the moment. And these low sensitivity speakers have shown me just how good inefficient speakers can sound when powered accordingly.
Im less reluctant to consider difficult speakers after listening to these for the past several months.
|
Pretty much any speaker will PLAY with lower power, but also most good speakers, even "efficient" ones, will sound better with more power (this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reproduction chain, of course; "loud" does not mean "accurate", obviously..
Anyway, Maggies will play OK with low power, but if you want the MOST out of them, more is better,and there is no thing such as "too much" unless you have an amp that misbehaves. I would guess that is true with any "inefficient" speaker.
Match your hardware to your speakers. Low "watt" tube amps/integrated will drive your "efficient" speakers nicely, I am sure. ARC makes a couple, as do others, I am sure.
Cheers!
|
To reject hard to drive speakers would be to reject many a great sounding speaker. Some speakers that appear hard to drive from a quick glance at basic specs, turns out they are easier to drive than first thought. All depends on where the dips in impedance exist, among other parameters/measurements take the JBL 4309’s for instance....they look to be a difficult load @ 4 ohms and 87 db...however , in real world listening conditions, they are seemingly a pretty easy speaker to drive, based on most positive reviews I’ve read about them.
|
I believe it all depends on what the listener wants and is looking for. I have not found an amp that cannot drive my Lascalas, but the quality and characteristics of each amp leaves me to prefer one over the other. I had AR9s, DQ10s, Kappa 9s, Gale 401s, panels, and many other hard to drive speakers. I had many an amp that could drive them without clipping, but they all failed ( the speakers ) in the dynamics department. Like I said, it is up to the listener to select what suits him / her best. Always, MrD.
|
@erik_squires You are probably 100% correct. Clearly we like gear so this will continue. Maggies are the one hard to drive speaker that I make exception for.
|
In the literature for his Eminent Technology LFT-8 loudspeaker, designer Bruce Thigpen states he can make his LFT driver any impedance he wants, and chose 11 ohms (when implemented in his LFT-8 loudspeaker, the complete speaker---with dynamic woofer---becomes an 8 ohm load). That’s why the LFT-8 is a better choice for tube amp lovers than Maggies (at least in terms of the issue of impedance). Maggies are a 3-4 ohm loudspeaker, not good for most tube amps (the Music Reference RM-200 being a notable exception). I cite Maggies and the LFT-8 together as both are planar-magnetic loudspeakers.
However, both the ET LFT-8 and Maggies are very low in sensitivity. The older Maggies (.6 series) could be bi-amped, a good way to address low sensitivity: use a brute force amp on the woofer, a refined one on the midrange and high frequency drivers. .7-series Maggies can not be bi-amp, at least not without internal surgery (the crossovers are series, unlike the parallel used in the .6-series). The LFT-8 can easily be bi-amped (it comes fitted with separate woofer and LFT panel binding posts).
|
Measurements from a reputable source always help. Most makers do not overdo the specifications for fear of either confusing people or scaring them off. It’s just the way it is.
Again it’s a different ballgame these days for those willing to use Class D amps. Freedom of choice rules. That and reliable measurements. The more the merrier. I’ve read of some supposedly easy to drive speakers that turned out not to be. A good rule is the smaller and more bass extended the less easy they are likely to be. Fritz speakers are the ones I know of that go to great extremes to provide an easy load but they are not very “efficient”.
|
I am pretty happy with Dynaudio. I find them OK with 50 Watts.
|
I don't know what percentage of high-end speakers are considered 'hard-to-drive' but I think it's a shame one would want to exclude them simply for watts. You might be missing 'your speaker', disqualifying it needlessly.
These days (like computer memory) good sounding watts don't have to break the bank. There are very good A/B and D amps out there for speakers wanting watts.
Like many (most?) others my system is designed around loudspeakers. To me, they are the single most important component in any musical reproduction system, and the most different sounding, when compared to electronics, especially. (I guess you could design a system around a CD transport if you wanted to take it there.)
But if you did buy hard-to-drive, lean-sounding speakers, huge tube amps might break the bank if that's your only out... And personally, most all of the extremely high-efficient designs sound a bit too analytical for me. Warming up the sound with a high distortion little tube amp is humorous (and I've owned tubes as well).
|
I also see this problem kind of hidden in reviews. Something like this:
Speaker xxx was clearly able to discern the difference between amp A and amp b so it must be very resolving.
It wasn't at all very resolving, or discerning. It was demanding.
|
I personally have. Dynaudios are hard to drive, I don't buy them anymore, even though they are very high quality. Hard to drive speakers aren't fun at low volumes.
|
yes Erik, the manufacturer providing false information is a very different issue than knowingly buying difficult speakers and not being prepared...
|
...speakers need a warning label, like cigarettes and alcohol?
WARNING: THESE UNITS MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR POWER AMPLIFIER(S) AND YOUR BANK ACCOUNT!
Would this stop anyone?
Not likely....
|
If you buy stuff that doesn’t work well together, guess who’s fault it is ?
If a speaker is rated at 4 ohms but is actually a 2 Ohm speaker that is not the buyer's fault.
My point isn't about whose fault anything is. It's about what we venerate. "ooooooh, a half ohm speaker which needs a super amp... I must be mas macho if I get this working!"
|
IMO, electrostatic speakers are worth it. Very worth it. Like, never imagined recorded music could sound like this, worth it. ...
...
Good news is that class D amps are improving quickly. I’m auditioning a D-Sonic M3a-1200s, based on the Pascal LPro2. Jury still out. ..
This is an interesting topic I hope to revisit again in a few more years. My local dealer still in business after 53 years is a Soundlab dealer. He’s an all-tube guy. No longer carries any SS amps. Have heard my larger tube amps on super large Soundlabs there. Not sure it was enough amplification, hard to say. Always wondered how some of the larger Soundless would sound paired with highly developed Class-D AGD or Purify based amps. Following closely next few years as this unfolds a little more.
Not yet, but If I ever pick up a pair of really great Class-D monos down the road, I'm gonna bring them to the local shop and see if he'll give it a go on the electrostats.
|
If you buy stuff that doesn’t work well together, guess who’s fault it is ?
|
No-one’s ’idolising’ speakers that are hard to drive.
I think the real answer is between everyone and no one. The implicit situation set up is "well, it’s a demanding speaker, and it’s my fault for not having an amp up to it."
It’s like an implication there is something wrong with the audiophile if he doesn’t have mega amps. Why don't we instead say "there's something wrong with the designer of this speaker if they rate these 2 ohm speakers at 4 Ohms and expect us to fix their bad design?"
|
@erik_squires No-one's 'idolising' speakers that are hard to drive. It's just that many of the best-sounding full-range speakers are hard to drive. Unfortunate fact. Something to do with the difficulty of finding free lunches?
|
@nevada_matt Absolutely, and I'm mostly there. *G* 👍 Some tyding up to do, but...
Born and vaguely bred in S/W grater LA, Long Breach. *L* Backed into audio by way of shortwave/amateur radio, because it always sounded Better in the other room....;)
Long strange trip later, Here. My excuse, stuck with it in allways.
Speakers 1st, my vote. Why & How? It's complicated....*G*
|
When in 1974 I read Ivor Tiefenbrun’s philosophy of the hierarchy of a hi-fi system being that the first component in the chain is the most important, the second is the second most important, etc. etc. etc., I knew he was full of sh*t. OF COURSE the second can only reproduce the signal it receives from the first (garbage in/garbage out), but there’s more to it than that simplistic, obvious fact. One astute UK reviewer (Ken Kessler?) mockingly proposed a system composed of a Linn table/arm/cartridge, Naim pre-amp and power amp, and a string leading to a pair of tin cans for speakers. Get it? ;-)
Pickups/cartridges and loudspeakers---being transducers---are FAR more variable in sound than are, for instance, pre-amps. And loudspeakers sound RADICALLY different from one another. Power amps? Not nearly as much. Choosing your loudspeaker first, and then finding a good power amp to drive them, is obviously the correct (okay, best) way to assemble a system. To do the opposite is just ridiculous. IMO, of course. ;-)
Recording engineers choose their microphones for each mic’s particular sound characteristics. And what is a microphone? Why it’s a transducer, of course (mics operates in exactly the opposite way as do pickups/cartridges). If you think the engineer’s mixing console (electronics) is more responsible for the sound of his recordings than are his microphones, may I respectfully suggest that you don’t know sh*t? No offense intended.
|
"Hard to process software programs" - I have never heard such a thing
|
The market is pretty efficient at selecting products folks buy or don’t. How would you propose increasing the rejection rate of hard to drive speakers?
Isn’t this a hobby for enjoying and can anyone else really judge the best speakers for someone else?
|
My speakers are highly inefficient, but very easy to drive with Sunfire amp. Will that work for Hifi?
|
meh.
Some audiophiles are "amp first" seekers, others are "speaker first" seekers.
If you are an "amp first" audiophile and in love with lower powered amps, that will limit your choices.
If you are "speaker first" then your choices are mostly wide open for speakers. You get the speaker you like, choose the amp that will drive them.
|
Damn @ericsch, again! I too got a C-26, along with the MC2100, which was the version of the 2105 without meters. $499 vs. $649, iirc. $150 doesn’t sound like much now, but back then I guess it was! From there is was onward and upward: an ARC SP-3 and D-51 and D-75 amps, with Maggie Tympani’s. By 1972 Sound Systems was no longer pushing SAE and Infinity, but rather the hipper ARC and Magneplanars.
Yeah, San Francisco was (is?) a great town for seeing live music (but then so are L.A., NYC, and Austin). I saw the first appearances of Cream, Hendrix, and Jeff Beck, plus all the old guys Bill Graham booked into his venues, like Albert King.
With my musical tastes I kinda wished my Dad had stayed at Lockeed Aircraft in Van Nuys (he transferred to Lockheed Missiles & Space in Sunnyvale)---I then coulda seen Buffalo Springfield, Love, and all the other SoCal groups/bands emerging at the same time the hippie bands were up North. I saw The Dead and Airplane in ’67, but they’re not really my kinda thing.
|
@bdp24 Yes, it was Sound Systems, a really nice shop. From reading your posts, we were living in the bay area about the same time. Winterland, Fillmore, Avalon Ballroom, etc.
I traded the Infinity's in for SAE speakers, also not very efficient. Then moved on to a Mac C-26 and a Crown amplifier, couldn't afford the matching Mac 2105.
|
@ericsch: Small world! In 1071 I heard the 2000A at the same shop in Palo Alto: Sound Systems was it's name. They were running all their speakers (including the Infinity Servo-Static I's) with SAE electronics.The 2000A used a number of the wonderful RTR ESL tweeters, and were far more transparent that the AR 3a and Rectilinear III's I had been considering. I didn't have the $$$ for the 2000A, so got the 1001 instead. A year later I heard the Magneplanar Tympani T-I (also at Sound Systems) powered by ARC electronics, and it was a new world ;-) .
|
@erik_squires
Your reference to hard to drive Infinity Speakers brings back memories of my first "high end" purchase. In the early 70's I was at a hi-fi store in Palo Alto. They had the Infinity 2000A Electrostatic speakers (4 Ohm) on display playing a Cat Stevens album. To my young and naive ears they sounded spectacular. I don't know what amplifier they were using, but it was probably top quality, better than my Sherwood receiver at 60 watts a channel. I scraped up the money and bought the Infinity's. They sounded great even though my Sherwood was probably struggling to drive them. About a year later I traded them in, the speaker's power cords were quite inconvenient in my small apartment.
|
@ghdprentice
My Acoustat Model X’s come with forty watt mono blocks that have more than enough oomph to power them full bandwidth and with a crossover set at 100 hz, and a sub or two, it’s crazy good!
|
Since I got the Hegel H390, I haven’t found a speaker it can’t drive, but I really can’t speak for the thousands of speakers I haven’t tried yet.
|
Over the last 40 or so years I have found that I gravitate towards low efficiency speakers with silk tweeters. Those sound best to me. Yes, it is sometimes a pain to get a good match for these as they require gobs of current, but at the same time that is where the ‘magic’ lies to my ears.
I also realize that this was most likely click-bait, but a fun topic none-the-less.
It is good that we are now in a time when we have almost limitless choices in this hobby. The downside is that there are relatively few places any longer to go to hear these choices.
Enjoy the music everyone, and have a good weekend.
|
