What is your take on high efficient speakers vs. low efficient speakers?
Consider both designs are done right and your other equipment is well matched with the speakers. Do you have any preference when it comes to sound quality? Is it matter of economic decision when it comes to price? - power amps can become very expensive when power goes up, on the other hand large, efficient speakers are expensive as well. Is your decision based on room size? I'd love to hear from you on the subject.
Few bring up high efficiency subs from a point of home experience, probably because they take up too much space (i.e.: Hoffmann’s Iron Law), and yet others seem not to believe high eff. down into the lower octaves is even possible. Well, it is, and there’s no way around indeed very large size here.
What may surprise some is that despite being highly efficient, many if not most such subs still require sturdy, very high power amplifiers to properly run the typically large diameter woofers with big voice coils and relatively heavy cones. Depending on how these drivers are loaded in their specific designs could mean yet another factor that stresses the amplifier, so that even at lower SPL’s it becomes obvious whether a given amp controls the woofer/design properly. I recently went from a 500W/8 ohm class I (iteration of class D) power amp driving my tapped horn subs to a 1.3kW/8 ohm class TD ditto, and with 97dB sensitivity one would gather no more than around ~20W would be necessitated for general use, making such a swap/power upgrade seem meaningless.
However, the fact of the matter is that the more powerful/different amp is able to have the woofers of the TH subs resonate the horn much more effectively, which is clearly audible/sensed at quite low SPL’s. Turn up the volume and that sensation is viscerally magnified, so much so that one quickly realizes the intimidating (and thrilling) power such a design is capable of.
Is it all all bonkers then - why such a powerful combo of high eff., extension down to 20-25Hz (at full tilt) and a bucket load of power to boot? Because it sounds so utterly effortless, smooth, inherently powerful and immersive at any desired SPL, but not least also at more "sane" and even low playback levels. Many an audiophile isn’t aware of that. Moreover, when the bass is so clean it means that it can (and should) be dialed higher in gain, because less clean and too conspicuous sounding bass is usually dialed lower and in fact too low for it to have proper fullness and presence in the sonic presentation.
Ralph, your master tapes have the properties of high rez. I plug instruments and mics ( mixer / pre / amp ) using a pair of Lascalas, and these sources have greater dynamic range than all my recordings. I do not restrict myself listening to only the technically best pressings / recordings, as many folks do, and I know many. A great YT video by Guttenberg today, and he is so on the money......about music listening. My best !
y’all understand distortion counts as output..in the overly simplistic efficiency measurement…. right ?
Overly simplistic? Nah , I think people recognize that it is just providing a generalization of the lower power demands of higher sensitivity speakers. People get that. Very little distortion concerns if a 5 watt amp is only providing fractions of 1watt of power at desired SPLs. Well within the low watt amplifier’s sweet spot.
@charles1dad, it is not the amplifier distortion…. take another run at it…. with equal moving mass and motor a pistonic cone has lower output…..why is that ?
Okay, I have no idea what this is in reference to.
Ralph - while i respect your experience, you are certainly not the only audio designer deeply involved in hearing , recording, and evaluating the playback of the original acoustic event in order to evaluate efforts….
@charles1dadit is not the amplifier distortion…. take another run at it…. with equal moving mass and motor a pistonic cone has lower output…..why is that ?
We are all basing our opinions and experiences using " reproduced / recorded " music. As I have said many times, this alone, creates many challenges for us as listeners. It boils down to the specifics of what YOU want your favorite performers to sound like, in your own listening room.
@mrdecibelNo, we're not all basing our opinions that way! In my case I base my opinions on having been at the recording session, have the master tapes and know exactly how they are supposed to sound.
So are I've yet to hear a lower efficiency speaker that brings out the dynamic character properly in these recordings. Not saying its not out there, but clearly such a beast is in a dramatic minority.
@tannoy56 Music listening, imo, is a very " personal subject ", and yes, experience might play a part in putting a successful system together. What have I learned over the years ?.....We are all seeking " our own " musical truth, which is easily shown here on this thread. There is a vast majority of gear available to enlighten our ears / brain, and an even broader range of what we all listen for. What is most important, ime, is finding what is enjoyable " to me ". Music listening is a major part of my life. You have heard the saying " an apple a day ".....well for me, " listening an hour a day ". Enjoy ! MrD.
@Mrdecible Mrd. Does that means that the audio speakers/systems are equally great just because we like them, and how do you extrapolate the fact that some audiophiles have exponentially longer experience? Some have learned from casual listening here and there and others from numerous encounters ,with different systems, in their own homes: some have learned from the very top end systems and others not so; some can hear and interpret the sound way better than others; some have more exposure to live music and others have less; some have extensive collection of LP’s, discs or even master tapes and others no so. I hope you get my drift. The point is - although, it is great that one might enjoy the sound they hear, it doesn’t make them equally qualified to become an experts at high fidelity. Otherwise, why bother have a forum like this? I like this he likes that, let’s all be happy because we enjoy what we hear. That cannot be right , it’s got to be a better, more objective way, which I believe we have already, but no one wants to listen.
@larryi agree for 100% , i mention in my early post regarding high-efficincy --dont go down. Big size drivers included the very best 15’ Tannoy got much higher resonance to compare heavy cone with rubber surround. . Dont use Sub. We find solution to use high eff. 10 "light paper woofer with fabric surround and another 10" woofer with rubber surround and build in amp ( active) to cover 24-80hz . If anybody lost chance to listen in NY , they can listen in CAF this year.
We are all basing our opinions and experiences using " reproduced / recorded " music. As I have said many times, this alone, creates many challenges for us as listeners. It boils down to the specifics of what YOU want your favorite performers to sound like, in your own listening room. Debating on these threads, simply shows how different we all are as listeners. Every system....every part of every system ( room being critical ), will be taxed in some way....great in some areas, and just ok in others. This is why so many listeners I communicate with, only listen to greatly recorded music ( things like Sheffield Labs, just as an example ). We make the decision of what we like, what we want, and how we think it should sound. My system allows me to " forget " the system, and creates a connection between me, and who I am listening to. On another thread, Ron Carter was mentioned, and there were three points R.C. discussed as being very important for his reproduction of his system. # 1 : was to allow him to hear the sound of the studio space; # 2 : was to allow him to hear the sound of the live venue; # 3 : was to allow him to hear his " playing " of his instrument. For me, number 3 is ALL about our pursuit of musical enjoyment. Whatever works for you......Enjoy ! Always, MrD.
Johnk is not wrong. High efficiency speakers are much more dynamic sounding, at least in part, because they suffer less from thermal compression. When playing at any given level, the higher efficiency speaker will be passing much less current and the voice coil will not be heating up as much as is the case with a low efficiency speaker. That heating of the wire causes an increase in the resistance of the wire, which means, when there is an even stronger current that is suppose to flow, the amount that can flow is reduced and not proportionate to what is supposed to flow. This results in compression (less than proportionate increase in the current flowing and the resulting movement of the diaphragm).
The increase in dynamics of high efficiency horn systems is evident even at quite low volume levels. In fact, I tend to find that it is MOST evident when playing music at modest levels--high efficiency systems sound more lively.
Low-eff designs can suffer from dynamic and power compression. It's not possible for those designs to replicate the natural dynamic range that real music has and if you play those designs at a higher SPL level many have power compression. If you can deal with reduced dynamic range and need a small speaker maybe low-eff is for you. If you enjoy the dynamics that real music has and want freedom from power compression at higher SPL levels and can deal with a larger loudspeaker then hi- eff most likely is best for you.
I had Usher speakers with proper amplification. I enjoyed the sound but they had to be played at a moderate to high volume to provide full sound, proper bass. I now have Tekton speakers and find the sound full, with proper bass at lower volume.
inna wrote: "Bass gives a foundation. This is a very big disadvantage of high efficiency design. "
I respectfully beg to differ. My fully horn loaded DIY speakers have a measured output at 25 Hz that is identical to the 1kHz reference. There is an 18sdB/octave roll off below 25 Hz. This is accomplished with Bill Fitzmaurice designed HT Tuba folded corner horns which have a sensitivity of about 103 or 104 dB/2.83v/meter.
Some members seem to advocate whether high efficiency speakers are better or not. Sonics is my priority not speaker efficiency. I only address speaker efficiency if it is required/driven by a sonic goal- wanting to hear flea watt 300b tube amp magic which would necessitate a very efficient speaker.
High efficiency speakers aren’t necessarily better, but high eff. in itself can have a significant advantage going for it that impacts (or is brought to realization by) a range of factors like size, driver types, acoustic transformation and dispersion characteristics, and this in turn has sonic implications that’s also about ’different’ rather than just better/worse. It’s not like we have two pair of speakers that look exactly alike with the same drivers and all and a similar frequency response with the one pair being low eff. and the other high eff. Comparing high eff. speakers with low eff. dittos comes with several factors "interfering" that are linked to high eff., but extracting high eff. from that "equation" would seem to shortchange the bigger picture of what’s involved and that has significance sonically.
A very high eff. speaker system over its entire spectrum with a wide frequency range (say, down to 20Hz) will by necessity be large to indeed very large and horn-loaded (its total size depending on the specific implementation of the upper bass to midrange horn in particular). If well implemented and given proper horn size and acoustic surroundings (i.e.: mostly about size also), such an all-horn system to my ears potentially is in a very different league compared to smaller, low eff. speakers, with a sound that’s much more akin to a live event presentation, be that acoustic or amplified. To some this quality mayn’t be of vital importance, nor may they be able to or don’t want to accommodate such a system in their surroundings (cost may also be a factor), but nevertheless these qualities are undeniable and on full display.
As with many things as well as high efficiency and its significance though, it depends.
In my experience, each pair of speakers that isn’t driven easily by 30 Watt amplifier - sounds too compressed to me.
That outcome is also very much dependent on the specific amplifier used. I’ve heard a very good 30W pure class amplifier drive a pair of notoriously heavy load S.P. Technology Revelation’s rather effortlessly, whereas coupling them to a pair of 200W NuForce monoblocks felt like those amps struggled by comparison - even though, on paper, they’d have a +6dB headroom advantage.
Which is also to say that the sensitivity rating is only a partial signifier; a complex passive cross-over can bring many a wattage proficient (but apparently PSU weak) amp to its knees, with the same amp performing closer to its full potential and rated specs presented to an easier load. A more load benign amp requires a sturdy, powerful PSU, and those things come at a cost.
On principle though we fully agree. A difficult to drive pair of speakers, likely due to the "load severe-ness" as caused by its XO, presents a significant problem to me that only highlights why I’d rather have it configured actively sans passive XO, but that’s another discussion. High eff. passively configured, heavy load speakers would likely prove less of a hassle to the amp given that it has more headroom to deal with a complex XO.
And it easy to explain. When you put dozens watts on speakers voice coil - it overheats that leads to very sever and clearly listened compression.
In practicality I’m inclined to believe thermal modulation (as term also used by poster @audiokinesis) is the more general problem, as this comes into effect with peak heat build-ups in voice coils (and XO?) with short term transients, that dulls the perceived transients somewhat. It seems this phenomenon is less a studied field, but it could explain with why transient snap sounds more convincing with high eff. speakers.
Not to say thermal compression isn’t an issue with low eff. speakers. Dynamic prowess and their fuller swings certainly takes a hit here.
Some members seem to advocate whether high efficiency speakers are better or not. Sonics is my priority not speaker efficiency. I only address speaker efficiency if it is required/driven by a sonic goal- wanting to hear flea watt 300b tube amp magic which would necessitate a very efficient speaker.
If the loudspeaker has a different nominal impedance than the volts needed to achieve a watt also changes. Some manufacturers calibrate their one watt to the different impedances. Other manufacturers stick with 2.83 volts regardless of impedance. This is why we need to be careful about reading specifications.
If we have a 4 ohm cabinet then 2.83 volts is actually 2 watts. As we have doubled the power the loudspeaker sensitivity will appear 3dB louder.
Is this fair?
Imagine that you have two loudspeakers. Both loudspeakers have a sensitivity of 100dB referenced to 2.83v at 8 ohms at 1 meter. Your black loudspeaker is an 8 ohm box and your white loudspeaker is a 4 ohm box. You put them both on a separate channel off the same amplifier and play some music. You hear that your white speaker is twice as loud. Should both these speakers have the same sensitivity in the spec?
We would argue that referencing to 2.83v is more honest than specifying a nominal 1w/1m. It makes it clearer what your input signal is.
Quick Reference
Please use the table below as a quick reference to help you compare sensitivity measurements calibrated to different values.
Is a speaker with 88db sensitivity at 8 ohms or an 88db sensitivity at 4 ohms more "efficient"?
Having listened to gear for 20 years and owned a variety of equipment, I tend to associate higher sensitivity with a brighter sound. I lean to lower-sensitivity speakers in general.
^^ Yes. The difference between sensitivity and efficiency specs is poorly understood. You have to do math to convert from one to the other unless the speaker impedance is 8 Ohms.
My Classic Audio Loudspeakers are 98dB and flat to 20Hz. They employ dual 15" woofers as well as field coils to reduce distortion and compression while increasing speed.
I guess one could even argue, given their 16-ohm load, that they're 101dB sensitive from the usual 8 ohm standard sensitivity is measured by. Not to mention that many speakers today are closer to a 4-ohm load, yet without being accurately reflected by their sensitivity rating..
I agree with Clear Thinker that it's a matter of what you like. I have three pairs of Maggies and swear by them - even though they're notoriously inefficient, The largest pair -- in a room which is 32' by 18' -- is drriven with an amp ofd 250 watts per channel -- loud enough to make the neighborhoods complain were in not for the fact that the house is deep in the woods.
The question: what is high sensitivity? Yes I agree. For real high sensitivity let say 98dB and up it is an issue.
My Classic Audio Loudspeakers are 98dB and flat to 20Hz. They employ dual 15" woofers as well as field coils to reduce distortion and compression while increasing speed.
I have a standing wave in the room that prevents bass impact at the listening chair. This issue was solved by the addition of a pair of Swarm subs asymmetrically placed in the room. I didn't run 4 subs because the main speakers go as low or lower than most subs. I used the Swarm subs because they are designed to be placed directly against the wall, inside the room boundary effect. This allows them to be more compact and out of the way; they are flat to 20Hz as well but not nearly as efficient, each using a single 10" driver. No troubles in the blend department though. No troubles with the WAF either :)
But, I have never heard these systems deliver really low bass at a high level.
+1 @larryi
High efficiency speakers are the only choice to use with flea watt amps and that’s what they are usually paired with. Since bass requires a lot of air to be moved, a significant amount of energy is required, don’t expect extended linear bass.
The low watt amps are usually tube amps favored for their seductive midrange harmonic magic.
Most high efficiency speakers tend to be colored, but I did manage to find and purchase relatively linear neutral Volti Rival 100db speakers driven by the magical sound of my 300B 8watt amps. I wanted the cleanest window into my foray into flea watt amps.
I avoid low efficiency speakers as that limits amplifier choices to considerably more power and cost.
My non-flea watt speaker choice have mainstream efficiency which I define to easily run on 100-250wpc amplifiers. This affords me the greatest choices when looking for upgrade bargains. Like my flea watt speakers, i also wanted linear neutral clean window. I have the Vimberg Mino D.
It’s just wrong to think that hi eff doesn’t do low bass I have bass horns that can bend doors and make your eyes resonate some I designed are used in military simulators to replicate explosions and gun fire. Just because in your limited experience you haven’t heard deep bass in hi eff doesn’t mean it’s not available. It just means you made major compromises in size.
Exactly, John. I expressed a similar view in my latest post on this thread page some two months ago, but it went to deaf ears/blind eyes, it seems.
It must be said though people don’t need +100cf. behemoths to experience high eff. bass to 20Hz. 21"-loaded high order bandpass subs with 100dB sensitivity will do honest 25Hz from a 16-17cf. volume, and my own tapped horns are 20cf. per cab @22Hz. Even so most audiophiles are likely to bark at such sub cab sizes, and so there’s only so much one can do.
But, I have never heard these systems deliver really low bass at a high level. I just don’t care that much that they don’t do subwoofer stuff and I don’t really like subwoofers in these sort of high efficiency systems. [...]
Which kinds of subs have you heard paired with high efficiency mains - low or high eff. subs (i.e.: smaller or very large subs)? I don’t find high eff. mains pair well with low eff. subs, they just don’t mesh properly. If however high eff. can be maintained across the whole range, another matter - given of course mandatory care taken with implementation. I prefer crossing fairly high to the subs, typically no lower than 80Hz, and with the mains high-passed accordingly - fully actively (mains + subs), if possible. That, to me, offers the best opportunity for a coherent, fully integrated presentation.
If on the other you’re perfectly OK sans subs, all is merry, though if you have yet to experience the right high eff. subs in conjunction with your mains I would say you’re potentially missing out on an extraordinary sonic meal. Pardon, I may be presumptuous..
I like Rolls Royce’s specification of horsepower in the old days: "Sufficient."
It's just wrong to think that hi eff doesn't do low bass I have bass horns that can bend doors and make your eyes resonate some I designed are used in military simulators to replicate explosions and gun fire. Just because in your limited experience you haven't heard deep bass in hi eff doesn't mean it's not available. It just means you made major compromises in size.
I use most all types of amplifiers inc SET with a 6-watt SET I have horns outputting a solid 30hz and getting room lock. Those dissing SET never used them or they SET their system up to fail.
I have heard quite a number of big, high efficiency systems running multiple 18" drivers (e.g., Western Electric M10, G.I.P. reproductions of M10, Goodman 18" permanent magnet and fieldcoil woofers) and they deliver the speed, impact, and tonality that I think are most important in such drivers. But, I have never heard these systems deliver really low bass at a high level. I just don't care that much that they don't do subwoofer stuff and I don't really like subwoofers in these sort of high efficiency systems. There are compromises in any kind of system one assembles, and these kinds of woofers deliver what matters to me. Do they measure impressively? I don't know or care. I like Rolls Royce's specification of horsepower in the old days: "Sufficient."
I use high sensitivity 100db speakers to explore flea watt amplifiers' midrange magic on voices and certain instruments. The amp is a 8wpc 300B.
I'm not fan of low sensitivity speakers.
For economic and the large number of choices (easier to find bargains), I like mainstream sensitivity floorstanders that can be easy driven by 100-300wpc, extended linear neutral across frequency spectrum, well defined extended bass, sparkling highs, satisfying midrange.
@tannoy56 you right about Tannoy 15" driver, this driver and also 15" JbL got very good bass response and good sensitivity, Bass is not go down like good sub. but still very good , especially punch bass, i can say this driver is exception from my post ,statement, i saw Scan Speak just came to market with new 15" Excellent driver with resonance 26 hz and 95dB, but still majority high sensivity LS based on 6.5" or 8 " drivers dont say true about low frequency and still need sub support
I am thankful for such an explicit section about the speakers. I just have joined the platform and I was looking for something exactly the same. Thank you again. 😊
Most driver manufacturers measure sensitivity while mounted in an anechoic chamber running 1000Hz.
That’s why it’s important to look at the entire F.R.
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.
