2. speakers
  3. 163075-147550

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
johnk's avatar
johnk
1,973 posts
 
Large size costs more in all ways more to build, ship, store more materials used more finish applied. It's just the way it is. Size is one of the most costly parts of horns.
jasonbourne52's avatar
jasonbourne52
2,863 posts
 
Quad 57's still sound more like real music than most of today's overpriced offerings! I own two pairs! 
jasonbourne52's avatar
jasonbourne52
2,863 posts
 
And still a formidable contender in the small box category is the BBC LS3/5A! I have a pair of Rogers 11 ohm's. 
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,841 posts
 
a systems engineering approach should always compare the output with the input, including impulse response. Sure a hyper well executed high efficiency driver using best available materials, engineering, machining, etc are expensive. I think any reputable end speaker company designing own drivers, even semi custom w Scanspeak, are similar $$$$$. Some of those take into consideration that output is not a measure of quality.

I also believe, no designer should ignore ear brain. Many just sell distortion we like. Flavorizers.....

sure, the holy grail is low mass, breakup far from the passband, pistonic, with super high strength motors and high duty cycle....nothing has changed....

also, as an ESL owner, I think about the sonic impact of transformers and edge clamping distortion as well as energy storage in the panel....ain’t no free lunch

glad the conversation has returned to civility....
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,128 posts
 
No free lunches indeed. There are those who'd like to sell the idea that big means much more expensive, but to them boutique, often vintage drivers with field coil or alnico magnets in addition to luxury, hand-build finishes is the only validating entry into the high efficiency arena. Their (affiliated) business, obviously, but NOT representative of what's possible with high efficiency and large size at more reasonable prices that can as well produce great sound.

The real non-free lunch here is size (and the product segment typically associated with that), as we're seeing considerable expense being shelled out already for a speaker package not much larger than a meager shoebox. Sound is physics, meaning displacement and efficiency is irreplaceable as that which accommodates truer dynamic envelope, low distortion and ease - core parameters into what is perceived authentic as a live event, yet they're wildly neglected for above reasons; not price, but size predominantly and the product narrative that follows here. Last but not least: live sound mayn't be that big of a draw after all..
More to discover