Downside of sensitivity?

audiokinesis2,577 posts05-21-2006 11:05pmI think Sean covered the issue quite well.

In my opinion the single biggest downside to high efficiency is that you will need a bigger box to get the same bass extension. If you want the advantages of high efficiency (improved dynamic contrast, for instance) you either have to live with a bigger box, reduced bass extension, a powered bass section (built-in or as a separte subwoofer), or corner speaker placement.

Duke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, back in  the days of 2006, wide band had issues reproducing the lower hz's and also roll off on the highs. 
Now these rolloff issues have been addressed in some of the newer (starting in 2010!!!! just 4 years after your post) wide band designs. 

If the bass is still not enough, the solution is quite simple, by  adding  a  Seas  W22 Graphene /but for even more  rock solid bass, add  a  Scan Speak $1k EACH  monsta midwoofer. 
  
My hunch is the  bass for my musical needs/classical,  and near field listening/small room will be more than adequate from a  single driver speaker. 

Small loudspeakers are highly compromised designs the bologna of audiophile products. Designed just as much as sound quality to fit a certain num on a pallet. More effort goes into making a small marketable product as does sound quality considerations. The consumer is told large is bad in modern design. But when dealing with wave reproduction small just doesn't cut it we hamstring our loudspeaker designs by making them overly small and requiring much power to function. This heats up VC causing listening fatigue small bass systems have much higher distortion, large sensitive loudspeakers do not suffer from such but can be large, and large is not a design problem it's the way it should be.

@johnk I think you pretty well summed it up. If you really want full range and lifelike sound you’ve got to be willing to accommodate the physical size requirements necessary to facilitate it naturally. Otherwise, you’re reduced to trying to bludgeon it out of suboptimal boxes.

Speakers are very subjective. I personally like speakers that are efficient, 93dB/watt@1m or greater. Concentric or coaxial mounted drivers best, 2nd is vertically aligned drivers as close together as possible. Only one driver for the tweeter frequencies, 8kHz. or higher.

fiesta75473 posts07-02-2021 2:23pmSpeakers are very subjective. I personally like speakers that are efficient, 93dB/watt@1m or greater. Concentric or coaxial mounted drivers best, 2nd is vertically aligned drivers as close together as possible. Only one driver for the tweeter frequencies, 8kHz. or higher.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

have to agree, although it is a bit ofa  oddity. 
Subjective-ity.
But its true
Some folks like xover designs.
They have no interest at all in wide band.

Whereas for me, its always been a  search for what will voice classical the best. 
It took some time, But I finally   made the FR/wide band/high sensitivity discovery, 
Its in my nature to seek and explore. 
While others here, xovers til the end. 
I prefer wide band /FR  vs  concentric and any other high sens type design. 

Yes cutoff point is 92db/93db. 
91db is too low for my music. In spite of the fact I have a  100watt channel tube amp, 
Yeah I know complete overkill.
Xover designs rarely go above 91db. Seas Thors are a  miserable 87db. World calss drivers, but dated as far as sens issues. 
I think high sens will be the new thing in the near future. Just have to EDU folks about this superior design.