How important is the efficiency of a speaker to you?

Can we say then that efficiency in speakers is not the #1 goal?  That the idea that dynamic range is improved or noise floor is changed due to speaker efficiency alone is simply not true?  While there may be examples that support this idea, there are far too many exceptions to make this speaker efficiency issue a universal need?

Brad

Efficiency is not important to me in that good quality full range efficient speakers are large and bulky. Large and bulky is the last thing I need. My goal has been to downsize. Otherwise, some of my favorite speakers sound wise are very large, very bulky, very expensive and very efficient. Think large horns for example. Wonderful stuff done right but not where I am going practically. There is a very practical reason why most speakers sold are smaller and correspondingly less efficient. They too can sound very good especially with modern advances in amplification and most people have limited room and don’t want to have to deal with large heavy and bulky speakers. Some do though and more power to them.

PS: Would love to have a pair of Klipshorns, at least in theory. 

@atmasphere well said as usual

@lonemountain everything in the hifi hobby requires evaluating a set of tradeoffs. What "this" you may be willing to trade off for "that" is a personal decision but make no mistake, we each must make a decision of what we are willing to give up in order to get what we value most (and will miss the least).

For me, I prefer no negative feedback and appreciate the delicacy, dynamics, tone and texture that many find in single ended amplification and the speakers that showcase that. YMMV but to describe "limp noodle" as your definition of a given topology leads me to believe you haven't likely heard it done properly.

Many can find what they are after but being open minded helps.

 That the idea that dynamic range is improved or noise floor is changed due to speaker efficiency alone is simply not true?  

@lonemountain  In a word, No. The physics of how voice coils work is the problem.

While there may be examples that support this idea, there are far too many exceptions to make this speaker efficiency issue a universal need?

There really aren't that many exceptions! ESLs are the only speaker that might not be all that efficient but do not suffer thermal compression because they do not use voice coils.

There are attempts to get around the thermal compression problem with lower efficiency speakers, such as vented pole pieces and the like. The incentive is high because lower efficiency speakers are a lot cheaper to make.

For me, I prefer no negative feedback and appreciate the delicacy, dynamics, tone and texture that many find in single ended amplification and the speakers that showcase that.

@ghasley Many amplifiers have troubles with how their feedback is applied (I can explain what the issues are if you're interested). If you get to hear an amp were its done properly, you might have occasion to rethink this.

@atmasphere wrote:

The issue is that most amps made using feedback, which includes high power solid state amps, is that the output transistors usually limit the design's Gain Bandwidth Product, resulting in a loss of feedback at high frequencies (depending on how much loop gain is asked of the design). The result is distortion rising with frequency, which seems to be more audible than the actual distortion spectra created by the amp. Class D offers a way around this problem.

Dependency and "seems to be" - as a technical observation I don't see how it holds an absolute correlation with regard the sonic outcome of SS amps in each and every case and high efficiency speaker combination, and to which degree? Relevance, magnitude and context (in my case also: active configuration) is obviously very important.

The issue here is that a lot of higher efficiency speakers are designed for amps with a higher output impedance.

Wouldn't the design of high efficiency drivers reflect more than a limited range of amp designs of their day? It borders on an anachronistic view, I find, holding that high eff. speakers of more modern/recent years (going back decades, really) should bring about the most favorable sonic outcome with tube amps predominantly. Myself I would be careful not to link local preferences of high eff. speaker designs combined with tube amps as anything that has a strict relation to or foundation in a technical explanation. Mostly preference is just preference (i.e.: highly subjective), but I'm sure many would jump to the gun, so speak, with a technical reference to validate their perceived findings in this regard.  

Such amps try to make constant power rather than constant voltage; this is not a myth.

My context of debunking that myth was in relation to the compatibility of high efficiency speakers and SS amps, sonically speaking. 

The Power Paradigm is what was around before MacIntosh and EV started promoting higher feedback in the mid 1950s so as to cause their amps to behave as a Voltage source, allowing plug and play. You might want to read this article for more information.

Interesting, and informative article. Offering technical insight it must also come to acknowledge that what is advocated here can as well be counteracted perceptively, if nothing else by the myriad intricacies of a context:

Any audiophile will agree that the most valuable thing they have with respect to their audio system is their own hearing.