Many varied factors come in to play. A well designed high efficiency speaker has the inherent advantage of increasing the pool of usable amplifiers. This opens the door for the inclusion of low power(high quality) amps such as SET,DHT-push pull, first watt etc. These types of amps with an appropriate speaker can sound fantastic. A good high efficiency speaker in general tends to be very dynamic and immediate even at moderate/lower listening levels. Just as with the less efficient speakers, some are better implemented than others. |
Ptmconsulting, that was very well said, and two good examples. Proper amp/speaker matching is a fundamental key to sucessful system building. |
Mapman`s analogy ignores that obvious fact that those portable devices are built to a price point and meant for very affordable(cheap!) entertainment purposes. The truth is within all speaker catagories there exist a hierarchy of performance. Some low efficiency speakers are wonderful and some poor sounding, same with higher efficiency models.
The goods news is there`s room in high end audio for us all. Now on the other hand, tubes vs solid state.... |
Is it really necessary to achieve potentially hearing damaging levels of 100db and higher to fully enjoy one`s home audio system? I don`t believe people have to mimic ultra high and uncomfortable sound pressure if they have a reasonably quality system with very good musicality and resolution(and want good hearing a few years down the road). |
Unsound,
High efficiency speakers may(or may not) be more difficult to implement sucessfully, but fortunately there are enough of them available that it`s a viable option for many. They sure work for me. |
"But,to each his own"
Triode , words of wisdom. The low power amp/high efficiency combination seems to more sucesfully present the flesh and blood, living breathing presence that`s so convincing. This ability to consistently create such realism is what pull me over to this genre.(is it the much simpler circuits and fewer parts?). Trumpets,pianos,saxaphones and human voice is simply much closer to what I hear at live performances, the palpable reproduction is stunning at times. YMMV. |
Hi,
Weseixas, basd on your example of the two systems above, the horn/SET 20watt wouuld have much more available headroom (dynamic reserve)than the inefficient system. At 15 feet(roughly 5 meters) to achieve a sound level of 94db the horn/SET would require 4 watts, the planer/200 w system would need 128 watts. 5 divided by 20 is a much smaller % of available power rhan 128/200w, thus far more reserve headroom for the higher efficiency system.
Best Regards, |
Grannyring,
We`re in agreement, I`m just expressing my personal experiences as you are yours, we`ve just found different routes. If you`re as pleased with your music as I am then we`re both very happy. |
Would any builders of horns care to comment? I don`t believe horns lose 6db per 1 meter at all, 3db is the correct value. |
Grannying,
Thanks for the kind comments, I have equal admiration for your system(Dude and Sound Labs, nice). The bass performance in my system is very good although a 300b SET is`nt the final solution for bass freaks of rock and electronica,hip-hop etc.The Frankenstein amps do acoustic jazz bass and classical bass/cello in a very gratifying manner with much speed,articulation and texture. There`s natural bloom and warmth without crossing the line into fat,bloated and sloppy characteristics.Of course my speaker`s 94 db efficiency and 14 ohm load make for a good match with 8 watts of power. |
JohnK,
I would love to hear your informed opinion. I`m no speaker designer nor an engineer, but I just don`t believe weseixas`s numbers are accurate in the horn/planar comparison. At least they don`t match what I have heard in my experiences concerning sound pressure(not comparing sound quality issues). |
It seems the popularity and proliferation of low efficiency speakers can be traced to the advent of transistor amplifiers. Speaker builders were`nt compelled to take the time/skill required to design high quality high efficient speakers, instead you could just continue to make ever more powerful SS amps to compensate. The SS approach was muh cheaper than relying on tubes. Need 200,400 or 600 watts to drive a particular speaker? No problem, how about 1000 or 2000 watts(as with class D amps currently). The motivation in this direction was`nt purely in the direction for better sound or realistic reproduction of music as the objective. |
Hi,
Unsound, Yes I believe you understand my point,With the delvelopment of solid state power amplifiers it became possible to offer to the marketplace much higer power for considerably less money. Tube amplifiers that could yield 150 watts or higher were far more costly circa 1960s-1970s. This provided the option to build low efficiency speakers as now there were alternatives to costly high power tube amps.
Whether these speakers were "better" or not is subjective, some were fine and others were`nt.(variable results for sure). My point is that speaker builders were no longer held to a restriction in regards to efficency limits, as the era of available SS power(transistor technology) made that concern moot. One could simply build and market ever more watts to meet the demand of increasingly power hungry speakers.
Thanks, |
Grannyring,
No ono`s denies that very good sounding inefficient speakers exist(certainly not me) just as there are very good high efficiency speakers. The mass market/mainstream production of early transistor amps was a major impetus for increasing the number of inefficient speaker being made. We both agreed in earlier post that there`re multiple routes of reaching one`s sonic fulfillment. You`re happy with 600watt amps driving the Sound Labs, I`m happy with 8 watts driving Coincidents. It`s a big boat with plenty of room for us all. |
David12,
Very well expressed post, I imagine your system sounds very natural and emotionally involving. Enjoy! |
Unsound,
It`s clear you have found an audio niche that satisfies your taste, High power amps with NFB mated to inefficient speakers, be happy. Others find this type of approach less than appealing and inferior. Thus they will prefer another pathway. We get it unsound, we really do get it. |
Hi Unsound,
I don`t need or seek confirmation for my preferences and I hope this is also true in your case. I`m sure we both agree there`re numerous ways to achieve good home audio.
You just seem to be on some sort of crusade, if I`m mistaken, my sincere apologies.
Best Regards, |
