Is the most efficient speaker the best speaker?

Atmasphere, prove it.

"...--all other things being equal?"
Not bloody likely.

Even speakers with efficiency an of 100 dB/W in a typical setting, will require about 200 Watts per channel to achieve 120 dB. One would have to have an extremely large room to adequately contain 120 dB with any semblance of scale, and require much more power in such a room than the 200 Watts per channel suggested above. Such power levels from tubes come at quite an initial cost, continuing costs, and some inherent technological considerations. Most people have neither the space, disposable income or even feel the need for such a luxury. Please don't get me started on the consequences of having to listen to horns in the first place.

Charles1dad, with all due respect to Atmasphere, I'm confident that he was only referring to intermittent peak levels. On the one hand, I do agree with him that being able to replicate absolute live levels is a good thing, on the other hand, I agree with you, in the big scheme of things it doesn't seem like the highest priority for most of us.

The interesting thing to with regard to using speakers that offer an amp an easier ride to fixed current, is that it seems to be easier to make such a speaker with a steady low impedance and hence lower efficiency, than it is to do with a speaker with a higher impedance and hence higher efficiency.

I'm glad they work for you.

Touche'!
Some times one can use the basis of "all other things being equal", but I don't think it works at all for loudspeakers, not for the time being anyway.

...And allow more noise in.

Well, I suppose if we were to take this somewhat academic question literaly, both speakers would be equally dynamic and equally capable of the same level of noise rejection, and equally capable with the same amplification.

Weseixas, I think you might want to recalculate that.

Atmasphere, are you referring to some horn speakers you've heard that are so exclusive that I couldn't have possibly heard them?

Well, what are they then?

Atmsphere, of course that is only your opinion, many if not most, have come to the opposite conclusion.

Prove it.

Charles1dad, much of what you posted is correct, but, the perspective might be somewhat misconstrued. Yes, the advent of reliable, affordable high powered ss amplification more than 40 years ago, allowed more people to afford higher power amplification than was previously the case. It could also be argued that it permitted speaker designers greater freedom to design better speakers, than were previously viable, due to the previous constraints of the time.

Atmasphere, it was the last three paragraphs of the post addressed to Mapman on 6/29/11, that I was asking you to prove.

Atmasphere, please accept my appologies, the post was dated 7/1/11.

Timlub, thank you, but, I'm familiar with Atmasphere's article.

Magfan, I have one slight beef also. If one were to take away the bias, one could often reverse the positions, and perhaps to better effect.

Atmasphere, thank you for your thoughtful response. It's a bit late at night now, but I thought you deserved a speedy reply.

You have not offered any proof that: "Now the Power Paradigm offers the possibility of being that much closer to the music."
Or that: "OTOH the Voltage Paradigm is all about looking good on paper (IOW pays little attention to human hearing rules), which are ears could give a damn about."
or that: "So going to higher effciency is clearly an access to transformation in sound quality. Of course its better!"

I'm confident that some of us can quite easily hear some of the results of those measurements that you choose to discard. It would be just as easy (if not easier) to make a speaker with a lower impedance ( and hence probably less efficient, at least for amplifiers that might typically be classified as power paradigm amplifiers) to have a narrow impedance swing. In fact many such speakers already exist. The use or non use of negative feed back is not the exclusive province of any of the popular audio amplifiers technologies.

At exactly what levels do we find odd harmonic content objectionable? It has been suggested for example that some people prefer 3rd order harmonic distortions to 2nd order harmonic distortions. I would suggest to you that it's quite possible that some of the objectionable artifacts you describe could easily be swamped by other greater objectionable artifacts that the alternatives replace them with.
We might not listen with our eyes, but we can certainly put measurements in proper scale and use them to confirm and compare. Without such tools, we're only left with opinions.
What is efficient use for one tool, might be inefficient use for another tool. Though I'm not convinced that it's the most important consideration, so called less efficient speakers can and do comply with the power Paradigm. Fortunately, the amplifiers best suited for those speakers are also capable of adjusting when necessary, without stumbling to the inevitable peaks and valleys that real world speaker loads present.

You have previously posted here about Chaos Theory and amplification. With all due respect, a loose connection to a theory doesn't provide proof.

As always, I enjoy our conversations here, I've already begun to look at some of the items you've referenced. Thanks for the leads.

Magfan, there are other posts, but IMHO this one might be the best example:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1264342155&read&keyw&atmasphere+chaos+theory&&st50

Atmasphere, How can you quantify that flat frequency response of the "voltage paradigm" is as close as it gets to obeying hearing rules, and just exactly what are these rules and who made them? How can you dismiss the flat frequency response as though it has little merit? Many manufactures of "voltage paradigm" speakers consider box and driver resonance with regard to it's impedance curve. How or why would a "voltage paradigm" speaker ignore non-clipping harmonic distortion as a frequency response variation any more or less than any other speaker? If the ear is more sensitive to this, at exactly just what levels does it become an issue? Certainly if this were the case, one could measure it and graph it in the correct context.

While one might hear differing degrees of brightness with different gear, with similar measurements, how can we definitively determine the cause?

An amplifier is not required to use loop negative feedback, to obtain constant voltage charateristics. Even if it does, judicious use can be provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. Again exactly just how much of this distortion needs to be present to become objectionable. If we can't measure it, how do we know it's there, and if we're sure how much is there, how can we presume to know it's the causation? Many users of "power paradigm" speakers use amplifiers with loop negative feed back. Some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't use loop negative feedback.

We still haven't determined at exactly what levels of feedback "violates hearing rule". And in that many users of efficient speakers use amplifiers that use negative feedback, and that some users of less efficient speakers use amplifiers that don't use negative feedback, negates this argument with regards to why efficient speakers are best.

I would argue that deviations from flat frequency response is distortion, and can be easily heard. Again these "hearing rules" have yet to be defined as to actual tolerances. You have not explained why a "power paradigm" speaker would be more intrinsically inclined to placing a greater value on the hearing rules than "voltage paradigm" is.

I disagree with the assertion that "voltage paradigm" pays little attention to hearing rules. I would argue that there are more "voltage paradigm" speakers than "power paradigm" speakers that can more closely achieve wave form fidelity.

As I've explained, the logic is not so obvious that "power paradigm" equipment is more able to obey human hearing rules, because the hearing rules haven't been quantified. Without quantification, we can't assume causation.

There has been no establishment of fact that "voltage paradigm" fundamentaly abuses hearing rules.

That higher efficiency speakers are more reactive is not a good thing. Many users of horns use amplifiers that employ feed back and some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't employ feed back. I have heard horns used with amplifiers that claim not to use feed back sound shrill and honky, and I've heard horns with with amplifiers that don't deny the use of feed back sound shrill and honky.

My point is that one can use amplifiers without little or no feed back with less reactive drivers. A speaker with good specs can sound good. If one can measure the rules of human hearing, why aren't they?

Headphones have their place, but they hardly sound like real music.

The cross-overs typically used in a lot of horn speakers are typically incapable of producing wave form fidelity.

Thank you for your contribution(s), but I'm afraid my idea of proof requires a lot more.

The Thiel's often times do have elaborate 1'st order cross-overs, but not because 1'st order cross-overs are inherently elaborate unto themsleves, just the opposite is true. Thiels cross-overs are more elaborate because they take into account things like box and driver concerns, as well as to minimize impedance swings. Combined with suitable multi drives it allows the speakers to provide more of the available music in a more accurate, smoother fashion. With high powered amps readily available, I think the efforts are worth it.

JohnK, as my post was clearly addressed, I was responding to Atmasphere's post. Once again, you drag your professional agenda into the mix, ignoring the title and content of the thread in an effort to discount my contributions to this forum.

Atmasphere, thank you again for your considered response. I like most others here, don't have access to such equipment. If this data is so readily available, why isn't it routinely being published?
I might not completely understand what your suggesting, with re: to speakers and square waves, but to my knowledge the only readily available commercial speakers that can accurately reproduce square waves would not be considered "high efficiency". You still have not established at what exact amounts or degrees that we find these distortions audibly objectionable. If they are measurable, regardless of how tiny they may be, we can blow the graph up to demonstrate comparisons on just how relative it is, and then verify it.
I did read the link you previously provided re: Norman Cromwell and within it Mr. Cromwell suggests that some feedback can be beneficial, and goes on to caution not to overuse it. It would appear to me that vast majority of amplifiers with any intentions of appealing to the "high end, high fidelity" marketplace follows this advice.
One can not automatically extrapolate that the differences one hears in speakers with amplifiers that measure the same is due to amplifier feedback. There are too many other possible causes.
Let's see the graphs demonstrating these distortions, and proof dismissing other possible causes, rather than assuming they are the root cause.
It is my position that, depending of course on the degree of distortion in frequency response, and we are talking about loudspeakers here, where there are gross differences in frequency response, frequency response distortions are more audible.
No argument with re: to room response, but that is something all together different than efficiency or inefficiency unto itself. I have read some Earl Geddes ideas, but there are too many examples that don't seem to fit into his theories.
Though the burden of proof wasn't mine, I already completed your homework assignment, and it didn't validate your claims.
It would appear to me that your asserting that the differences that you described as being measurably tiny, though in your opinion ultimately important, in amplifier distortions, and the ease in which a loudspeaker can accomodate such as amplifier, swamp what ever differences in frequency response linearity and range, dispersion charateristics, waveform fidelity, and self made noise other wise inherent in loudspeakers. I just don't hear it that way. I hear it just the opposite way. IME, less efficient speakers tend to conform better to the way I hear things, even if those speakers are mated to an amplifier that might or might not have small amounts of feedback. Interestingly enough, many who have efficient speakers that might more easily mate with an amplifier without feedback choose amplifiers with feedback. That is not to say that I am endorsing feedback in amplifiers, just that compatibility with an amplifier lacking feedback is not an important enough criterion alone to choose loudspeakers by. Furthermore, even if it was, one could conceivably still use such an amplifier with inefficient loudspeakers.

Charles1dad, FYI, my amp has no global feedback, and my speakers are moderately sensitive. Furthermore, if I heard something that I liked better that didn't conform to those parameters, I wouldn't hesitate to change. It should also be clear that others here have found their niche' too. My posts are responses to their posts, though you haven't posted how you get their perspective, how you really get their perspective. Perhaps, it's because you've already bought into that perspective, and you'd rather read confirmation of your choice than conversation about other choices? Unlike some of them, my income isn't affected by those choices, and I don't declare that my preferences are factually better.

JohnK, What I posted was that I've heard horns sound shrill with both ss and tube amps, in response to Atmasphere's assertion that horns can sound shrill. I posted that headphones hardly sound like live music. If you consider that as an absolute, so be it. If any one cares to sincerely publicly assert otherwise, I'll modify my post. Your upset that those posts are "all untrue, highly subjective comments not based in any fact"? Really? Those are the examples your choosing to typify how I roll? Really? My posts are hardly based upon absolutism, in fact they are in response, yes, response to those who've made absolute claims. No wonder, your in wonderment, if you can't understand that. You once again assert that I am highly biased. I don't gain any monetary profit from my posts. You on the hand, more often than not post on those matters that afford you potential financial compensation, without the typical Audiogoner courtesy of disclosing your professional status. I'm highly biased? Ha

Thanks, Mr.D, that was really helpful.

Charles1dad, I think we are in agreement, and that is exactly the point of my posts. Best Regards,

JohnK, other folks in the industry either use their business name, provide a disclaimer, or get taken to task for failing to. I'm sure I'm not the only one doesn't click on every sign in name of every post. Why do you continualy refuse to comply with the common courtsey of applying such a disclaimer?
Once again, you demonstrate your lack of literacy. Posting that I had a point to my posts, is hardly the same as declaring a "crusade" or an indication of a bias. Once again, my posts on this thread have been responses to other claims, and not a "crusade" against horn based designs. I really don't give a damn if your tired of your misconceptions.

JohnK, perhaps you could identify them. You will not find one declaration by me of going on a "crusade". I do follow the rules. Some forms of cultural etiquette exist without rules. Have you now become the CFO of Audiogon?
Try as you might to twist it, it always seems to snap back in your face. Save your face, give it up. Rather than attacking me, perhaps you can get back to the subject at hand.

Atmasphere, thank you for your follow up. On some level I agree with you, I just want to know at what point does pursuing this one consideration of the many, lose sight of the total goal. I still don't have the answer to that. I still think that the methods you suggest can be done with ss, and it appears that it has been for some time.
Sorry about the Cromhurst spelling. I've recently been reading about English/Dutch history and must have carried that over.
I agree, we do seem to be getting a bit off topic. On some level that has been one of my points, these considerations unto themselves don't neccesarilly dictate what makes the "...best speaker?".

I have yet to hear any examples to win me over.

Mapman, all thing considered, probably the Klipsch Forte.

I've head them in many, mostly modest systems, though not in some time. The reason I mentioned them was; they were inexpensive speakers, that didn't take up too much space, that could be driven by a cheap receiver, and still fill a large space with nearly full range music without completely embarrassing themselves. Very few others could do that, without costing significantly more (percentage wise). Not my cup of tea, but could work for some others with a large space, on a tight budget, that didn't want overly large boxes dominating the room, and not interested in too much fussing.

I actually liked those more than the big expensive ones.