04-22-15: MapmanI would put it that deep bass extension, efficiency, and compactness of cabinet size trade off against one another in the design of a speaker. Sacrificing deep bass extension and/or making the cabinet larger (not smaller) will work in the direction of enabling the speaker to have greater efficiency.
Atmasphere,
I think you are assuming that the speaker is full or near full range with your numbers. Smaller speakers with less low end extension MUST require less power to achieve a certain level, all else the same. The lower the frequencies attempted, the more power is needed, all else held constant. I think that is basic physics. So I think my argument is sound that one way to coax more out of a few good watts is to defer on or even filter out the lowest frequencies if needed one way or another at some point. That allows your watts to go further.
So I agree that in choosing a speaker having significantly greater efficiency than the De Capo, that also meets Rebbi's stated price point and size preferences, much or all of the bottom two octaves or so will probably have to be sacrificed.
However, the efficiency of a given speaker is what it is. (Although that is not to say that it is what the specs say it is :-)) And provided that the efficiency number is defined in a way that is representative of the speaker's performance across the range of frequencies it is capable of reproducing with reasonably flat frequency response, a speaker having an efficiency of 102 db/1W/1m, to use Ralph's example, will produce within that frequency range an SPL of 102 db (+/- frequency response variation) at a distance of 1 meter when provided with 1 watt (neglecting room effects), regardless of what the speaker's deep bass extension is.
Regarding filtering out the deep bass at a point upstream of the amplifier, yes, that of course would make a given number of watts go further, but of course implementing that filter without compromising the SET magic is another matter, especially at a modest price point.
On the other hand, though, how far the 2 watt figure Ralph mentioned will go in conjunction with a given speaker efficiency will of course vary considerably depending on the volume preferences, listening distance, and room size of the listener, and perhaps even more so on the dynamic range of the music that is being listened to. And it seems clear in this case that Rebbi is generally quite happy with the performance of his SET amplifier with the 86.7 db/2.83 volt/1 meter De Capos. My guess, therefore, is that a speaker which honestly gets into the mid-90's/1 watt/1 meter, while also not compromising anything about the De Capo's sonics which he finds appealing, would make for an excellent upgrade. I have no specific suggestions to offer, though, in the stated price range.
A probably unnecessary reminder, also, that efficiency and intrinsic sonic quality are not all that have to be considered. Ideally impedance should be high, and should not dip down to low values at any frequency, and should not have severely capacitive phase angles (especially in the lower part of the spectrum where lots of energy is typically required, and especially at frequencies coinciding with impedance minima). And the less variation of impedance as a function of frequency the better. Speakers not meeting those criteria would not only entail increased risk of unsatisfactory results, but would tend to give results that are not even consistent among different SETs, due to differences in impedance interactions.
Just my $0.02. Best regards,
-- Al