How important is the efficiency of a speaker to you?
I went to an audio meeting recently and heard a couple of good sounding speakers. These speakers were not inexpensive and were well built. Problem is that they also require a very large ss amp upstream to drive them. Something that can push a lot of current, which pretty much rules out most low-mid ( maybe even high) powered tube amps. When I mentioned this to the person doing the demo, i was basically belittled, as he felt that the efficiency of a speaker is pretty much irrelevant ( well he would, as he is trying to sell these speakers). The speaker line is fairly well known to drop down to a very low impedance level in the bass regions. This requires an amp that is going to be $$$, as it has to not be bothered by the lowest impedances.
Personally, if I cannot make a speaker work with most tube amps on the market, or am forced to dig deeply into the pocketbook to own a huge ss amp upstream, this is a MAJOR negative to me with regards to the speaker in question ( whichever speaker that may be). So much so, that I will not entertain this design, regardless of SQ.
Your thoughts?
A high efficiency speaker takes less watts to drive to the same volume level as a lower efficiency speaker. The amplifier takes time to make this power (i.e., slew rate). So the amp "slews" 3.16 times faster to reach the same volume level resulting in increased dynamics for the high efficiency speaker. |
@daveyf wrote:
In effect: a lot. Comparing speakers of different efficiencies isn't an apples to apples scenario. With either "camp" there are implications with regard to the nature of directivity (and -uniformity), driver and enclosure size, driver type/segment and other, which in turn has sonic consequences. My eventually veering towards the high efficiency segment of (large) speakers wasn't due to some blind rationale of attaining high efficiency (and SPL) in itself, but rather what those speakers offer in vital parameters of sound reproduction that separates them from the low efficiency segment of speakers here, also with regard to the interaction with acoustics. With passively configured, low efficiency speakers it was very much about finding that particular speaker which had the desired characteristics in a given listening space. Not an easy task. With DSP-based and larger, high eff. speakers that are outboard actively configured it's more about getting the basic physics and design execution in place as a framework to go by, call them macro parameters, and then slowly work your way in from that outset to get to where it all gels. The worst outset dynamically are small, passively configured, low efficiency, low impedance and load-heavy speakers, although it's the bigger multiway iterations that'll more readily get the amp(s) to their knees. Even served a ton of watts such speakers never escape the fact they're the sonic equivalent of a liquid-saturated sponge that never truly lifts off and comes to life. Getting rid of a complex passive crossover is a good start, and then higher efficiency will be a further improvement - certainly dynamically. Amp-wise I'm not really the SET-guy (although they can sound great through very high eff. horn speakers), but I like class A/B studio designs which in my case are high powered (~600W/8 ohm per stereo amp, three of them) and of the same brand and series. They're essentially similar top to bottom, incl. the subs, and it pays off sonically. To those squinting at the high power rating here, remember it comes down to how it sounds.. What many seem to forget is that bi-amping actively will have each amp delivered its limited frequency span to feed its respective driver segment (as opposed to passively where they receive the full signal). So, the amp unloading power into the subs won't affect the other amps at all, the HF-amp is relieved of LF, etc. - with all that implies. No power draining, complex passive crossovers; high efficiency, large and sufficiently tall speakers (i.e.: 97 (plus corner load) to 111dB sensitivity); plenty of power from independently configured amps, not too heavily damped acoustics - to me this is all about efficiency, less energy store-up and achieving proper headroom. Not as parameters standing on their own, but an essential outset to build on. |
Huh?? @danager , what transient speed did you obtain with a flea watt amp paired with the high efficiency speaker that a meatheaded amp couldn’t do (with the same speaker)? Please elaborate. I have nothing against high efficiency speakers. I do have a problem with this flea watt miracle (supposedly). Essentially, they tend to gimp such speakers.
@antigrunge2 ....Again, no problem with high efficiency speakers. But, ugh, what the hell benefit did you get by pairing it with a flea watt amp?? A "true audiophile" like you knows of some mystery that an "untrue audiophile" like me doesn’t get perhaps?
.
|
Here is a white paper written by Steve Deckert that explains it much better than I ever could. https://www.decware.com/paper43.htm Flea watt amplifiers are class A with minimal circuitry and no negative feedback as opposed to a high powered amplifier that relies on a much more complex circuitry and many more components. As components are added there is a gain in power but it comes at a cost. Top of line amplification can minimize those loses with higher quality components and advanced designs but they then become very very expensive and totally unnecessary with a well designed high efficiency speaker. I'm running corner horns with two watts and can reach 85 to 87db in in a very large space without a sound deficit that's apparent to me. I'm not able (or want) to play at 110db but I still have bass I can feel in my chest and a detailed sound stage that's simply glorious.
|
