Downside of sensitivity?

sean6,229 posts05-21-2006 10:25pmHigh sensitivity typically comes at the expense of wide bandwidth, power handling, convenient size, etc..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes back in your 2006 world, Horns were about best bet for high sens. 
Lowther/Fostex had designs that had issues in the fq range width. 
Horns gave superior  band response, but as you say ata  price. = $$$$$ and size/weight +  not wife friendly, Horn set ups are ugly.

Now starting,,i guess in 2010, 2 labs began designs in new higher tech wide band drivers. 
many of the issues inherent in the earlier concepts, Lowter/Fostex, have been address with stunning success.
These Revolutionary designs still have not caught on. 
My guess is many audiophiles have rather large amplifiers for xover speakers and so are not capable to bring ina  higher sensitivity speaker. 
But I have heard, only anecdotally that is, PP amplifiers **will** work *just fine** with the new  wide band high sens speakers. 
I can not confirm this report. 
But considering this opinion came from a dealer in high sens wide band, gives some substance to his  experience. 

And the good thing to those who own EL34 amplifers, You are the real winners here. 
The EL34 **might** just be the most perfect tube for these  wide band drivers. 
Its your very lucky day.
You win.
I have too much money in upgardes for me to sell off my Defy7/KT88, besides  my tech says impossible to get top $ for the Defy as corrosion is  showing in  places, So I'm stuck with KT88  in my near future  plans to add a  wide band speaker. 
 

audiokinesis2,577 posts05-21-2006 11:05pmI think Sean covered the issue quite well.

In my opinion the single biggest downside to high efficiency is that you will need a bigger box to get the same bass extension. If you want the advantages of high efficiency (improved dynamic contrast, for instance) you either have to live with a bigger box, reduced bass extension, a powered bass section (built-in or as a separte subwoofer), or corner speaker placement.

Duke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Indeed, back in  the days of 2006, wide band had issues reproducing the lower hz's and also roll off on the highs. 
Now these rolloff issues have been addressed in some of the newer (starting in 2010!!!! just 4 years after your post) wide band designs. 

If the bass is still not enough, the solution is quite simple, by  adding  a  Seas  W22 Graphene /but for even more  rock solid bass, add  a  Scan Speak $1k EACH  monsta midwoofer. 
  
My hunch is the  bass for my musical needs/classical,  and near field listening/small room will be more than adequate from a  single driver speaker. 

Small loudspeakers are highly compromised designs the bologna of audiophile products. Designed just as much as sound quality to fit a certain num on a pallet. More effort goes into making a small marketable product as does sound quality considerations. The consumer is told large is bad in modern design. But when dealing with wave reproduction small just doesn't cut it we hamstring our loudspeaker designs by making them overly small and requiring much power to function. This heats up VC causing listening fatigue small bass systems have much higher distortion, large sensitive loudspeakers do not suffer from such but can be large, and large is not a design problem it's the way it should be.

@johnk I think you pretty well summed it up. If you really want full range and lifelike sound you’ve got to be willing to accommodate the physical size requirements necessary to facilitate it naturally. Otherwise, you’re reduced to trying to bludgeon it out of suboptimal boxes.

Speakers are very subjective. I personally like speakers that are efficient, 93dB/watt@1m or greater. Concentric or coaxial mounted drivers best, 2nd is vertically aligned drivers as close together as possible. Only one driver for the tweeter frequencies, 8kHz. or higher.