How important is the efficiency of a speaker to you?

@daveyf wrote:

How important is the efficiency of a speaker to you?

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. 

@lonemountain wrote:

... If you are more open minded and are wiling to look at moderate efficiency speakers in the mid 80s, using the wide array of excellent high power amplifiers available, or active speaker configurations, you can have your low distortion, wide dynamic range AND better bass AND wider dispersion, etc, etc. But you cannot have all that AND super high efficiency.

Sorry, but the above makes little sense to me. 

If by "mid 80s" you mean sensitivity in dB's, then it's a very low efficiency design (i.e.: ~0.2%) and not "moderate" by any means. 105dB's sensitivity on the other hand translates to 20% efficiency, which is very efficient. 

Contrary to your views I find efficient speaker designs - say, from 95-100dB's on up - to be the best way to achieve the combination of low distortion, wide dynamic range AND better bass, with the proviso that the latter requires large size to achieve a fairly deep extension, but that's not a design deficit nor a sonic impediment. And, if I'm to understand you correct, wide dispersion isn't a trait, but a characteristic; if anything a narrow and fairly uniform dispersive nature has advantages over a wide and likely uneven ditto. 

Finally, high efficiency speaker designs can as well and advantageously be run actively. In fact I find that's where they really shine.

@lonemountain --

The question is, certainly to me, what we’re actually disagreeing on here. My remarks above were aimed specifically at the parameters brought up by you, namely distortion, dynamic range and "better bass," and I’ll maintain that higher efficiency is the preferred route for these parameters to be better realized. While many understand high efficiency to be mainly about achieving higher SPL’s, to me it’s about what these designs offer sonically as a consequence of their higher eff., and that it translates at moderate SPL’s as well.

Decide what you want, then figure out what speakers do that.

To me it’s really the other way ’round; observation and discovery (and this is where open mindedness is truly challenged) ultimately points me in a direction of speakers and overall implementation, stuff I could hardly imagine or have come by if it weren’t for experimentation or even chance. It’s a process where preconceptions are readily confronted.

As to my clarification on efficiency, it exposes how many audiophiles tend to exaggerate the efficiency of speakers with a sensitivity range somewhere between the typical 80-90dB’s. Why, or how is that relevant? Because as poster @atmasphere and ​​​​@ditusa point to you don’t just compensate freely for low efficiency with more power, not even in a home setting, and this goes for both speakers and amps.

Efficiency is just one of these many features.

Sure, but for my own part I’ve never claimed it’s the only important aspect (though a vital one). Rather it often comes down to defending high efficiency in the face of the opposing view that low eff. designs can avoid the limitations of poor efficiency simply by adding more power, and thus, implicitly, are having the "fuller package" by comparison. I absolutely disagree with that.

@atmasphere wrote:

Unless you can. I have a set of Classic Audio Loudspeakers (model T-3.3) which are some of the most revealing speakers I’ve heard, even compared to the best ESLs. They are flat to 20Hz, are 98dB, field coil powered and 16 Ohms. So fast, revealing, full bandwidth and actually work quite nicely in a smaller room since you can back them up against the wall behind them without making them boomy or losing any sound stage palpability. Put another way I don’t know of a speaker at any price that works better, although its probably out there.

They are not cheap; IMO your comment would be more accurate if price were part of the equation.

I’d add it’s not limited by price as much as mere physics and overall execution/implementation.

@lonemountain wrote:

When you say that efficiency is not the most important aspect of performance ...

I wrote it’s "not the only" important aspect. These last ~15 years I’ve avoided low efficiency speakers as anything I’d consider buying (with the exception of seriously considering at one point larger and active ATC models, in particular the SCM150ASL Pro’s (and ultimately the SCM300’s, had economy allowed)), but efficiency as a standalone parameter isn’t as much the true indicator vs. what it leads to design- and size-wise, and so it’s really the other way ’round: the designs I prefer are mostly horn-based and large, and therefore, in effect, high to very high efficiency as well. It’s not that I can’t enjoy the sound of many a low. eff. design, quite to the contrary, but I’m simply pursuing a different route with different strengths sonically compared to what smaller, more inefficient and passively configured speakers can deliver.

I disagree that efficiency is the "preferred route" in achieving lower distortion, improved dynamics or increased bass. There are so many other avenues to these features.

Fair enough, but coming down to it we’ll have to disagree on this one. Yes, there are other avenues and areas of importance here that can make a low eff. package sound indeed very good in named areas, but when higher efficiency enters the "equation" to boot (again, not as the only parameter as anything worth considering) the significance in performance - to my ears and sensibilities - is not trivial.

ATC is a notable exception here, to an extend, in that their engineering prowess in driver development and overall execution is on another level compared to most lower eff. speaker manufacturers (and thus, and this needs to be stressed, they’re hardly representative of the low eff. segment of speakers). Active config. only adds to this advantage. The SCM150 and SCM300ASL Pro’s - that I’ve auditioned quite a few times - are excellent speakers in their own right that I could easily live with, and yet a large horn-based system (not least actively configured) does something else both dynamically, with regard to ease(!), scale, presence, immersively, viscerally and bass delivery that you’ll have to experience to fully understand and appreciate.

I did not say that low eff. designs avoid the limitations of poor efficiency simply by adding more power. There may not be limitations of lower efficiency designs, depending on your goals. Or there could be limitations of a high efficiency design.

Different contexts will have things in variables, yes, but getting a true bearing on a more complete wallop and significance of uninhibited dynamics, low distortion imprinting and smooth, effortless bass prowess at more than moderate SPL’s and shorter listening distances will require setting a different benchmark; to some these very aspects aren’t main priorities, let alone secondary, but to others they’re quite another connoisseur matter and will necessitate measures that goes beyond smaller, passively driven and low efficiency speakers.

I think the whole array of solutions are far more complex than high or low efficiency "spec" on a spec sheet. Whether something is 92dB 1w/1m in a loudspeaker gives you zero information about quality when compared to a 86dB 1w/1m spec.. You only know the designer chose to chase efficiency (probably for more than one reason). Intended application is everything..

Chasing efficiency in itself would seem crude, but let’s make it actual high efficiency to begin with if we really want to refer to it as such; my understanding of high efficiency, all along, has been a sensitivity from 95-100dB’s on up. Few designs really accomplish that, and if you intend to have a fairly uniform and controlled directivity pattern at the vital crossover(s), not least crossing low enough to avoid the central midrange while maintaining sensitivity all the way down low to the 20-30Hz region, then you’ll have yourself a large sized package that can really show its mettle with the parameters referred to earlier.

Some lower efficiency designs can achieve lower distortion in the driver, or can extend low frequency of that driver or both. Or your lower effieciency design may improve cooling and power handling without extending voice coil length. I guess to me its like horsepower tells you zero about the performance of a car. There are so many different options available to a skilled designer that focusing only on a high efficiency design is not wise, again, depending on your goals. I favor lower distortion myself, I want to hear more of the fine details, the reverb tails, the room sound, etc. If I can have lower distortion that reveals more of that fine detail in exchange for a larger power amp, I’m in. That’s the trade off I am talking about. And I’ll stick to my guns on this one, you cannot have it all.

And this is where we are ultimately disagreeing. Within the design differences inherently at play here I do believe we can more or less have it all; care taken with a specific design is not limited to low efficiency dittos, and if you’re willing to go the distance and let size and physics have its say, it means upping the potential of such designs even further. No, I wouldn’t cram speakers that large in small rooms, but contrary to common belief they can be implemented excellently in moderately sized listening spaces - not least actively.

@atmasphere wrote:

I look at it this way- if you can’t drive it well with 100 Watts (in most rooms), its a problem.

+1

... and 1000 Watt amps that sound like music don’t seem to exist although class D is getting close with amps that can make 600 Watts or so.

Whether or not there’s a generality to your claim above, I can’t say, but I was surprised to learn that a 600W class A/B power amp from MC² Audio was perhaps even more "musical" sounding than a 30W class A ditto from Belles (which was a great amp) - that is, driving a 111dB horn/compression driver combo connected directly to their terminals (i.e.: actively, sans passive crossovers). Nothing sterile, tonally lean, mechanical or bright sounding about the Brit, I can tell you that, or whatever you’re implying about high power amps sonics. To boot its inherent noise level (in fully differential balanced mode) is slightly lower than the Belles (unbalanced), even with a 32dB vs. 26dB gain. I feared it would have been the other way ’round.

Btw. it’s 8 ohm EV DH1A drivers (that can also be had in 16 ohm versions), but without the intervention of passive crossovers, added to +110dB sensitivity and the amp being limited to run the load from ~600Hz on up, it’s a piece-of-cake job for an amp if ever there was one. Show me an amp running a 16 ohm load, full-range and looking into a passive crossover that will be running in cruise mode the same way. Not going to happen.

It’s not that I need that much power in my setup (also falling in line with the first quoted part of yours above), but I wanted to use the same amps in my 3-way active system from top to bottom, and ended up "replicating" the one used on the subs to begin with - one that turned out to be great sounding full-range as well (which I expected, given their reputation). As they say: if it sounds great, it sounds great.

@invalid wrote:

The amount of solid state amps that sound good with high sensitivity speakers is also limited, that’s why a lot of people choose set amps with these types of speakers.

Another generality, indeed this one is a myth that has gone on forever. From my experience it holds little to no bearing (I can imagine it would have been an issue back in the very early days when SS amps likely sounded like crap, or certainly worse than today), but you’re certainly allowed to take fuller advantage of a low wattage SET design when driving very high efficiency speakers, and such a combo can indeed sound fantastic. The inherent noise level of such amps sees some filtration through passive crossovers. Actively, another matter, and it’s also why I prefer SS amps in that constellation.

@invalid --

That's not to say it can't be great match sonically. 

@atmasphere wrote:

The issue is that most amps made using feedback, which includes high power solid state amps, is that the output transistors usually limit the design's Gain Bandwidth Product, resulting in a loss of feedback at high frequencies (depending on how much loop gain is asked of the design). The result is distortion rising with frequency, which seems to be more audible than the actual distortion spectra created by the amp. Class D offers a way around this problem.

Dependency and "seems to be" - as a technical observation I don't see how it holds an absolute correlation with regard the sonic outcome of SS amps in each and every case and high efficiency speaker combination, and to which degree? Relevance, magnitude and context (in my case also: active configuration) is obviously very important.

The issue here is that a lot of higher efficiency speakers are designed for amps with a higher output impedance.

Wouldn't the design of high efficiency drivers reflect more than a limited range of amp designs of their day? It borders on an anachronistic view, I find, holding that high eff. speakers of more modern/recent years (going back decades, really) should bring about the most favorable sonic outcome with tube amps predominantly. Myself I would be careful not to link local preferences of high eff. speaker designs combined with tube amps as anything that has a strict relation to or foundation in a technical explanation. Mostly preference is just preference (i.e.: highly subjective), but I'm sure many would jump to the gun, so speak, with a technical reference to validate their perceived findings in this regard.  

Such amps try to make constant power rather than constant voltage; this is not a myth.

My context of debunking that myth was in relation to the compatibility of high efficiency speakers and SS amps, sonically speaking. 

The Power Paradigm is what was around before MacIntosh and EV started promoting higher feedback in the mid 1950s so as to cause their amps to behave as a Voltage source, allowing plug and play. You might want to read this article for more information.

Interesting, and informative article. Offering technical insight it must also come to acknowledge that what is advocated here can as well be counteracted perceptively, if nothing else by the myriad intricacies of a context:

Any audiophile will agree that the most valuable thing they have with respect to their audio system is their own hearing. 

@atmasphere wrote:

... you’ll find, if you look, that most producers of higher efficiency speakers tend to use tube amps.

Being few of these designs are vintage, or so I suspect, it hardly reflects a strict need for a particular driver-amp type adherence. My guess is many like for horn-based designs to be "toned down" a bit (tubes generally would seem to do just that) so to likely please a former habitual exposition to less dynamically/transiently capable direct radiating and lower efficiency designs. As you no doubt know, listening to a high eff. compression driver/horn combo, not least large format iterations, is quite another animal compared to a dome tweeter and 4-6" coned midrange/woofer; the sheer energy and unforced presence the former is capable of (which is usually felt even at low to moderate SPL’s) can be an overwhelming experience to the "uninitiated," which isn’t to say it’s unnatural sounding - quite to the contrary, to my mind. I find a great horn-based system is simply relaxed, full sounding and dynamically uninhibited. Once you tap into these traits smaller and less efficient designs simply sound malnourished and restricted by comparison.

At any rate the kind of amp used has nothing to do with the phenomena of thermal compression.

Agreed.

My speakers were designed for amps of higher output impedance, but owing to level controls for the mids and highs (which are there even on vintage designs to allow the speaker to be adjusted to the Voltage response of the amplifier) they work fine with my class D amps.

This. My setup context is having the most elaborate "tone controls" at my disposal, i.e.: a digital crossover, which is configurable from the listening position on the fly. Even so - and knowing the sound of my amps over other, passive speakers - nothing indicates any compensation is needed to counterbalance a bright-ish character. What's more: my speakers, despite their design having a few years on its back, is more pro-sector (cinema) than vintage, and so are likely more compatible with SS amps. 

What are you trying say here? If we didn’t have ears, its unlikely that we would be playing around with audio equipment :)

(your reply to below quote)

"Offering technical insight it must also come to acknowledge that what is advocated here can as well be counteracted perceptively, if nothing else by the myriad intricacies of a context"

I merely implied that context is paramount, and moreover suggested that what you advocate design-wise could as well end up being refuted (i.e.: the ears being the most important and last "judge" of things), not necessarily to say some people wouldn’t like the sound of your amps, but that they may prefer a speaker-amp combo that goes contrary to what you recommend :)

@lonemountain wrote:

Again: efficiency is just ONE aspect out of many that has to be addressed in high performance loudspeaker design.

But who's claiming high efficiency is the only or single most important parameter worth pursuing to best achieve earlier named sonic attributes? From my chair it seems high efficiency is struggling to be recognized as a worthwhile factor at all; those of use trying to break through with the importance of high efficiency (which, it goes without saying, isn't implying that other parameters aren't important) are oftentimes met the default response that it simply isn't, which in some cases borders on being willfully ignorant, if you ask me. 

Moreover, the claim that high efficiency is necessarily and always bound to be attained "with a price," sonically speaking, is a fallacy. Typically it comes down to (the need for) large size and a different speaker principle (i.e.: horns), and these aren't deficits in themselves but merely what's required of a high efficiency design (what some may regard as a "scruffy" looking woofer for a front loaded horn sub or mid bass is actually the proper driver for the purpose with its lighter cone and all, and moreover the horn reduces or even eradicates mechanical noise and acts as a low pass filter). What rubs many the wrong way however is large size, and this is the real price to pay. 

@atmasphere wrote

... it may interest you to know that high efficiency drivers, in particular woofers can be 10x more expensive than drivers of similar bandwidth and power handling that are not efficient. As an example the TAD 1602s (15", 97dB, Fs 22Hz) are typically $4000.00 each. Put a field coil into the mix and the driver gets even more expensive.

You’re referring to a boutique element of high efficiency drivers that aren’t representative of this segment. Low eff. drivers have their expensive iterations as well, and when you count in the typically larger size of high eff. drivers, bigger voice coils and more magnet material, not least from the more widely accessible pro sector, their pricing compared to low eff. "hi-fi" dittos is actually very fair. Most of these very expensive high eff. drivers are vintage designs of limited production, btw., and it’s not that the production tolerances here are somehow magically "tighter" to reflect and account for the higher pricing.

Tidbit: just going by specs the EV woofers of my main speakers share the 97dB and 22Hz Fs TAD numbers of yours (Fs 21Hz, "broken in"), and I’m guessing they’d have retailed for about 1/10 of $4,000.

@rauliruegas wrote:

Well , that large size is not exactly typically " because depends on the kind of drivers other than horns and an example are my ADS speakers that yes are " large size " but the size is due that the speakers can goes down to 16hz through two 14" acoustic suspension woofers but today I have the ADS from around 100 hz and up and the soft domes ( silk ) acoustic suspension 2" for the mid-range and 1" for the tweeter ( one a top the other:nearest as it can be. ) needs a very small " box space " due to its very high gauss magnets ( are not vented and non-ferrofluid. ) around 24k in the tweeters and 18K in the mid range, both drivers made it in Germany for ADS and its efficiency is 95db ( almost a horn . ). Unfortunatelly the drivers manufacturer just does not exist any more.

True 95dB sensitivity is certainly quite efficient compared to the general norm of speakers (that are closer to a typical 85dB’s, making for a ~10dB difference here), and in conjunction with your ADS L-2030 speakers extending as low as they do with dual 14" woofers per cab there’s no escaping the implications specified by one Mr. Hofmann and the following larger size.

My efficiency context is higher, and once horn-loading becomes necessary/preferred, not least when you want them to act like horns in their entire frequency span, up to very large size is unavoidable. In my setup context I’ve not yet fully exploited the efficiency factor (save for the midrange/tweeter horn); if I wanted at least ~105dB sensitivity top to bottom (i.e.: 20Hz-ish on up) it would require non-truncated front loaded horn subs and similar type horns for mid bass (but with the fewest and low degree horn path bends) or star quad 15" direct radiators, which is a significant upgrade size-wise below ~500Hz easily by a factor of 2 compared to what I have now. Having said that my corner mounted tapped horns subs takes further advantage of significant boundary gain (1/8 space), and so the least efficient driver section is the midbass bins sitting at ~98dB’s (hardly slouches, also considering they’re high-passed).

Trying to make some sense of the madness one could ask whether an efficiency that high is really necessary in a home environment. Obviously that’s up for each to assess and decide, but to me at least it isn’t about bonkers SPL’s; it’s about maxing out the sonic potential of horns and aiding the best integration, also with direct radiating sections. Ease of load of the amps, not least with active config., is another boon. Indeed sufficient headroom is a prime takeaway here (regarding both speakers and amps) - that is, it’s that it actually matters, and far more than people seem to realize.

What keeps most audiophiles (who’re already inclined towards high eff.) from venturing into very high efficiency and directivity control in the entire audio band - with all that entails - is mostly about large size becoming an obstacle, be that aesthetically or practically. However it’s also about a particular mindset, because it requires of one to acquire pro segment, DIY or vintage gear when such large designs are hardly available domestically, not least at less than astronomical prices. It’s a radicality of approach few (but perhaps more and more) are willing to pursue.

Kudos on your setup, btw.

@deep_333 wrote:

Generally, high efficiency speakers have sounded unrealistic. What do the masses think of and come to conclusions when they’re thinking high efficiency? There it is, it can be attributed largely to bad actors like Klipsch, who’re all over the place and generally made plenty of flawed speakers with a couple of exceptions perhaps. It also seems like any other jester will come up with some horn speaker whilst tinkering in his garage, bring it to shows, etc and they’ve sounded stupid.

Nevertheless, when you buy a high efficiency speaker from guys who really know what they are doing, they seem to sound truthful. ...

I agree.

@lonemountain wrote:

Very good point and great example that there is more to know about a speaker than a 1w/1m spec. Could a 86dB 1w/1m speaker with a very flat impenace curve outperform a 91db 1w/1m speaker with a wildy changing impedance curve? Yes.

That’s not really saying anything about the argument of high efficiency, in fact it goes without saying. Your effort to isolate a high sensitivity rating as a singular, non-determinant factor in no other context than itself is just trying to serve an argument against it, and not seeing it for what it can do in the greater scheme of things. Come on :)

@lonemountain wrote:

Asking the question "What is efficient enough?" brings up mutiple challenges. the first being hardly anyone listens much over 90dB SPL!

Brad,

As you’re no doubt aware of, comparing lower efficiency speakers with true high eff. dittos isn’t an apples to apples scenario. It doesn’t only come down to how loud one enjoys playing the stereo, but rather and not least how a given volume is reproduced - i.e.: the very nature of the sound. Many aspects come into play here, like speaker principle/driver types, directivity pattern, headroom (or lack thereof), cone area and overall physical size, specific design choices, etc., and these aspects can be a product of or otherwise relate to a given sensitivity, which again has sonic implications. Choosing high eff. speakers can’t help but reflect on these interdependencies, and thus speaking of and preferring high eff. speakers doesn’t really revolve around a numeric sensitivity value in itself - certainly not as an isolated parameter and choice alone. That should be pretty obvious by now, I’d say.

I was at AXPONA this weekend and in our room we are demong ATC. I meassuredIf the SPL when things got "loud" : it was around 92dB SPL. If the 1w/1m spec of a passive was 90dB, it would require less than 2 watts to get that speaker to play at 92dB 1M. If it was 86dB 1w/1M it would require 4 watts to get it to 92dB at 1M! 92dB SPL is very loud for many of us, most audiophiles wouldnt even want it at 90-92dB SPL in their living room or listening room.

That’s a very crude outline of what’s actually required power-wise. Many low eff. speakers at actual listening distance will be closer to their limits or lacking noticeable headroom at 90-95dB’s than one imagines, and moreover you have to factor in the girth of passive crossovers and their varying degrees of load-strain on the amplifiers; a 100W amp may be brought to its knees with a passively configured speaker long before those 100 watts are actually converted into an SPL that truly reflects the theoretical outcome at the listening position in relation to the rated(!) speaker sensitivity. Seems to me you’ve become a bit spoiled dealing with active speakers mostly, as well as drive units that are anything but representative of the general range of hifi speaker drivers ;)

It appears in reading this thread that most would agree that above 90dB 1w/1M is efficient and 86dB 1w/1M is "not efficient". We need 2 watts to get our 86dB speaker to 89dB SPL, which is indistinguishable from 90dB to most of us. This 2W instead of 1W is really a critical issue and one that drives a purchase?

While, all things being equal, a 85 vs. 91dB sensitivity difference isn’t trivial, the latter isn’t high efficiency by any means, period, irrespective of the general gist around here. Relative to 85dB sensitivity it’s certainly a higher number, but that’s just about as far as it goes. Keep wandering in the low to moderate efficiency spectrum however may make for a more convenient outset to discuss low vs. "high" efficiency, as it appears to keep the speaker principles within a more manageable and homogenized sameness, and thus a numeric sensitivity value varying 5-7dB’s is mostly what it comes down to here, not that it can’t be a deciding factor with regard to amplifier choice, a sense of headroom and max. SPL.

Comparing low efficiency speakers with true high efficiency dittos (>97dB, or thereabouts) is another matter though. Here high eff. mostly involves horns, compression drivers and larger diameter woofers, as well as larger enclosure sizes, and this has sonic implications for a variety of reasons, as I implied above.

My point is that very very few of us listen at 92dB SPL. The argument for an "above 90dB 1w/1M speaker" is not a relevant argument as no one even wants to listen that loud. 90% of our listening is WAY under 90dB SPL. If this is true, why is 90dB+ 1w/1M efficiency such a important spec that we all need to pay attention to it?

So, what you’re saying is that people buying high sensitivity speakers effectively and essentially has an excess of efficiency that isn’t of any use, unless very low powered amps are sought? When this speaker segment may often be referred to as having excellent dynamic capabilities, sense of power, scale, ease, etc., do you think that only pertains to SPL’s above ~90dB’s? And even if it does (in peaks), isn’t that relevant to some of us? And what about these traits (and others) specifically - are you going to tell me they aren’t partly related to higher sensitivity, with all that entails?