Is the most efficient speaker the best speaker?

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.

Unsound this may be a bit too much for you too grasp but I see at least 2 other industry professionals in this thread alone who are not following your self imposed rule against industry professionals not going over and beyond the rules to identify themselves as such. And your the one who agreed your on the crusade against horn designs not not I. If your unable to operate the functions of this forum IE clicking to see more info on poster I see only one recourse take it up with audiogon. I do not make the rules for this forum but I do follow them maybe you should also? And you do know it costs money to operate a forum I see you do not contribute at all to this site sad.

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.

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".

Unsound, To answer the immediate question, IMO its because this information is not very convenient. From the rest of this quote I feel that you *might* be missing my point... I mention this test because it can be done with almost any speaker, as the 0VU value is not particularly demanding. It is just a very simple demonstration of a principle of human perceptual rules, and one that is easily duplicated.

IOW, its a proof. The point of it is that we use odd ordered harmonics to tell how loud a sound is. That's how our ear/brain system is wired and is true of all humans. So from my point of view, if our ability to tell how loud a sound is has to do with odd ordered harmonics (already present in the signal) then it is simple logic that we do everything we can to avoid distorting them since the ear is more sensitive to them then just about anything else. That of course is my conclusion and stand, but it is only simple logic.

Reducing odd ordered harmonics is also why I mess around with tubes, as its a lot harder to do the same thing with transistors. That is a preference on my part. However I do not like many of the colorations of tubes (read: lush midrange associated with 2nd harmonic); I prefer things to be neutral.

BTW its Norman Crowhurst, not Cromwell... If you look at his writings you find that he does not eschew negative feedback, but he also does point out its weaknesses. At one point he talks about how when feedback is added, the noise floor of the amplifier circuit then contains harmonics up to the 81st, plus inharmonic information related to intermodulations at the feedback node. In fact he points out that this *is* the noise floor of the amplifier.

(BTW, Chaos Theory also predicts this very same phenomena. If you read his books, you saw the formula for feedback in an amplifier too...)

Now I am not sure exactly when the perceptual rule known as 'masking' became understood, but this is the rule that made mp3s possible, and is the idea that louder sounds mask the presence of quieter sounds. The masking rule is why we cannot hear sounds below the harmonic noise floor created by feedback.

Now it happens that if you have a noise floor consisting of hiss alone, that you can hear about 15-20 db into that noise floor (I suspect that this peculiar exception to the masking rule is the result of necessities of evolution, as wind and hiss are very similar). Whatever the reason, this does seem to be one explanation of why an amp without feedback can seem to have more low level detail than an amp with that employs feedback.

BTW, I think we are getting a bit off-topic- is this a subject for a different thread?

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?".