Why are high efficiency speakers preferred for low volume listening?


I am sure that this is a very basic principle, but as I peruse the speaker section I frequently see high efficiency speakers suggested for those who listen at "low levels." And is this another area that actually is "how easy the speaker is to drive (as related to its nominal impedance)" that is more important than the actual sensitivity number?

And for an example of what I am asking with that last sentence, I seem to remember when I was window shopping for speakers, seeing some Harbeth speakers at TMR with a sensitivity rated below 87 (I think they were rated at 86 or 85) but being referred to as "an easy load to drive." So would that mean that the Harbeth speakers would be good for low volume listening?

immatthewj

I doubt that high efficiency speakers and good low level detail are absolutes. It’s likely more important that things like the amp being a good match to drive the speaker impedance, the system has good resolution, and that phase coherency and overall clarity of the speakers are excellent, along with a suitable room acoustics, etc...all are still significant factors regardless of the speaker efficiency.

Audio is complex, and it’s rarely as simple as isolating one parameter and calling it good. There are always good and bad examples and pros and cons with every principle you can name, and every choice you can make.

Thanks for the feed back to my question, @knotscott  .

I would never buy a speaker with a sensitivity level below 92db.  Please pardon my lack of knowledge and inexperience as a technician, but lower sensitivity speakers, at least in my  experience requires the amp to bring them to life. Oftentimes I have found this to sound lifeless , requiring me to jack up the amp to breathe some energy to the presentation.

Thank you also, @judsauce  , for your feedback.

 

 

 

Easy to drive speakers avoid low impedance and phase shifts at all frequencies and require an amp work less hard in general be it at low or higher volumes. So that is advantageous. They will also tend to sound more similar with various amps.

 

Whereas high efficiency speakers simply produce higher spl overall per watt. The advantage there is mainly going louder with a less beefy amp.

@mapman  , so are you saying it is the way that the speaker handles low impedance versus it's sensitivity rating?  Although I would think that at low levels the impedance of a speaker would remain relatively stable and not dip?  

So is the bottom line that you liked the Klipschs better than the KEFs, particularly at low levels?

No, definitely not. For the time they were great, but I love the KEF’s, even for low volume. I just wonder if another speaker might be a little more lively at lower volumes. 

@elliottbnewcombjr  , so are you basically saying that the bottom line is that horn (tweeters?)  sound better when played at low levels than traditional cone (tweeters/) do?  Sorry if it is obvious that this is what you said, but I am not good with this stuff, and I often have trouble wrapping my head around it.

consider that highly efficient speakers are likely to involve horns,

the throat/directivity of horns give dispersion control cones do not.

i.e. smooth ’received’ frequency response curve at the listening position (not just 1 meter away), the different relationship of direct primary and reflected sound waves

the perception of any frequency, and clarity of instantaneous peaks is/are enhanced when less reflected sound waves are involved.

dispersion, not volume

 

No, definitely not. For the time they were great, but I love the KEF’s, even for low volume. I just wonder if another speaker might be a little more lively at lower volumes. 

Thank you for clarifying that, @zlone  .  (And a quick google showed that your KEFs are rated at 85.)