speaker efficiencey?? Starting point...? 92db??

Matrix wrote:

"But the 92 db absolutly has something to do with your channel levels, cause if they were 89 db vs. 92 db that means they would take 100 watts more of power to reach the same white noise level at 75 db that your 92db speakers do not take, so 89 db would have probably made you boost up the channels 2-3 db on your channel leveler during the test vs. not upping it at all on a few channels."

Matrix, I think you're making this more complicated than it has to be; I read that sentence several times and I'm still not sure exactly what it's saying. You are correct that an 89 dB speaker would require twice the power of a 92 dB speaker to reach a given sound pressure level, but at 75 dB measured at the listening position we'd be talking about tenths of a watt difference, not 100 watts difference.

All Dzigon has to do is set the levels according to the instructions. He doesn't have to take the speakers' efficiency into account - setting the levels according to the processor's instructions automatically does that and more.

Duke

There is nothing complicated about a 92 db speaker possibly falling within perfect range of a basic surround receiver not needing to be adjusted, as he stated a few speakers were dead on without moving channel levels. 92 db happened to make this occur, if they were 88 db, it would guarantee with that speaker the levels would be moved up a bit, and with 96 db speakers probably would have been well over the 75 db benchmark making those levels back off into the negatives on the channel gain levels to match the master volume, thats all I was saying... And I was simply giving a little explanation to his final question SEE above not about the 92 db question, cause yes they will work fine 92 or 102 just trying to build example's to follow, but maybe not the best explanation... first post
" what exactly does the efficiency rating mean?>??"

I see where you are confused, and so am I... I kinda combined the Effectiveness of it Vs. what could happen via difference's in Db ratings, which was part 2 of the first question.. So I did over do it and should have been a little more clear on the basic question and ended up answering as one reasoning behind the theory. Sorry, sometimes I write half and come back while at work on the computer then submit the post, thoughts float around and not always land in the right spot.

Don't get so hung up on the efficiency rating of the speaker...the main thing to look for is it's nominal impedance and is it stable at that number...if the speaker has a higher impedance, low 90's like a Martin Logan but goes down to 2 ohms then you need a high current design amp that doubles down power as the impedance drops.
Larry

I would say that the relative levels of the individual channels and how closely they match one another has absolutely nothing to do with the system's ability to provide flat frequency response. That would be a whole different topic and to measure it you'd need test tones recorded at identical volume throughout the audible frequency range, and an SPL meter to chart the results.

Most combinations of rooms and speakers virtually guarantee that the frequency response arriving at your ears will deviate quite a bit from "flat." Then again, if it actually measured flat (nearly impossible without EQ) it would sound way too bright to those with normal high-frequency hearing ability.

A gradual rolloff in the lower high frequencies (probably with some degree of boost in the upper highs) sounds "natural" to most people. And that's a whole different topic unto itself, as well. :)