Question concerning db sensitivity

John, please reread the qoute " SOMEONE recently told me that in THEIR experience, in GENRAL, that the higher the dB sensitivity of a given speaker, the more you sacrafice in terms of sound. In other words, lower dB rated speakers [86-88] TYPICALLY sound better. Any thoughts on this?"
CAPS by me.
BTW, this parallels my experience as well.
Obviously, your thoughts indicates that this contradicts your experience.
I guess our milage does indeed vary.
On another note, if one wanted to truly drive an off-road vehicle in the manner for which it was intended, and the intended location was was not near a filling station, such a vehicle might be purchased with consideration of fuel consumption and the size of the tank.

Assuming equal box size, the less efficient speaker will usually have deeper bass, or better bass transient response, or some combination thereof.

Peaks in the frequency response are more audible than dips, and the process of smoothing out a driver's frequency response by bringing down the peaks via equalzation in the crossover network inherently lowers the system's efficiency.

Cones that are heaviliy damped tend to sound smoother than lighter, less well damped cones. The heavier cones usually sound smoother, but may also sound less lively and detailed - so it's often a trade-off.

I would disagree with this statement: "In general, the higher the db sensitivity of a given speaker, the more you sacrifice in terms of sound." It's more complicated than that. There are trade-offs made either way, and which is the most desirable set of trade-offs depends on the specific application as well as - gasp - individual preference.

I believe that there are fairly large variations from one person to another in our tolerance for different types distortion, so you might not be bothered by the midrange forwardness that is driving me nuts while I'm oblivious to the power compression that ruins it for you.

Duke

John,

Ok I understand this has simply been your experience. I misread your statement as a fact or well known "truth".

Sorry...

Considering the strength of Shadorne's position and my strong preference for high-efficiency designs (as well as many others) I'd say this is no less divisive than any other of our tussels.

I've heard lots of folks say that high efficiency designs are better (they're the underdog, after all). This is the first time I've ever heard a blanket statement that low-efficiency is inherently superior.