Is there any advantage to lower efficiency speakers? 87 or below?

@audioconnection I make loudspeakers.

I don't think it's an unfair question to ask why some speakers tend to have low efficiency, or how equipment may make some trade offs.

I also don't think efficiency is necessarily a quality standard. You should use your own tastes for that.

Best,


E

Ok extended bass.  I knew these dali ms4's were suppose to sound best away from the wall and now I know why.  My only concern would be if I wanted to pair with a lower wattage tube amp in the future. With that said, Johnny Cash sounds unbelievable on these speakers.  The extension shows up in a big natural way.  

For a lower wattage tube amp you want both more efficient and easy load speakers for best results. For comparable bass extension those would need to be larger and probably more expensive as a result.

Very fundamental for top notch results  to match speakers to amps capable of driving them well and to the max.

I wish I got 18wpc out of my SET 300b. Gosh. 8wch lol

i think ( and I know the origin of the J Cash comment - seeking to FIRST replicate a live unamplified reference one is VERY familiar with) there are two camps here:

1.) build a full range speaker that comes as close to the reference as possible with manageable efficiency as an outcome. 

or

2.) add efficiency target value into the important parameters list. For all kinds of reasons: small amps tend to be affordable, some customers like hearing damage, the 300 B ...First Watt....fill in the blank)

what i find more interesting is all the in and out of phase junk that gets counted as output.....