Is the most efficient speaker the best speaker?

Don't know about anybody else but I found this conversation simulating and educational. It visited interesting territory, territory a rigidly specific destination would never have found.

The best is whatever you prefer. There is no intellectual way to establish actual factual superiority without measurements and these forums generally decline that pathway when it is presented. This is an emotional experience that cannot be assessed and evaluated by cold, unfeeling machines.

So -- we pirouette endlessly basking in polysyllabics and wielding cliches and formulae to no end whatsoever.

Macrojack, it may interest you to know that those cold unfeeling machines have been used to measure the reactions in human brains to musical reproduction. This work was/is being done by Dr. Herbert Melcher, of Noble Prize fame. He found that as musical reproduction contains more and more artifacts that violate our human perceptual rules, that the processing of the music moves from the emotional centers (limbic system) of the brain to the cerebral cortex. This is why some systems evoke toe-tapping and others do not.

Based on this work and research I have done as well, I do not agree *entirely* with what you stated in the quote. What the 'best' is has to do with how well the equipment is able to conform to human perceptual rules, both known and unknown. I thought you might find it interesting that Dr. Melcher has actually been getting objective numbers on the subjective experience :)

Good news, Ralph.
I for one would be grateful if the doctor would just measure us and lets know what we like so that these interminable debates could cease.

Y'know, you probably *could* do it that way... lol :)

Atmasphere, How can you quantify that flat frequency response of the "voltage paradigm" is as close as it gets to obeying hearing rules, and just exactly what are these rules and who made them? How can you dismiss the flat frequency response as though it has little merit? Many manufactures of "voltage paradigm" speakers consider box and driver resonance with regard to it's impedance curve. How or why would a "voltage paradigm" speaker ignore non-clipping harmonic distortion as a frequency response variation any more or less than any other speaker? If the ear is more sensitive to this, at exactly just what levels does it become an issue? Certainly if this were the case, one could measure it and graph it in the correct context.

While one might hear differing degrees of brightness with different gear, with similar measurements, how can we definitively determine the cause?

An amplifier is not required to use loop negative feedback, to obtain constant voltage charateristics. Even if it does, judicious use can be provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. Again exactly just how much of this distortion needs to be present to become objectionable. If we can't measure it, how do we know it's there, and if we're sure how much is there, how can we presume to know it's the causation? Many users of "power paradigm" speakers use amplifiers with loop negative feed back. Some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't use loop negative feedback.

We still haven't determined at exactly what levels of feedback "violates hearing rule". And in that many users of efficient speakers use amplifiers that use negative feedback, and that some users of less efficient speakers use amplifiers that don't use negative feedback, negates this argument with regards to why efficient speakers are best.

I would argue that deviations from flat frequency response is distortion, and can be easily heard. Again these "hearing rules" have yet to be defined as to actual tolerances. You have not explained why a "power paradigm" speaker would be more intrinsically inclined to placing a greater value on the hearing rules than "voltage paradigm" is.

I disagree with the assertion that "voltage paradigm" pays little attention to hearing rules. I would argue that there are more "voltage paradigm" speakers than "power paradigm" speakers that can more closely achieve wave form fidelity.

As I've explained, the logic is not so obvious that "power paradigm" equipment is more able to obey human hearing rules, because the hearing rules haven't been quantified. Without quantification, we can't assume causation.

There has been no establishment of fact that "voltage paradigm" fundamentaly abuses hearing rules.

That higher efficiency speakers are more reactive is not a good thing. Many users of horns use amplifiers that employ feed back and some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't employ feed back. I have heard horns used with amplifiers that claim not to use feed back sound shrill and honky, and I've heard horns with with amplifiers that don't deny the use of feed back sound shrill and honky.

My point is that one can use amplifiers without little or no feed back with less reactive drivers. A speaker with good specs can sound good. If one can measure the rules of human hearing, why aren't they?

Headphones have their place, but they hardly sound like real music.

The cross-overs typically used in a lot of horn speakers are typically incapable of producing wave form fidelity.

Thank you for your contribution(s), but I'm afraid my idea of proof requires a lot more.