Is the most efficient speaker the best speaker?

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.

1) I disagree about horns efficient = more dynamic based on actually hearing them. Yes, they can play LOUDER as they are more efficient but as for actual dynamic contrast (difference between musical peaks) ATC active 100's were far more dynamic and more punch.

2) I use relatively inefficient drivers but have NO crossover to absorb power. So there is more to it than just driver efficiency. Take a look at how much power Thiel, with their elaborate 1st order x-overs, need.

Unsound just face the fact not a horn on Earth your bias would let you enjoy. So why not just enjoy what you own and give the horn owners a break? Most of what you post is unsupported by any fact. Just your opinion and personal bias. We get it you hate any loudspeaker that's horn based. I do not think these forum threads are going to change your mind or your posts change the mind of horn owners so why persist? Are you lonely bored just like to stir up things to please yourself. Please tell us why??

Unsound, you've asked a lot of questions and it may take a bit to answer them all.

I think first it needs to be understood that human hearing/perceptual rules are understood much better today than they were 20, 30 and 40 years ago.

I may have suggested this before, but if not, the first thing to understand is how we perceive volume. One of the most important indicators to the human ear are the odd ordered harmonics, the 5th, 7th and 9th. Now that is easy to prove, all you need is a sine/square wave generator, an amplifier, a speaker, and a VU meter. You listen to the sine wave and set the VU to 0 VU. Then you switch to square and as best you can, set the speaker to what seems to be the same volume. You will find that to do so, the reading on the VU meter will be a good 20-25 db down. Other members of the 'gon have done this in the past, FWIW. Square waves are composed entirely of odd ordered harmonics. This simple test shows that we are more sensitive to them than we are the fundamental sine wave at over 100 times more energy.

Now we have known since the 1950s that the addition of loop negative feedback enhances odd ordered distortions. I think I have pointed you to Norman Crowhurst's work on the subject in the past, if you have not read it, it would be a good idea to do so now because otherwise its like you missed a lesson in school.

http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htm

scroll down a ways, there are 3 volumes available as a free download. Pay particular attention to the chapters on negative feedback and the methods he uses to chart the Nyquist diagrams!

People have ascribed a lot to the sound of tubes and transistors; but I am here to say that the the very audible effects of 'bloom' that is a common audiophile term is really the effect of distortion. The 'brightness' of transistors is also an effect of distortion- in both cases this is easy enough to prove as you can put the amps on the bench and not measure any differences in frequency response, yet the effects can be heard on many speakers.

The ear treats distortion as frequency response variation. Its that simple. So if you want the presentation to be neutral, the amp can't make distortion. Now if that were the case, then I would have no issue with the voltage paradigm as it would then insure flat frequency response. But the reality is that amps *do* make distortion, so the Voltage Paradigm will fail at that goal.

Its my position that the effects of distortion are often more audible than frequency response variation. Anyone familiar with speaker design already knows how important the room is in any system, and how the speakers are often designed to work in a room. It is the room itself that guarantees that flat frequency response will not be realized, but our ear/brain system has a means of adjusting to the acoustics of the room. You might want to read some of the works of Dr. Earl Geddes on this one.

So- I have given you some homework. BTW, don't discount Crowhurst simply because he was writing in the 1950s. A good deal of the technology you hear today is based on that foundation.

The Thiel's often times do have elaborate 1'st order cross-overs, but not because 1'st order cross-overs are inherently elaborate unto themsleves, just the opposite is true. Thiels cross-overs are more elaborate because they take into account things like box and driver concerns, as well as to minimize impedance swings. Combined with suitable multi drives it allows the speakers to provide more of the available music in a more accurate, smoother fashion. With high powered amps readily available, I think the efforts are worth it.