There is an inevitable tradeoff relationship between box size, bass extension, and efficiency. And it’s a fairly brutal relationship.
If you keep the same bass response, every 3 dB increase in efficiency calls for a DOUBLING of box size.
So compared with a 1/2 cubic foot 85 dB mini-monitor that goes down to 40 Hz, a 97 dB efficient speaker with the same bass response would be SIXTEEN times the size (four doublings of box volume), or EIGHT cubic feet.
Now imo there are definitely some qualitative advantages to that higher efficiency, but in my experience the market for eight cubic foot speakers is rather limited.
Anyway my guess is that the higher costs and the box size penalties attached to high efficiency are the primary reason why low efficiency speakers dominate the marketplace.
Duke
If you keep the same bass response, every 3 dB increase in efficiency calls for a DOUBLING of box size.
So compared with a 1/2 cubic foot 85 dB mini-monitor that goes down to 40 Hz, a 97 dB efficient speaker with the same bass response would be SIXTEEN times the size (four doublings of box volume), or EIGHT cubic feet.
Now imo there are definitely some qualitative advantages to that higher efficiency, but in my experience the market for eight cubic foot speakers is rather limited.
Anyway my guess is that the higher costs and the box size penalties attached to high efficiency are the primary reason why low efficiency speakers dominate the marketplace.
Duke