2. speakers
  3. 163075-147550

Speaker sensitivity vs SQ

My first thread at AG.

Millercarbon continues to bleat on about the benefits of high sensitivity speakers in not requiring big amplifier watts.
After all, it's true big amplifiers cost big money.  If there were no other factors, he would of course be quite right.

So there must be other factors.  Why don't all speaker manufacturers build exclusively high sensitivity speakers?
In a simple world it ought to be a no-brainer for them to maximise their sales revenue by appealing to a wider market.

But many don't.  And in their specs most are prepared to over-estimate the sensitivity of their speakers, by up to 3-4dB in many cases, in order to encourage purchasers.  Why do they do it?

There must be a problem.  The one that comes to mind is sound quality.  It may be that high sensitivity speakers have inherently poorer sound quality than low sensitivity speakers.  It may be they are more difficult to engineer for high SQ.  There may be aspects of SQ they don't do well.

So what is it please?

128x128clearthinker
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,865 posts
 

The SoundLab ESL's are considered by some to be one of the best sounding line of loudspeakers available. They are also notoriously insensitive, and a very demanding load for a power amplifier They are also extremely transparent, and about as good at reproducing instrumental and vocal timbres as any speaker I have heard..

Then there is the Altec Voice-Of-The-Theater loudspeaker (A7), a very sensitive and easy-to-drive speaker. I lived with a pair for six months, and consider it to be as colored a loudspeaker as I have ever heard. Intolerably, comically colored. It's akin to a video monitor with it's color temperature WAY off, and its contrast control turned to max. Nasty, ugly sound, like chewing foil.

If you compare the two, and prefer the A7 because it is more sensitive/easier to drive than is a SoundLab, we'll have to agree to disagree. That's like preferring a smaller house to a larger one because it's cheaper to heat and cool.

Of course, it all depends on one's priorities in reproduced music. If dynamics is your No.1, high efficiency is for you. I myself am not willing to give up transparency and/or natural timbre reproduction to get dynamics. Are dynamics and transparency/lack-of-coloration mutually exclusive? I haven't heard everything (including the Tektons), but from what I have, I find the two inextricably related.

lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,570 posts
 
Thank you @jetter. I am now spoiled, probably never going to buy another multi-driver speaker. Beautiful, effortless sound! 
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,181 posts
 
Of course, it all depends on one’s priorities in reproduced music. If dynamics is your No.1, high efficiency is for you. I myself am not willing to give up transparency and/or natural timbre reproduction to get dynamics. Are dynamics and transparency/lack-of-coloration mutually exclusive? I haven’t heard everything (including the Tektons), but from what I have, I find the two inextricably related.
Interesting...

My speakers Mission being less sensitive are better at timbre than dynamic... I will never exhange natural timbre perception for dynamic tough....For sure the 2 qualities cannot be separated on good speakers...My tannoy were good on the 2 front on equal measure...Alas! Too big for my room and needs i sold my 2 pairs ....


phusis's avatar
phusis
1,218 posts
 
@djones51 --

With active speakers and DSP box size and bass extension are being challenged in interesting ways. Look at the Develiat Phantoms down in subwoofer range with appossing drivers and a lot of watts.

The Phantom's to me are more an interesting development in what can be achieved from a very small sized speaker package than what's entirely successful in itself against speakers of larger volume; they may impress (some people) in the context of being very compact, but against larger sized main speakers and subs come off like they're working hard to sound bigger than they are. Going further into the high eff. realm with a comparison here only exacerbates this impression, which is to say: challenging physics in regards to size only gets you so far.

Quite a few other interesting active designs (like the Genelec "One's") have immerged challenging their passive iterations (if they exist as such as well) to come out victorious and at a favorable price, and that's something to cherish. These however are usually compact designs for smaller to moderate spaces, and don't escape the limitations of physics imposed on them. Fortunately active configuration can had with large, eff. speakers as a solution of separate components, but this does require some tech understanding (that can be learned) with DSP's and setting up cross-overs, if they aren't pre-configured. 

@audiokinesis --

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.

What's particularly interesting with high eff. larger speakers, to me, is that simplicity can be maintained when incorporating horns or waveguides fitted to compression drivers, and thus avoid some of the complexity issues that face low(er) eff. larger speaker designs. A 2-way high eff. design can be had with fairly large woofer/mids crossed to a horn/waveguide with very nice power response in the XO-region, though needing subs augmentation. I use such a configuration myself, now awaiting new horns from ~700Hz on up with a mouth area of some 2 x 3 feet for controlled directivity, if needed, down to 500Hz for a smoother transition to the dual 15" drivers below; coherency is paramount, and in conjunction with high eff. and sheer size is an intoxicating trait. 

Fortunately it's up to each individual to pursue the advantages afforded through high eff. and size, even if it isn't popular, and it mayn't be expensive. 
ctsooner
2,480 posts
 
I don't know how to quote posts, but in reading this, I hope all have read what Tomic601 has posted above.  It answers a lot of why some top designers have lower sensitivity speakers, but are still very easy to drive, even with lower powered tube amps.  

Vandersteen and Theil are time and phase correct and due to what Tomic said about pistonic drivers, speakers like Vandersteen's will be lower sensitivity.  
More to discover