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
Phusis and Duke, I beg to agree and disagree. I have always said the more power the better. This is a relative statement, relative to efficiency and other factors such as the output capability of the speaker. A speaker can only do so loud.
I have been listening to as many horn loaded loudspeakers as I can lately and in general they are very impressive or can be very impressive. It is certainly easier to get dynamic sound because they are so efficient and they go very loud. Now an ESLs volume capability is based on its Xmax which is very small in comparison to dynamic speakers. If you try to run it full range with bass laden material it will run out of Xmax pretty quickly and start clipping or rapping the stators. However if you do two things the situation turns upside down. These are, send everything under 100 Hz to a subwoofer array and design the speaker so that it is a full range line source. What you get is every bit as dynamic as a horn system and I think because there are no crossovers otherwise, an effortless naturalness that makes the speakers disappear. Line sources project power better than point sources. Because ESL almost match the impedance of air their transfer of power is very efficient even if their electrical efficiency is not. So, you have a very dynamic, low efficiency speaker system that goes very loud and has no crossovers above 100 Hz.
Phusis, lets say you have two speakers that both clip at 120 dB at 1 meter. One has an efficiency of 103 dB/1watt/meter and the other 84dB/1watt/1 meter. With a paltry 2 watts the first is blasting at 106 dB and the second only at 87db. To get the second to 106 dB you need 160 watts and this is at 1 meter. At a reasonable listening distance you are easily under 100db, probably down towards 95 dB. We are not even talking about peaks here. The point is that low efficiency speakers require a lot more power to hit dynamic peaks, hundreds of watts. Duke, your friend has more work to do. There are so many factors involved that I doubt you can make a blanket statement that high efficiency speakers are all more dynamic than low efficiency speakers of various types given appropriate power. It is certainly easier to make high efficiency speakers sound dynamic and I would rather have a good sounding high efficiency loud speaker than an equally good sounding low efficiency speaker. The more power on a relative basis the better. Fortunately for me ESLs are more efficient than ever 89-90dB/1watt/meter and there are plenty of amps now that can drive them without farting or blowing up. I should be able to hit 100 dB without leaving Class A operation. 
So what is the term for plain old lack of linearity of a driver?  That it's output at 90 dB doesn't match it's output at 70 dB? Is this considered strictly as mechanical compression?

Also, the best AMT's have amazing lack of such artifacts and incredibly robust power handling. :) One of the reason I'm a big fan.
Well, color me surprised, again, that we are comparing insensitive speakers for sound quality.  I though this would be about efficiency and how high efficiency drivers, heating up less, were often less prone to thermal compression.

I'm not sure how we can correlate efficiency or sensitivity to sound quality if we are confounding the discussion with types of motors.
@audiokinesis

A couple of years ago I read an article on compression in traditional dome tweeters.  I was 99% sure it was from the late, great Dr. Siegfried Linkwitz but now I can't find it.

Anyway, yeah, thermal compression happened supper fast.  First tone burst was normal, then by the second only the first couple of cycles were even close to the original output.
Hmm, I recently bought a new set of floor standers that are rated only 2 to 3dB lower efficiency than my existing floor standers.  This is in a 5.0 surround setup and the floor standers are used for the front L/R channels.  I have a very powerful amp powering the front L/R speakers, which should be able to deliver plenty of power to either of these sets.  Now, when watching movies with the new set, it just seems like the sound from the front L/R speakers is a bit anemic compared to the other set. 

I did use a sound meter to raise the sound levels in the new set to match my center channel speaker sound level.  Thus, both the old speakers and the new ones were set up to match the center speaker level.