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
elliottbnewcombjr
5,310 posts
 
I bet these E-V SIX are efficient

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/electro-voice-e-v-six
alexberger
896 posts
 
@audio2design ,
Thank you for the link to the article.
It is so sad that most audiophiles don't care about this one of the most important characteristics for speakers SQ.High efficient designs sound more alive, with better texture, micro and macro dynamics.In contrast - the high compression of low sensitive speakers masks important music information and causes listener fatigue.
In addition, most audiophiles don't have a clue how good sound tube SET amplifiers (with the proper high efficiency speakers) are compared to any transistor amplifier design.  
Regards,
Alex.
clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker OP
1,582 posts
 
Thank you Tomic.  I have heard it said that speakers for use in home music applications should NOT be voiced in an anechoic chamber as the effect of the room boundaries will be entirely lost.  The result will be an artificial sound environment unrelated to the venue of any real performance.  That seems to make sense to me.

For some comment on 18 inch woofers see my earlier posts.

Hi Alex.  9w SETs.  You love 'em or hate 'em.  They're not for me.  I don't like high levels of third and fourth order distortion.  For those that want it they do offer a caricatured inaccurate presentation of the programme, particularly in the bass where their lack of control allow the cones to slop all over the place.
Neither are they relevant to my thread - it's about speakers.

There I don't buy your simplistic statement that efficient designs sound alive etc and inefficient speakers are compressed, mask important information and are fatiguing.  That's just an unhelpful generalisation.
erik_squires
16,039 posts
 
Wait, did we just enter the "speakers should be made of wood, brass and silver because that's what musical instruments are made of" world?

The principles of measuring a good sounding room have been well documented for decades.  The measure of only using things that appear in nature is silly.  Does your drywall reflect any sort of natural space?? No, it does not.

If the room acoustics aren't removing the excess noise, then your brain is, and that's tiring.
alexberger
896 posts
 
The thermal distortions in speakers and transistors have inertia and therefore are a heavier burden on our brain than conventional non-linear distortions.
In addition, changing the impedance of the speakers changes the frequency of the speaker filters, which leads to different sound at different volumes and issues with frequency and phase response. Electrical Q is changed that changes bass response.
The proper built SET don’t have issues with bass (with high efficient speakers). The problem is too many bad SET designs.
More to discover