One need only look around us to know that the phrase "hysterical cult" could never apply to people with preferences about speakers. We have hysteria, and we have cults, and they ain't talking about this. |
Johnk:
"Low-sensitivity some design for such have complex networks or need a small size. But in general, it means cheap low-powered magnets undersized transducers, and cabinets. It means the loudspeaker and owner of such has to purchase a massive power amplifier thus putting that speaker's cost savings back on the owner since now his amp costs more is larger and uses more energy. It also means thermal compression in most designs since amps heating VC."
I have to address this very confusing post.
Low sensitivity has little to do with the complexity of the crossover. A horn loaded design could use a simple 6dB per octave crossover and be very efficient; a sealed box design could be lower sensitivity and also have a 6dB/octave simple crossover, or a more complex 3rd of 4th order design for steeper slopes.
Low sensitivity is not a by product of reducing cost. A manufacturer could decide to build a cheap system with low or high sensitivity. A high quality company, like the one I work for (ATC), chooses lower sensitivity to improve bass response in a smaller speaker. Most high end companies with lower sensitivity speaker systems do it for the same "better performance" reason. Sensitivity is simply a measure of how efficient the complete system is, which is dictated by a whole series of choices like drivers, box, porting, etc.
Implying low sensitivity is a purely low cost choice/cheap system option is a not correct. Lower sensitivity speakers do not have overly complex networks by nature, or require massive power amplifiers. A 86/87dB 1w/1m speaker referred to often as "low sensitivity" is only 3dB away from a 90dB 1w/1m - referred to as a "high sensitivity speaker". This 3dB difference represents twice the power, so 100w/ch instead of 50w/ch or 200w/ch instead of 100w/ch. In this modern era where very good amplification is available at relatively low cost, a large power amp is inexpensive compared to their predecessors of even 10 years ago. Our own 150W channel P1 is roughly 3500 and the double the power (gaining +3dB) is only 4500. This $1000 is a far lower cost difference than many speaker upgrades.
Your comment that low powered magnets (I assume you really mean "smaller motors") are always related to low sensitivity is also not true. Small motors can be found in very expensive high efficiency loudspeakers. I remember my old Klipsch La Scalas (mid 70s era) used EV OEM components that had tiny motors, yet were very efficient. Small motors are usually a choice made by an engineer for price or some other reason, not efficiency. The massive motor in our 7 inch SL woofer in an ATC SCM19 with 86/87dB 1w/1m sensitivity is larger than most 15 inch LF drivers used in other consumer speakers. This larger motor gives us more control for lower distortion, not less control and higher distortion. No massive power amplifiers are needed to make up for the 3dB lower sensitivity issue and the benefits in clarity are measurable and very audible.
The thermal compression you speak of is purely a function of the driver's ability to dissipate heat, not the amplifier, as all voice coils get hot when "powered up" by any size amplifier. Its the inability to cool the driver that causes thermal compression and reduces driver performance. Thermal compression happens to high and low sensitivity speakers at all price points. Listeners will wonder why their speakers "sound different" when played loud for periods of time, this is a voice coil heating up and reducing its dynamic range. Since its impossible to see this in action, its within the driver itself, we cannot assess this externally or by any spec.
Brad
ATC importer to the US
Lone Mountain Consumer
TransAudio Group Pro
|
@lonemountain Thank you so much for your informative post. It's been a while since I started this thread, but your answer is probably the best one so far. Especially important is your statement: Low sensitivity is not a by product of reducing cost. A manufacturer could decide to build a cheap system with low or high sensitivity. A high quality company, like the one I work for (ATC), chooses lower sensitivity to improve bass response in a smaller speaker. Most high end companies with lower sensitivity speaker systems do it for the same "better performance" reason. Sensitivity is simply a measure of how efficient the complete system is, which is dictated by a whole series of choices like drivers, box, porting, etc.
Implying low sensitivity is a purely low cost choice/cheap system option is a not correct. Jim Salk makes high quality, beautiful, and well-reviewed speakers, and I started this post because some that I ordered were 83 db. He is a very good example of why the claim you've just rebutted is wrong. |
And let’s face it trash aka out of phase cone breakup counts as output….. |
Seeing Almarg's post at the front of this thread brings back fond memories. I hope heaven has a great sound system for him to listen to.
Bob |
