How important is the efficiency of a speaker to you?
I went to an audio meeting recently and heard a couple of good sounding speakers. These speakers were not inexpensive and were well built. Problem is that they also require a very large ss amp upstream to drive them. Something that can push a lot of current, which pretty much rules out most low-mid ( maybe even high) powered tube amps. When I mentioned this to the person doing the demo, i was basically belittled, as he felt that the efficiency of a speaker is pretty much irrelevant ( well he would, as he is trying to sell these speakers). The speaker line is fairly well known to drop down to a very low impedance level in the bass regions. This requires an amp that is going to be $$$, as it has to not be bothered by the lowest impedances.
Personally, if I cannot make a speaker work with most tube amps on the market, or am forced to dig deeply into the pocketbook to own a huge ss amp upstream, this is a MAJOR negative to me with regards to the speaker in question ( whichever speaker that may be). So much so, that I will not entertain this design, regardless of SQ.
Your thoughts?
Dear @daveyf : IN any case and not so expensive you can find out the Parasound JC 1+ monoblocks that when you listen it in any speaker at any SPL you did not ask if you are listening tube or SS amp but only enjoying MUSIC. John Curl is a very low profile Master Designer Electronics Engineer.
Parasound Halo JC 1+ monoblock power amplifier | Stereophile.com
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
|
@rauliruegas Funny you bring up the Parasound amps. A fellow a'phile whom I know well, decided to buy a pair of very expensive and very difficult to drive speakers, reasoning like you, that the Parasounds would be the answer. His budget was limited a little, so he spent the $$ on the speakers and left himself with only one option for the amps...based on his budget. Let's just say that the speakers went onto the used market within a few months, and he was forced to sell them at a considerable loss. I believe what @atmasphere noted above is the whole reason.
PS. He no longer owns the Parasounds either. |
@atmasphere +1 I couldn't agree more! Mike |
@lonemountain Unless you can. I have a set of Classic Audio Loudspeakers (model T-3.3) which are some of the most revealing speakers I've heard, even compared to the best ESLs. They are flat to 20Hz, are 98dB, field coil powered and 16 Ohms. So fast, revealing, full bandwidth and actually work quite nicely in a smaller room since you can back them up against the wall behind them without making them boomy or losing any sound stage palpability. Put another way I don't know of a speaker at any price that works better, although its probably out there. They are not cheap; IMO your comment would be more accurate if price were part of the equation. |
The question is, certainly to me, what we’re actually disagreeing on here. My remarks above were aimed specifically at the parameters brought up by you, namely distortion, dynamic range and "better bass," and I’ll maintain that higher efficiency is the preferred route for these parameters to be better realized. While many understand high efficiency to be mainly about achieving higher SPL’s, to me it’s about what these designs offer sonically as a consequence of their higher eff., and that it translates at moderate SPL’s as well.
To me it’s really the other way ’round; observation and discovery (and this is where open mindedness is truly challenged) ultimately points me in a direction of speakers and overall implementation, stuff I could hardly imagine or have come by if it weren’t for experimentation or even chance. It’s a process where preconceptions are readily confronted. As to my clarification on efficiency, it exposes how many audiophiles tend to exaggerate the efficiency of speakers with a sensitivity range somewhere between the typical 80-90dB’s. Why, or how is that relevant? Because as poster @atmasphere and @ditusa point to you don’t just compensate freely for low efficiency with more power, not even in a home setting, and this goes for both speakers and amps.
Sure, but for my own part I’ve never claimed it’s the only important aspect (though a vital one). Rather it often comes down to defending high efficiency in the face of the opposing view that low eff. designs can avoid the limitations of poor efficiency simply by adding more power, and thus, implicitly, are having the "fuller package" by comparison. I absolutely disagree with that. @atmasphere wrote:
I’d add it’s not limited by price as much as mere physics and overall execution/implementation. |
