Friends, to be a member, nothing is required, except you burn low efficiency speaker here and there...which can happen from time to time when you experiment with amplifiers.
There is no requirement as what speakers you own...
There is no requirement as what speakers you own...
The BBC LS3/5A was never intended to be mass marketed.
Its fame only grows slowly, because some people, having listened it in a professional environment, wanted to have a pair at home.
It became known through word of mouth, before being the object of moderate advertisements, not the hype you think of.
Note that its replacement, based on Dynaudio drivers, despite being BBC labelled, are forgotten since long.
Hi,
It has been quite true for a long time that high efficiency
speakers tend to have lower THD for a given SPL level.
If you like it loud don't choose the low efficiency route.
How ever this at about 86dB/W I doubt "excels at failing" :
https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/tarkus
Quite the opposite with 30 to 100 good watts I imagine.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
One downside to high efficiency speakers is the amp needs to be very quiet.
I've been a fan of efficiency in speakers since the mid 70s none the less.
I've been a fan of efficiency in speakers since the mid 70s none the less.
True. It is Sensitivity. But the term is frequently misused. The two are related.
1W of acoustic energy into free space gives what level? 110dB @1m? I can never remember.
How about those Apogee speakers, with even lower efficiency. I never heard those myself, but those who have them like the sound.
Pano:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_power#Table_of_selected_sound_sources
1 acoustic watt is loud, even by Cal Weldon standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_power#Table_of_selected_sound_sources
1 acoustic watt is loud, even by Cal Weldon standards
I wonder how much acoustic power this 192 x 15" monster cranks out?
The league against speakers that cannot shake trees.
Crazy... 😀
The league against speakers that cannot shake trees.
Crazy... 😀
At 99dB(ish) w/M I think I squeeze in. More like 96 with 2.83V. But definitely am more "for high eff" than "against low eff", I've heard some nice sounds from low-80s stuff here and there at reasonable levels.
A couple of years ago, I was on the high-eff bandwagon. But what I've realized since then is that good sound does not depend on efficiency. High efficiency is not necessarily better. There are trade-offs. There are other priorities. All we can really say is: all things being equal, higher efficiency is better.
I need a fullrange speaker around 4 inch and around 90-93db/w efficiency with low distortion over 100hz.Below 200USD each.Is there any available?
Last edited:
Look at XKRD's threads on the trinergy- there are some nice higher-efficiency fullrangers, though there are substantial limitations when squeezing max dB out of a small driver.
I did hear a set of Apogee Scintillas once in a good room with a lovely Mark Levinson amp and MIT and other expensive cables. The CD player was Levinson also? Don't remember for sure.
Playing some jazz music, it really did sound like a window into a room where the musicians were playing.
Also there were some plastic diaphragm speakers, driven like ripples by a voice coil in the middle of the membrane...who the heck was that guy...it is on the tip of my brain, AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH...more known for electronics...
That is an interesting theory. As a loudspeaker engineer, I would have said that the trend towards smaller and smaller speakers means the death of efficiency due to Hoffman's Iron Law. But I cannot refute what you are saying, either. I will have to see if I can track down a guy I know who was chief engineer for one of the biggest and best known Chinese speaker factories, and ask him about your hypothesis. I can say there is at least some amount of truth about that.
If low efficiency loudspeakers objectively lack of dynamics, it implies that they suffer from some kind of compression, as it has been said. However without data to support the assertion.
It is quite logical that people liking high efficiency loudspeakers like high listening SPL. As high SPLs flatten equal loudness contours, a more detailed sound is perceived. Not due the high efficiency of the loudspeakers but to a well known mechanism of auditive perception
(see curve below).
It is also a bit contradictory that those who argue of the lack of compression of high efficiency loudspeakers show a clear preference for high listening levels with of a kind a music which is already heavily compressed. Note that compression of drivers have much longer thermal time constants than the compression used at the recording stage and does not generate audible distortion.
To me, a fair comparison at identical SPL between low and high efficiency loudspeakers having similar frequency range should not made at the same distance.
Last edited:
sreten - if you're talking about the Carver Amazing Loudspeakers, I seem to recall them using an array of more or less conventional moving coil woofers with customized T/S parameters, and a full length ribbon tweeter - a rather novel combination at the time, certainly in their price range (something like $2500 CDN, circa early -mid 1990's?)
At nominal 88dB SPL, they would certainly fail the LALEL entry exam
There was in circulation around that time a demo CD that included the famous "garage door track" - these guys were absolutely scarily realistic on that track, on much highly processed studio pop music, less so I found.
At nominal 88dB SPL, they would certainly fail the LALEL entry exam
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
There was in circulation around that time a demo CD that included the famous "garage door track" - these guys were absolutely scarily realistic on that track, on much highly processed studio pop music, less so I found.
Last edited:
Hi,
No, I'm talking about Carvers shambolic first attempt, which tried
to drive a planar diaphragm with a coil, along with the bass drivers.
Seems Stereophile have removed all references to the debacle.
rgds, sreten.
No, I'm talking about Carvers shambolic first attempt, which tried
to drive a planar diaphragm with a coil, along with the bass drivers.
Seems Stereophile have removed all references to the debacle.
rgds, sreten.
OK, that one I'd never heard of - and if it was "just call me Bob" Carver, then he did have a track record with some, shall we say interesting ideas - "Sonic Holocaust" anyone?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.