High efficiency vs low efficiency loudspeakers. minimalist approach

[sealy]

The Totems I've heard have a minimalist crossover(if one chooses to refer to it as such). A choke for the woofer and a series of resistors for the tweeter. Totems are known for their detailed sound.

 

[mhardy6647]

What have you heard?

You want to take some stuff with a grain of salt. Go to the Bob Brines sight. Don't forget to read his post in his forum. Some of his statements piss me off. Especially when he talks of his competition.

I like his speakers.

 

[jimfet]

I like his speakers.

I'm a big fullrange fan myself. I run a set in my main rig.

 

[goodolpg]

What db level is considered the line between low and high effiency?
Honest question, not trying to troll or hijack the thread.

 

[mhardy6647]

I'm a big fullrange fan myself. I run a set in my main rig.

There are a few around here.
There are also a few high sensitivity two and even three-way loudspeakers around here.
There are also some moderate and even low sensitivity loudspeakers.
Good sound counts for the most - and what sounds good to one is phenomenally subjective.

 

[westend]

I've got all kinds of different efficiency in speakers and I couldn't say that the most efficient is the best. I am currently using active crossovers, 24db slopes, fourth order, for my main speakers and can't really tell the difference between that and passive, done well (other than the phase relationships between the different drivers seems closer).
I also have a pair of full-rangers with no crossover, besides the trade-offs in response, it sounds good across it's range.
From my experience, the generalization that was used in the first post, has little validity.

 

[BadassBob]

I like his speakers.

As do I. I just finished building a pair of his FB-20s for my FE207Es, head and shoulders above the Tekton 8.1s I previously ran. My uneducated ear says Bobs published frequency response graph of the FB-20s is pretty spot-on. While Eric Alexanders claims of 39Hz with his 8.1s doesnt sound right at all, especially now that I have a different cabinet. The 8.1s sound to be good down to 55 to 60Hz. The FB-20s kick you in the chest, even with 3W of SET power...not so with the Tekton 8.1s. Not only do the FB-20s dig deeper, they have a richer, fuller sound as well.

 

[AudioSoul]

I read that same article on the Decware site. What I got out of it is that high efficency speakers and low powered amps in combination give you more detail. He also stated that as speaker builders built more complex, less efficent crossovers the amp builders had to build more powerful amps to accomodate these speakers. What is wrong with a manufaturer making claims for speakers and amps that he builds? Thats why they got into the business in the first place because it is something to believe in. Some people like to share their passion. I have placed an order for Decware Dm945 full range speakers with a tweeter so I am about to find out if all of this is true. I will post what I hear......

 

[charles 1973]

Consider this! The electronic parts in a X-over are also used in an amp. Some amps have a veiled sound either because of cheap parts, or a poor design. Other Amps are amazingly transparent. Its no different with X-overs. Hopefull we get what we pay for in the end.

 

[DS21]

Go to the Bob Brines sight. Don't forget to read his post in his forum. Some of his statements piss me off. Especially when he talks of his competition.

I've heard one speaker by Brines. His original "Peerless Pipe," which used a 7" Peerless CSX woofer and a crap tweeter (by his own admission, after the audition) in an MLTL, and possibly with a series crossover. He brought it to one of the old DIY-ATL events.

Honestly, it was a pretty good-sounding speaker. Amazing bass from a 7" woofer. I've not heard his later stuff.

Some amps have a veiled sound either because of cheap parts, or a poor design. Other Amps are amazingly transparent.

Do you have any proof of that rather extraordinary claim?

Have you ever participated in, or even read, a properly conducted (that is to say, level matched and blind) subjective comparison test of amplifiers?

 

[shelly_d]

I read that same article on the Decware site. What I got out of it is that high efficency speakers and low powered amps in combination give you more detail. He also stated that as speaker builders built more complex, less efficent crossovers the amp builders had to build more powerful amps to accomodate these speakers. What is wrong with a manufaturer making claims for speakers and amps that he builds? Thats why they got into the business in the first place because it is something to believe in. Some people like to share their passion. I have placed an order for Decware Dm945 full range speakers with a tweeter so I am about to find out if all of this is true. I will post what I hear......

Many manufacturers lay many claims on the public. Unfortunately, may times these claims are worded in ways to lead us, the buying public, to conclusions that really just not true but the claims are worded in a way to convince us they are, or they are just not provable one way or the other. Just because a manufacturer makes a claim, doesn't mean we have to believe it. That, I think is the point of this thread.

I do hope you truly enjoy the speakers you just purchased. I would think that a full range speaker paired with a tweeter would need only a first order filter (read only a cap) in series with the tweeter. That is how I would try to design such a system anyway. - But then what do I know about it.

Good Luck with your purchase.

Shelly_D

 

[charles 1973]

Do you have any proof of that rather extraordinary claim?
Have you ever participated in, or even read, a properly conducted (that is to say, level matched and blind) subjective comparison test of amplifiers?

Pehaps veiled isn't the word I'm thinking of, still

From my own experiance. I've found higher quality amps, DAC's, tuners, and Phono stages all sound much better than their less expensive counter parts...why would X-Overs be any different! My bryston DAC Module sounds so much better than the Analog output of my Denon 1920 Universal player I checked the connections and settings. The difference on some disc's is like night and day. Not on all CD's mind you, on some the difference was less, but always present. It really is amazing the difference high quality makes in all Hi fi gear and that includes X-Overs.

My FM Tuner same thing, Some of my FM music sounds as good or better that that Bryston DAC as good as it is. You have no Idea how good FM can sound untill you've heard it on a good Tuner.

The question is how much do we have to spend to get it?

 

[TerryO]

Just from my own experiance. I've found higher quality amps, DAC's, tuners, and Phono stages all sound much better than their less expensive counter parts...why would X-Overs be any different! My bryston DAC Module sounds so much better than the Analog output of my Denon 1920 Universal player I checked the connections and settings. The difference on some disc's is like night and day. Not on all CD's mind you, on some the difference was less, but always present. It really is amazing the difference high quality makes in all Hi fi gear and that includes X-Overs.

Apples and Oranges!

Don't drag this in here, as it really has no bearing on speaker design. A good designer can make a very nice sounding speaker with inexpensive parts and a lousy designer can use an amount many, many times greater and still have it sound terrible.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[charles 1973]

I'm refering to quality of design and construction. IMO it has a bearing on every product made from car engines to speakers.

Apples and Oranges!

A good designer can make a very nice sounding speaker with inexpensive parts and a lousy designer can use an amount many, many times greater and still have it sound terrible.

Best Regards,
TerryO

I agree about but would not the same design sound better with better parts? Or if we use the same quality parts but with a better design we should get better sound. Ideally of course we would get both.

What happens when you get neither? Well I guess we would have to talk to the guy's in the white van's about that! My friends amp shut off when he connected up a pair of their speakers.

 

[TerryO]

I agree, but would not the same design with better parts will sound better?

Not that we've been able to verify, and we've done A/B tests with virtually null results (actually, there was a statistically non-significant number that liked the cheap parts better).

The key word is better. Better for what and how.
I can tell you why these "better" parts are used, but the overall sound isn't necessarily one of the reasons.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[Tom Brennan]

Brines makes the following assertion on his website......."Single driver speakers have a unique sound. That sound comes from a lack of a conventional crossover. "


It also might be that the unique sound of single driver speakers comes from limited bass, limited highs, limited dispersion, limited dynamics and high distortion. There are worse things than crossovers.

 

[jimfet]

Many manufacturers lay many claims on the public. Unfortunately, may times these claims are worded in ways to lead us, the buying public, to conclusions that really just not true but the claims are worded in a way to convince us they are, or they are just not provable one way or the other. Just because a manufacturer makes a claim, doesn't mean we have to believe it. That, I think is the point of this thread.

I do hope you truly enjoy the speakers you just purchased. I would think that a full range speaker paired with a tweeter would need only a first order filter (read only a cap) in series with the tweeter. That is how I would try to design such a system anyway. - But then what do I know about it.

Good Luck with your purchase.

Shelly_D

Shelly. The DM945's do not have fullrangers. It is a Silverflute woofer and a Hivi ribbon with a single Clarity cap on the ribbon.

Tom, nobody here is putting down a Xover. Just discussing high and low eff. speakers. The xover in my Koss stats probably weigh 30 plus lbs each. But fullrangers are the closest I can get to my stats without buying stats. Of course these are my ears and I have owned these stats over 30 years. I do use a sub on my fullrangers though. But I really love the highs. You don't need high extention with Audio Nirvana speakers. Really didn't need them with the Fostex either.

 

[DS21]

Pehaps veiled isn't the word I'm thinking of, still

From my own experiance. I've found higher quality amps, DAC's, tuners, and Phono stages all sound much better than their less expensive counter parts...

Again, I repeat.

Do you have any proof of that rather extraordinary claim?

Have you ever participated in, or even read, a properly conducted (that is to say, level matched and blind) subjective comparison test of amplifiers?

To add to that, listen to the first 5 minutes of this presentation, which I just discovered. JJ was one of the people being AAC perceptual coding (what iTunes uses) at AT&T Labs, and now he's CTO (I think) at dts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Brines makes the following assertion on his website......."Single driver speakers have a unique sound. That sound comes from a lack of a conventional crossover. "

FWIW, Brines' speakers do have a filter, unlike most single-driver speakers. At least they used to. So he's being a bit slippery in that quote, given that most single-driver fundies want a direct connection from amp to driver, with no baffle step correction or HF notch filters to correct/linearize the raw response of that driver on that baffle. (I don't get it either, but I don't understand most audio fetishes.)

 

[sebrof]

I've had an opportunity to listen to some some SET driven HE speakers.

I do admit high efficiency speakers, minimal or no crossover and SET power can sound very good. IMO the big deal is the SET amplifier and the minimal or no crossover. If people are hearing more detail it's the SET amplifiers and less masking from the passive crossover. They (SET's) sound really good to me but not good enough to give up esl's. Yes, there are a few SET's with enough power to drive the kind of speaker I like. All of that group are way beyond my wallet. What the world needs is an inexpensive >100 Watt SET. I realize inexpensive is subjective so how about $1000 for a mono block.

I'll start out by saying there is no one "best" way to go about putting together a system.
I'm in a small room 12' x 13' and I have finally found that I prefer the combination of low power SET and Hi eff crossoverless speakers. I've matched the speakers to the room and the amp to the speakers, and have kept the parts count in the audio signal path to a minimum*. I have found that this seems to preserve the signal and provide a very realistic sound. The fact that the signal is only slightly amplified (4-watt amp) probably doesn't hurt either.
I've had Maggies, Logans, KHorns and all sounded very good and I can see why people like them, but probably too big for my room was a reason they didn't sound quite as good to me.
I built my amp @ ~$850, speakers @ $1000 (Tekton Lore, other similar designs in similar pricepoint) so we're not talking about a lot of cash.

So I believe what Steve Deckert says except for assertion that his designs are "better" than any other, if that's what you read into his blurb. It's a good design, certainly has its merits if that's what you're looking for in a system.
It's all about trade offs, always.

* 7 components in the signal path from the out of the CDP or phono pre to my ear: Selector switch, volume (discrete resistors), 6C6 pentode driver, coupling cap, 2A3 power tube, OPT, full range driver.

 

[DS21]

***A first order crossover is the only topography that can pass a sine wave relatively intact, and when you have phase shifts and all the rest that can come out of a higher order crossover, the potential for signal degrading is certainly present. Parts count isn't necessarily a determinate of the "order" of crossover. I believe that the Dunlavy speakers all used 1st order crossovers and they had "a lot" of components.

True, very true. (Though I think you meant "square wave, not "sine wave," right?)

None of the makers that claim first-order topologies and actually know enough to mean it (Duntech, Dunlavy, Thiel) use simple crossovers, because a simple cap-n-coil isn't going to be an acoustically 1st order crossover in most cases.

As for Dunlavies...hehe, I remember the first time I heard big Dunlavys. I think they were SC-V's. Four-ways with felt glued to the woofer cones. I think the crossovers alone weighed more than a typical 7" bookshelf speaker does.

Biggest bloody headphones I've ever heard! Seriously, move your head just a little bit, and things fall apart. Still, if I were to ever get the chance I'd love to compare the sound the big Tannoys give me over a fairly wide listening area to the sound of the DAL's in the (very tiny) sweet spot.