• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Low efficiency vs. high efficiency speakers?

I believe that there is also a certain amount of path-dependency at work here.

60 years ago the common hi-fi speakers were infinite baffle or horns. As is still true today, these required very large cabinets, and such cabinets were not very practical to many for home use. When Villchur invented the acoustic suspension speaker in 1954, hi-fi hobbiests found they could get superior bass performance in a much more reasonably sized enclosure. This became even more of an issue with the advent soon after of stereo, as one horn/infinite baffle was maybe acceptable, but 2 take up a LOT of real estate.

As mentioned, the tradeoff was efficiency, and at first high powered amps to drive these acoustic suspension designs were rather rare, but again market forces drove this development and high-powered (compared to tubes) solid state designs that could easily drive them became commonplace. (no comment here on whether this was good or bad :-))

As acoustic suspension designs became more popular, many of the best minds in the business recognized that would be the place to invest their development energy. There are other advantages mentioned by others as well (smaller baffle helping imaging, etc).

Another factor was the dismissal of horns as hopelessly colored by the high-end audio press such as The Absolute Sound.

On this site there may be some larger percentage of people who use very large speakers with everything from SETs to 200 wpc amps, but for most I'd say it's still not the practical choice, for the same reasons it was not practical in 1960.
 
Very interesting input everyone. I know that this is a very subjective subject.:yes:

I am trying to figure out what are the more accurate sounding speakers the low vs. high efficiency.

I am under the assumption that all proffesional studio speakers are mostly inefficient 2 way monitor speakers which frequently are 4ohms and lower driven by powerfull amplifiers.

All input greatly appreciated. Sounds like everyone has some decent speakers as well.:thmbsp:
 
mhardy6647 said:
... or the quality of the output at low power on a high power amp. This is a very real consideration with high-sensitivity speakers ("the first watt") and many high-power amps really fall short at low output.

That's why Nelson Pass has his "FirstWatt" marque. Nelson Pass gets it.
:-)
Click to expand...


This is spot on IMO, Mark.

My experience has shown me that most high power amplifiers (both tube and SS) have a tendency to collapse soundstage and restrict resolution and detail as the volume goes down.

I listen at low volume levels for the most part and this phenomonon became most apparent to me when I was exposed to SET tube amps in my system. When using my high powered tube amps (KT88 PP) on high efficiency speakers, it was almost like turning off the soundstage and resolution faucet and the volume decreased. With my SET amps, the soundstage and resolution was retained as the volume decreased.

My experiences with low efficiency speakers and high powered SS amplification has been the same. More often than not, you have to put the coals to them a bit to get things to open up.

I do have one amp that is an exception. My Threshold T-100 (60w/ch class A) does very well at low levels even with relatively inefficient speakers. I have it paired up with a pair Domus Mirage speakers which I would guess are in the mid to high 80's sensitivity wise. Very nice at low levels.

I guess I consider 60w/ch a high power amp now a day :D

RC
 
I have no particular dogma that says I only like high-sensitivity speakers with lower powered amps, vice versa, or any other combination- there are examples of setups of all sorts that I've found have exceptional musical performance, and others... not so good.

I have found that, generally speaking (not any sort of hard and fast rule), speakers of lesser sensitivity seem to have more broad frequency response (especially for a given size), are more compact, and tend to give a greater sense of depth to the sound-stage. More sensitive speakers, aside from the obvious gain in efficiency, usually have a wider sound presentation, have typically better transient response, and bring out the very lowest level details (whether this is always a good thing or not can be debated). But, as I noted, the above is a generalization, and might apply to 60-70% of such systems I've owned or heard. I've heard very sensitive speakers that lack dynamic range (as oxymoronic as that sounds at first), and low sensitivity speakers that possessed very good transient attack.

Each and every speaker is a compromise of sorts; even something as seemingly infallible as the Genesis 1.2 has a very important compromise- cost.

However, experimenting over the years has lead me to the point where I'm using relatively insensitive speakers (~83dB @ 1m with 1-watt of input) with an amp of modest power (52WPC). It gets quite as loud as I ever normally listen to, which may be quiet to others.

What I do really like about my current speakers, aside from the fantastic imaging, is that I really do not need to crank it in order to get top-to-bottom presentation. When you're getting 20-20k and a reasonable but very sane SPL, and it sounds like you're getting 20-20k, you find that, even with speakers of low sensitivity, you do not need that much power. A nice side effect is that when I listen to my system, I never get fatigued and am happy in the knowledge that I'm also helping to extend the life of my ears.

I suppose it could be a consequence of my earlier focus where max SPL was the goal. I've now swung in just about the opposite direction, so to speak. There are times when I do like a "full scale" performance, and I can usually count on my friends to have big speakers and amps with outputs measured in HP; I can even break out my own "big Iron" when the fit takes me, though that surely occurs less frequently than previously.

Two of my favorite speakers that I've owned are, in terms of absolute measured response and specifications, poles apart: The IMF TLS-50 is quite insensitive, possessing many of the qualities one associates with a British monitor, whereas the Klipsch Cornwall was very sensitive indeed, and more than resembled a sound reinforcement speaker in construction and quality. However, they shared more in common in terms of overall sound than the design or specs would indicate. Such a revelation would indicate that it is best to keep something of an open mind when deciding on speakers.
 
I just bought a pair of vintage Jensen Imperials, circa 1949. These have got to be the pinnacle of sensitivity. I'm running them with a 10W solid state amp (how's that for irony). I can raise the roof, volume wise, with the heat sink on the amp barely getting luke warm. I wish I could find the sensitivity spec on these, I suspect it's very high.

Anyway, the old high efficiency speakers usually have large bass reflex cabinets. Low efficiency speakers are usually in a sealed, smaller cabinet.

That's about all I know. I think both designs sound good when done right.

Bobby D.
 
sonix said:
Hi everyone,

I think this question has been brought up before. Anyway why would you prefer low efficiency speakers over high efficiency speakers or vise versa?

I realize the fact that low efficiency speakers need a lot of amplifier power to drive them properly otherwise something can get damaged at high volumes and low frequencies. I also know the fact that efficient speaker do not require much power to drive them.

My main question is are low efficiency speakers with a big power amp, sonically superior to high efficiency speakers and a smaller power amp.

I think that low efficiency speakers with a powerfull amplifier would be superior with music that requires proper low frequency reproduction. Because low frequencies dip down to low ohms in the speakers a bigger power demand is required from the power amp to properly reproduce those low frequencies without distortion.

Many low efficiency speakers are also low ohm speakers, like 4ohm and 2ohm in rare cases. I don't think it is a coinsidence.

This is where I would like your theoretical knowledge and practical if possible.

Am I on the ball? What do you say?
Click to expand...

A lot of vintage British speakers tend towards low efficiency and they run 8 ohms or even higher. Some incarnations of the LS3 5A were 16 ohms. My late, lamented JR 149's were 8 ohms. Both were notorious power hogs.
 
Another point to add to this discussion is that most "high efficiency" speakers are tuned port designs,transmission lines, or use passive radiators, which makes the woofers easier to drive, thus requiring less power to achieve the intended bass performance. Most "low efficiency" speakers are sealed box/acoustic suspension or planar speakers that require more power to produce suitable bass output and extension.

My preference in speakers leans towards acoustic suspension designs, but there are "high efficiency" speakers that I also like, so it really boils down to what the whole package sounds like more than its design.
 
Last edited:
I have what are classed as 'low efficiency' speakers (84dB sensitivity) and the smallest current McIntosh SS amplifier (250 W/ch). I don't seem to have any problems with dynamics. :D
In fact, 2 Watts/ch peak is damned loud in my living room. :banana::banana:
 
gkimeng said:
I chose my speakers based on their sound and then shopped for the amplifier power they needed. I wouldn't choose speakers based on their efficiency.
Click to expand...

DITTO!
I do prefer speakers of the lower kind but then again I hate horns, the just bark at me for some reason and my ears dont take kindly to them, it can be a humble cornerhorn backed by an old reciever or some SOTA Avantgard rig with $40k of gear all around it........at some point the bark is gonna bite.
 
Tedrick said:
Most "low efficiency" speakers are sealed box/acoustic suspension or planar speakers that require more power to produce suitable bass output and extension..
Click to expand...

Keep in mind gents, those of us driving Martin Logan, electrostatic speakers, deal with a very different type of load. That being one which is capacitive in nature so amplification and stability (capability to 'dbl down') is important. Also our Impendence curve, in so far as the 'dip' is concerned is inverse to what you 'cone' guys deal with.
 
Why Hi-efficiency is desireable

As a lifelong devotee of Paul W. Klipsch, I want to put my $.02 in on this subject.

Paul proved by careful measurements that, in fact, distortion and efficiency are inversely proportional. If one goes up, the other goes down. If two speakers are identical in every way except for efficiency, the more efficient of the two will have less measureable distortion (harmonic and IM are the two big ones).

While I agree with the company's (Klipsch's) philiosophy on high efficiency, I don't always agree with their main method for obtaining it, i.e.: Horns. Sometimes they can sound great. For awhile, until fatigue sets in. I tend to prefer high-efficiency ribbons and planar drivers - great dynamics AND transparency CAN be had at the same time.
 
loudspkrguy said:
Paul proved by careful measurements that, in fact, distortion and efficiency are inversely proportional. If one goes up, the other goes down. If two speakers are identical in every way except for efficiency, the more efficient of the two will have less measureable distortion (harmonic and IM are the two big ones).
Click to expand...


I think PWK proved that to HIS satisfaction and not everyone else's. I sure don't buy it.
 
HTML: 
why would you prefer low efficiency speakers over high efficiency speakers or vise versa?
I prefer whichever speaker gives me the best sound that I am looking for. It just so happens that the ones I prefer are low efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom