While there are many variables in sound quality, I think it's correct to say that sensitivity is not one of them (at least not when quality is defined as the ability to reproduce the recorded signal accurately). If I've got this wrong, I'm sure on of the more technically knowledgeable members will correct me.
sensitivity comparison chart (looking for)
- Thread starter arbalest
- Start date
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
High sensitivity loudspeakers have a tendency to exhibit less power compression than loudspeakers of low(er) sensitivity. In practice, this leads to the sense of "effortless dynamics" that -- well -- that those of us who enjoy high sensitivity loudspeakers prize.
Well, there you go. Looks like at least some would say that high-sensitivity speakers are inherently better. I stand (sit) corrected.
Power compression is a real issue, especially at reference levels. Unfortunately, horn designs - one of the common solutions - have their own sonic drawbacks.
I do like the way that you distinguish between those of you who like good sound (those who enjoy high sensitivity speakers) and those of us who apparently don't (that is, those who don't make sensitivity a primary selection criteria).
Power compression is a real issue, especially at reference levels. Unfortunately, horn designs - one of the common solutions - have their own sonic drawbacks.
I do like the way that you distinguish between those of you who like good sound (those who enjoy high sensitivity speakers) and those of us who apparently don't (that is, those who don't make sensitivity a primary selection criteria).
Last edited:
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
Some of 'em are -- some are pretty execrable. Good design, engineering and construction wins every time.
I like these. On the order of 100 - 104 dB per watt @ 1 meter.
DSC_8949 by mhardy6647, on Flickr
Among the most real sounding reproducers I've heard with my own ears (and certainly the only ones I could actually afford). ESLs can compete in terms of midrange, but not in dynamics (again, not any ESLs that I can afford; I do have a pair of Quad ESL-57 for comparison).
I like these. On the order of 100 - 104 dB per watt @ 1 meter.
DSC_8949 by mhardy6647, on FlickrAmong the most real sounding reproducers I've heard with my own ears (and certainly the only ones I could actually afford). ESLs can compete in terms of midrange, but not in dynamics (again, not any ESLs that I can afford; I do have a pair of Quad ESL-57 for comparison).
whoaru99
Epic Member
Yeah, I've read that, and understand how it can be.
However, I wonder how much of effect this really entails for people outside a professional venue type setting?
Maybe if you're having a rave in your garage using those Advents (et al)?
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
Well -- some recorded music actually has some dynamic range to it; it's not just about playing loud -- it's all about the contrast between soft and loud. The trick is finding music that was recorded without excessive compression. This is a tall order in terms of pop music (including rock).
Here, for example, is an album that will illustrate dynamics -- with a very small combo -- at any volume setting.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(96)/discogs-images/R-1266615-1359214798-5841.jpeg.jpg)
Here, for example, is an album that will illustrate dynamics -- with a very small combo -- at any volume setting.
I think whoaru is aware of dynamic range and its importance in sound quality....perhaps he was referring to the notion that compression, in well-designed speakers, has a relatively negligible impact...at least up until the point at which you are pushing them at very high levels (and I mean on a steady basis...as I understand it, transients have very little incremental effect on compression-driven resistance).
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
I would certainly disagree with that assessment.
Coytee
Super Member
As I understand, Paul Klipsch made a comment that "if it moves, it distorts". This was part of why he tried to toss a horn onto anything that moved.
I have had (have) full horns and I've had some 'traditional' type speakers.
All the non-horn speakers in my life are gone and I've kept the horns. The dynamics are to die for and they blow away anything my DR speakers had (EV Interface D, Superscope (forget model), ESS (bookshelf so it's not really a fair comparison))
I have had (have) full horns and I've had some 'traditional' type speakers.
All the non-horn speakers in my life are gone and I've kept the horns. The dynamics are to die for and they blow away anything my DR speakers had (EV Interface D, Superscope (forget model), ESS (bookshelf so it's not really a fair comparison))
tomlinmgt
Lunatic Member
I would be inclined to think a good number of us in the hobby had our first exposure to high sensitivity designs via Cerwin Vega. They're legendary for achieving high output levels on little power...and their ability to rock a frat house or block party on pretty much whatever amount of wattage was available is the stuff of legend.
At the other end of the audio hobby is the listener who appreciates the high sensitivity designs for their ability to be driven by practically any form of amplification, regardless of how low the power output, and takes advantage of this characteristic by using somewhat exotic, low power output amplifier designs that wouldn't be practical for a speaker design that presents a more difficult load.
At the other end of the audio hobby is the listener who appreciates the high sensitivity designs for their ability to be driven by practically any form of amplification, regardless of how low the power output, and takes advantage of this characteristic by using somewhat exotic, low power output amplifier designs that wouldn't be practical for a speaker design that presents a more difficult load.
Last edited:
This has been an interesting thread and it has enlightened me more than I expected. Before this thread I wanted to learn a lot more about audio but now I want to forget the question and just listen to some music until my head stops spinning. That's progress! :thmbsp:
On the other hand, I just listened to some Charlie Byrd to see/hear what range refers to in dynamic range. I wondered if this referred to range of amplitude or of frequency. Instead I learned that I like Charlie Byrd. More progress! :thmbsp: I can't tell so far based on what I've heard from Mr. Byrd but the Wikipedia says that it is amplitude. It's hard for me to translate that into the effects of low vs. high sensitivity speakers. If it means that high sensitivity results in perceived differences between soft and loud that is closer to the source then I can live with less sensitivity.
Theoretically, if it can be done without ruining the sound, I might like less range so that I can appreciate very low and very high levels of a piece of music without adjusting the volume.
Another thing I have learned from this thread is a new word -- execrable (detestable, very bad, wretched). That will be helpful next time I get the "x" in scabble (well, if crab or able is already on the board). :thmbsp:
On the other hand, I just listened to some Charlie Byrd to see/hear what range refers to in dynamic range. I wondered if this referred to range of amplitude or of frequency. Instead I learned that I like Charlie Byrd. More progress! :thmbsp: I can't tell so far based on what I've heard from Mr. Byrd but the Wikipedia says that it is amplitude. It's hard for me to translate that into the effects of low vs. high sensitivity speakers. If it means that high sensitivity results in perceived differences between soft and loud that is closer to the source then I can live with less sensitivity.
Theoretically, if it can be done without ruining the sound, I might like less range so that I can appreciate very low and very high levels of a piece of music without adjusting the volume.
Another thing I have learned from this thread is a new word -- execrable (detestable, very bad, wretched). That will be helpful next time I get the "x" in scabble (well, if crab or able is already on the board). :thmbsp:
Last edited:
Dynamic range refers to the difference between the softest and loudest elements of the signal, expressed as a ratio. So yes, it is a reference to amplitude.
Many modern recordings, especially in pop/hip-hop/dance genres, are highly compressed (that is, they have a reduced dynamic range). In my view, shared by many, the sound quality of such recordings is dismal. But, as you touched upon, it is certainly true that in a high-noise environment, the reduced dynamics make it easier to hear both ends of the spectrum. That's why Muzak recordings were so highly compressed. You might find a search on "loudness wars" interesting.
A related measurement is crest factor...the difference between the peak amplitude and continuous/average amplitude of a signal. Good stereo recordings will have a crest factor of at least 10-12dB, or more (sometimes quite a bit more, especially in the case of classical music). Personally, I find good dynamics to be critical to sound quality...but unlike some others in this thread, have not concluded that high-sensitivity speakers are the only way (or even best way) to achieve them...especially when also considering other variables in the sound-quality "equation".
In any case, however, it always starts with the quality of the recording. A recording incorporating heavy-handed dynamic range compression will never sound as good as one approximating the range of a live performance. The next step is getting that recording, in the form of a complex electrical signal, amplified in a minimally unadulterated form, to the speakers. At that point, speaker quality takes over. And of course, at each step in the chain are the subjective likes, dislikes, preferences, etc as regards the constitution of "good" or "accurate" sound. For example, some folks may prefer a highly detailed, to the point of "hyper-realistic", sound quality. Others may prefer a rougher, "live venue" kind of sound. Etc etc etc.
Many modern recordings, especially in pop/hip-hop/dance genres, are highly compressed (that is, they have a reduced dynamic range). In my view, shared by many, the sound quality of such recordings is dismal. But, as you touched upon, it is certainly true that in a high-noise environment, the reduced dynamics make it easier to hear both ends of the spectrum. That's why Muzak recordings were so highly compressed. You might find a search on "loudness wars" interesting.
A related measurement is crest factor...the difference between the peak amplitude and continuous/average amplitude of a signal. Good stereo recordings will have a crest factor of at least 10-12dB, or more (sometimes quite a bit more, especially in the case of classical music). Personally, I find good dynamics to be critical to sound quality...but unlike some others in this thread, have not concluded that high-sensitivity speakers are the only way (or even best way) to achieve them...especially when also considering other variables in the sound-quality "equation".
In any case, however, it always starts with the quality of the recording. A recording incorporating heavy-handed dynamic range compression will never sound as good as one approximating the range of a live performance. The next step is getting that recording, in the form of a complex electrical signal, amplified in a minimally unadulterated form, to the speakers. At that point, speaker quality takes over. And of course, at each step in the chain are the subjective likes, dislikes, preferences, etc as regards the constitution of "good" or "accurate" sound. For example, some folks may prefer a highly detailed, to the point of "hyper-realistic", sound quality. Others may prefer a rougher, "live venue" kind of sound. Etc etc etc.
Last edited: