WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Live music is really dynamic. And its easier for high efficiency speakers to provide that via simple physics (if peaks need to be 105dbs, much easier to do that with 100db speakers than 85)

As one dealer friend put it, inefficient speakers are sometimes like hearing music through a straw. Also, many lower efficiency models have larger, more complicated higher order crossovers. Many horns on the other hand have a simple cap in the path or roll off gently.

Hi Keith,
As one of the resident experts in "high efficiency" systems, have you ever dabbled in inefficient systems? What has been your speaker evolution? And did certain amps create moments of epiphany or unexpected revelation along the way?
Thanks
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
This is IMO all about the amplifier/speaker matching process. Wave launch velocity and damping drive dynamics which along with low distortion are the heart of emotional engagement, IMO. These factors are largely a function of an amplifier's i) power/current reserves being properly matched to the speaker's impedance/phase levels across the entire frequency band; ii) rise time/slew rate; and iii) output impedance (damping factor). Is it harder to match an amplifier in this regard to a lower efficiency speaker?......of course. Does this mean higher efficiency speakers are superior for emotional engagement?.......of course not.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
Higher efficiency speakers typically have higher Q (less dampening), and people prefer lower amplifier dampening (less feedback) almost exclusively with them - neither are explicit to low distortion at all. So it looks like you're saying, Paul, that you prefer less efficient speakers to get these characteristics, and larger more powerful amps.

I think over the years distortion is best seen as an aid to emotional content. The 70's everyone greatly preferred distortion, and to this day many people prefer it. (low distortion speakers do not share the same type of popularity that their electronic counter parts do, to this day)

Maybe what you mean is a lack of aberration, which would be when an instrument of voice literally sounds like it has an error. It might sound like a "distorted" version of say a cello, but that doesn't make distortion as in THD. This has a lot to do with how amplifiers can respond to reactive loads and things like that.
 
Last edited:

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
The old big Apogees were really inefficient and they are wonderful.

+1. The scintilla, the old 77db quad, and the audio machina will see off most high efficient speakers. The number of horns that get it right is extremely extremely low. When they do, they sound awesome. But audio note Es, Tannoy, compromised horns with active cones for bass, and such that are in the guise of high efficiency are among the least good speakers out there and conventional cones are much better.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Live music is really dynamic. And its easier for high efficiency speakers to provide that via simple physics (if peaks need to be 105dbs, much easier to do that with 100db speakers than 85)

As one dealer friend put it, inefficient speakers are sometimes like hearing music through a straw. Also, many lower efficiency models have larger, more complicated higher order crossovers. Many horns on the other hand have a simple cap in the path or roll off gently.

Simple physics will tell us that all is needed is moving air, nothing else. Simple engineering will tell us that it is easier to design a large power amplifier than an very efficient speaker. What they do not tell us is which way we prefer. :) But, as always, we try to support our preferences with technical arguments.

Simple physics can be very misleading. The simplest concept needed to debate this thread subject is acoustic impedance. Unfortunately it is not an easy subject, needing a lot of mathematics.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
Cesar, I’ll go w your premise. Zu’s whole raison d’etre if you talk w chief designer Sean Casey is to return to the age where tone and dynamics were more critical than seeming uber resolving w prominent upper mids/treble output.
He felt this could only be achieved w true high efficiency (101dB in my Def4s) and full range drivers utilising no crossovers or filters btwn 30-40Hz and 11-12kHz.
For this listener at least I find tone density, and “shove”, more critical than the more typical presentation of rising top ends, uber pin point imaging, and detail at the expense of fleshed out tone and timbre.
As usual YMMV, IMHO, all the usual caveats.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Tone and dynamics of apogee and audio machina are much better than Zu. As is the tone of quads. I don't know any designer who started off saying I will design a speaker not good at tone and dynamics
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
Ked, in the late 2000s, I auditioned Zu v Quad ESL, ML Prodigy, a lower end Wilson, a B&W, and of course against my current ProAcs at the time.
I bought the Zus primarily because tone density and shove were far superior to these alternatives.
I also heard your MLs and had no second thoughts returning home.
It’s good we all feel different about gear, I’m glad to have helped Zu’s Sean put food on the table, get his kids thru college, and help pay his MediCare.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
I like the B&W too when driven right. I don't expect you to ever say Zus are not better. I sold all my speakers. I will buy MLs again if my used speaker budget drops to 5k and below, not otherwise. You should sell your speakers too . They are not your kids and like Tang says you don't own the co.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
Hi Keith,
As one of the resident experts in "high efficiency" systems, have you ever dabbled in inefficient systems? What has been your speaker evolution? And did certain amps create moments of epiphany or unexpected revelation along the way?
Thanks

Before I went towards the higher efficiency side of things (and my current Devores are 92db/flat 8ohm so hard to say are really HE) I owned Dynaudios and Wilsons. The Dyns definitely needed juice to wake them up as has been commented on WBF before - as such, you tend to listen more loudly to them.

HE speakers have their own set of issues, so there is no right and wrong - but after the Dyns I said I would never own a speaker that couldn't be driven by a 100 watt tube amp. I like amplifier flexibility and don't want to be beholden to SS behemoths. I used a Pass X250.5 on the Dyns.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Don't like Dyna, nothing to do with efficiency.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
Personal commentary deleted. I auditioned Quad ESL, ML Prodigies, B&Ws, Wilson and had my ProAcs of 9 years standing. I had no affinity or loyalty for the company in 2008. I had heard the Prodigies in a really well set up system using MF KW monos and an SME20. And I STILL preferred the Zus. When I relay on WBF re auditions where I hear things superior to the Zus, I state it publicly. But I remain of the opinion that the Zu USP I heard on Day One is yet to be beaten by any other spkr. Is that ok, can we get past your tired criticisms I’m always boosting Zu for purely emotional reasons? A reasonable criticism of me would be the comment that I overvalue tone density and shove above perhaps more important attributes like uber transparency, dynamics, imaging etc. Maybe you can change your tune, after 5 years your criticism of me is really tiresome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Read up, you got defensive after I said Zus can't compare to apogee etc on tone. You brought in ML to counter on speakers I sold ages ago. I think Zus don't count in this lot, you think they do, fine.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
The joke is I heard well set up Quads and MLs way before you even got into this hobby.
But I’ll give you credit, you’re doing your best to catch up with the wealth of experience I’ve accumulated over many decades.
Keep at it.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
And for the record, I heard the Prodigies at the home of a reviewer on one of the big U.K. audio magazines, he’d just done his back in moving the MF monos.
And I really liked what I heard. If you really think I only mentioned the Prodigies to spike your narrative, you’re giving yourself WAY too much credit.
I’m outta here on this pleasant little diversion.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Point is you got MLs in to try and make it personal, I could care less. You have been around many decades, but most of those decades you loved Zus.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,466
963
Greater Boston
Before I went towards the higher efficiency side of things (and my current Devores are 92db/flat 8ohm so hard to say are really HE) I owned Dynaudios and Wilsons. The Dyns definitely needed juice to wake them up as has been commented on WBF before - as such, you tend to listen more loudly to them.

HE speakers have their own set of issues, so there is no right and wrong - but after the Dyns I said I would never own a speaker that couldn't be driven by a 100 watt tube amp. I like amplifier flexibility and don't want to be beholden to SS behemoths. I used a Pass X250.5 on the Dyns.

My current speakers, Reference 3A Reflector monitors, are also 92 dB/8ohm; not sure if totally flat impedance. My tube amp is 100 W/ch into 8 Ohms (130 W into 4 Ohms). It is complete overkill (good!) for these speakers which can also easily be driven by 15 W/ch amps with great dynamics. My current amp though gives an even more dynamic sound still.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Cesar, I’ll go w your premise. Zu’s whole raison d’etre if you talk w chief designer Sean Casey is to return to the age where tone and dynamics were more critical than seeming uber resolving w prominent upper mids/treble output.
He felt this could only be achieved w true high efficiency (101dB in my Def4s) and full range drivers utilising no crossovers or filters btwn 30-40Hz and 11-12kHz.
For this listener at least I find tone density, and “shove”, more critical than the more typical presentation of rising top ends, uber pin point imaging, and detail at the expense of fleshed out tone and timbre.
As usual YMMV, IMHO, all the usual caveats.

Hi Spirit,
Thanks. A few years ago at Axpona, my buddy, who's new to audiophilia, heard the Zus - and pretty much everything else at the show. He thought the Zus were the best thing at the show... He's waiting for his daughter to graduate from college so he can start diverting the cash toward his needs...

What is the best Zu model, out of curiosity?

And have you heard any other speaker out-perform the Zu?
Thanks
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Before I went towards the higher efficiency side of things (and my current Devores are 92db/flat 8ohm so hard to say are really HE) I owned Dynaudios and Wilsons. The Dyns definitely needed juice to wake them up as has been commented on WBF before - as such, you tend to listen more loudly to them.

HE speakers have their own set of issues, so there is no right and wrong - but after the Dyns I said I would never own a speaker that couldn't be driven by a 100 watt tube amp. I like amplifier flexibility and don't want to be beholden to SS behemoths. I used a Pass X250.5 on the Dyns.

Hi Keith,
Thanks. What are your thoughts on the 93 vs the 96 Devores? And do you have an opinion on Devore vs. Zu?

Thank you
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
+1. The scintilla, the old 77db quad, and the audio machina will see off most high efficient speakers. The number of horns that get it right is extremely extremely low. When they do, they sound awesome. But audio note Es, Tannoy, compromised horns with active cones for bass, and such that are in the guise of high efficiency are among the least good speakers out there and conventional cones are much better.

Hi Bonzo,
Which horns are worthy?
Thank you
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing