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

spiritofmusic · Mar 12, 2018

Caesar, plenty of spkrs outperform Zu, but often they cost a lot more too.
I’m a Definitions 4 owner, currently their TOTL, modded w Duelunds to high- and low-pass filters, and bespoke Lundahl transformers to the onboard Hypex sub amps. I also have removed the stock spikes and have them on Symposium Rollerblocks.
Caesar, where they excel is kind of what you’re alluding to with this thread. That is a strong midband saturation of tone (tone density). Now remember, Zu mids stretch from 30-40Hz in room, up to 11-12kHz, so this tone density absolutely supercharges the speaker to really communicate. When you factor in true 101dB efficiency and no crossover to sap energy in this extended midband, this is where Zu scores it’s home run.
However it’s also a little bit of an Achilles Heel, because things need careful setup for those mids not too sound too opaque or occasionally shouty into the lower treble. And the sub bass takes some thought too.
Also Zu does not tick the typical high end marque checklist.
But for sheer communication, they’re hard to beat.
My advice? Reach out to Sean Casey at Zu, he’s one of the good guys in audio engineering, he’ll give you best advice.
My choice would be Definitions 4 at $15-20k or the newly released Druid VI at $10k.
PM me to chat more.

KeithR · Mar 12, 2018

asiufy said:
I'll just say that Keith is blaming the Dynaudio while the blame might lie elsewhere. I've heard Dynaudios (mid-tier lines, not Confidence) with little Naim amps, and it was gorgeous, very good sound. But then I bought a big Temptation (90dB) to use in a big room, with darTZeel 108, and it clearly didn't work as well as the Magico Q3s (also 90dB) that came right after them. Speaker + amp + room is what needs to be accounted for.

Choosing speakers on sensitivity alone is silly, IMHO. For some time in the store, I was able to go from a 89dB efficient speaker to a 93dB efficient one to a 107dB efficient one. But the overall result was far more than what each individual speaker could do. Partnering amp and sources matter, more than the nominal efficiency, and I could readily observe that by swapping pieces between the three systems.

Alex, its all on what you value. Dynamics are very high on my priority list.

The AGs in your old store were much more dynamic than the Sonjas on any amp you displayed them with. Now, the Sonjas were more transparent as we have discussed before. That's why I said in my original post that its one of many factors.

My C1s were also constrained because they were monitors, no doubt. I also enjoyed them a heckuva lot - great speaker. I love Dynaudio.

asiufy · Mar 12, 2018

Yes, they were more dynamic, but that's only one attribute. And for all the dynamism, if you put the wrong speakers on the AGs (known to happen), they'll drive people out of the room.

What I could gather going from room to room, system to system, is that you can't have everything in one system. See Mike's pursuit, with the tube amps. Trade offs. One day, I'd clearly prefer one system, but ask me the next day, and my preference might be on a totally different one. That's why I understand (and respect) folks having options (for amps, tonearms, tables, cartridges, even speakers) as once you become intimately familiar with different results, it's very hard to pick one all the time. I would change opinion many times, within a single day

KeithR · Mar 12, 2018

caesar said:
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

I prefer Gibbons to Orangutans and they have different sounds - I haven't heard the 93s though. The 96s have overly warm, lousy bass imo. The Xs sound more modern if that makes sense which I prefer.

As far as Zu vs Devore, Devore sounds more modern, is more transparent with a flatter midrange (Johnny Cash was always more of a bass than a baritone on the Zu), and images better...but isn't as dynamic and the bass isn't sealed so not as good. I've noticed that my classical listening has been significantly higher with the Devores.

KeithR · Mar 12, 2018

asiufy said:
Yes, they were more dynamic, but that's only one attribute. And for all the dynamism, if you put the wrong speakers on the AGs (known to happen), they'll drive people out of the room.

So no old Krell on AGs?

asiufy · Mar 12, 2018

KeithR said:
So no old Krell on AGs?

Worse, Pass Labs

asiufy · Mar 12, 2018

Damn you, you got me thinking of my ol' AGs!

I now wonder what this one would sound like on them!

caesar · Mar 12, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
Caesar, plenty of spkrs outperform Zu, but often they cost a lot more too.
I’m a Definitions 4 owner, currently their TOTL, modded w Duelunds to high- and low-pass filters, and bespoke Lundahl transformers to the onboard Hypex sub amps. I also have removed the stock spikes and have them on Symposium Rollerblocks.
Caesar, where they excel is kind of what you’re alluding to with this thread. That is a strong midband saturation of tone (tone density). Now remember, Zu mids stretch from 30-40Hz in room, up to 11-12kHz, so this tone density absolutely supercharges the speaker to really communicate. When you factor in true 101dB efficiency and no crossover to sap energy in this extended midband, this is where Zu scores it’s home run.
However it’s also a little bit of an Achilles Heel, because things need careful setup for those mids not too sound too opaque or occasionally shouty into the lower treble. And the sub bass takes some thought too.
Also Zu does not tick the typical high end marque checklist.
But for sheer communication, they’re hard to beat.
My advice? Reach out to Sean Casey at Zu, he’s one of the good guys in audio engineering, he’ll give you best advice.
My choice would be Definitions 4 at $15-20k or the newly released Druid VI at $10k.
PM me to chat more.

Spirit,
Thank you. It's fascinating how this thread has struck a chord with you - must be on the right track! I don't have the time for this pursuit at the moment, but will definitely reach out when ready for the next step.

Out of curiosity, what were some of the best amps for your speakers?

caesar · Mar 12, 2018

asiufy said:
Yes, they were more dynamic, but that's only one attribute. And for all the dynamism, if you put the wrong speakers on the AGs (known to happen), they'll drive people out of the room.

What I could gather going from room to room, system to system, is that you can't have everything in one system. See Mike's pursuit, with the tube amps. Trade offs. One day, I'd clearly prefer one system, but ask me the next day, and my preference might be on a totally different one. That's why I understand (and respect) folks having options (for amps, tonearms, tables, cartridges, even speakers) as once you become intimately familiar with different results, it's very hard to pick one all the time. I would change opinion many times, within a single day

Yes, I am with you. I think one needs at least 3 systems to luxuriate in a full variety of flavors.

Argonaut · Mar 12, 2018

bonzo75 said:
Ribbons are not neutral in the sterile sense. They have the best mids among speakers. They do require an amp that drives them properly else the ribbons can sound wimpy or dry.

Way too sweeping a statment there IMHO Keda!

bonzo75 · Mar 12, 2018

Harlequin said:
Way too sweeping a statment there IMHO Keda!

Ok, Apogee Scintilla and FR pure ribbons, along with CLXs

spiritofmusic · Mar 12, 2018

Caesar, certain comments online get my juices flowing.
As do listening to Zus.
These spkrs do press my buttons.
But I’ve also taken a long time to get them right.
And they can be grey and unforgiving w the wrong choices.
One, I do believe tube amps are needed, both reasonably high Wattage (min 25-30W) and preferably high current (my NATs perfect here).
Two, placement is crucial, they need room to breathe, for me that means 3-4’ from side walls at least (I have 4’), 5’ at least from front wall (I have 8’), and good cabling (I swear by Sablon Reserva/Elite).
And then you’ll be on the road.
However if you’re looking for strict neutral, extended treble, SOTA transparency and imaging, look elsewhere.
But toneful, soulful, and intimate, great at lower volumes too, Zus/SETs are a tough combo to beat.
And the epitome of high efficiency being a very relevant design choice to musicality and thus emotional connection.

Argonaut · Mar 12, 2018

bonzo75 said:
Ok, Apogee Scintilla and FR pure ribbons, along with CLXs

I feel that it does tend to depend on user predilection Kedar, Do FR's have a 'better' midrange 'texturally' overall on say Der Ring des Nibelungen than Quad 57....I would say yes, Are the roles reversed on Sinatra 'Live at the Sands' ? Or similar then I would also say Yes.

Pb Blimp · Mar 12, 2018

KeithR said:
Yes, this comes down to an old forum argument - does a zillion watts on an inefficient speaker produce the same as 10 watts on a highly efficient one.

I don't personally believe that 1,000 watts on something like a Rockport will equivocate 10 watts on an Avantgarde. The dynamics will still be very different. The other thing is the quality of that 1,000 watts is likely to be very different for a good first one.

On the Dyn C1s I used a 250w amp that doubles down to 1ohm - I personally think the C1 loudspeaker was plenty powered, but didn't check bigger Pass amps on them.

Keith, My point was a bit more subtle than just power. Power ratings are watts and voltage at a specific impedance (i.e., frequency). Some speakers have a certain frequencies were both impedance and phase angle combine to crush amplifiers with high current demand. You can take two amps both rated at 250 watts and if one is not capable of delivering the necessary current at the frequency in question, you will get very different results with such a speaker. Understanding the impedance and phase curves across the entire frequency range and then understanding the current availability of the amplifiers in question across this range is essential to getting performance from inefficient speakers. Buying low efficiency speakers without this is a complete guess.

KeithR · Mar 12, 2018

Pb Blimp said:
Keith, My point was a bit more subtle than just power. Power ratings are watts and voltage at a specific impedance (i.e., frequency). Some speakers have a certain frequencies were both impedance and phase angle combine to crush amplifiers with high current demand. You can take two amps both rated at 250 watts and if one is not capable of delivering the necessary current at the frequency in question, you will get very different results with such a speaker. Understanding the impedance and phase curves across the entire frequency range and then understanding the current availability of the amplifiers in question across this range is essential to getting performance from inefficient speakers. Buying low efficiency speakers without this is a complete guess.

We are in agreement Paul. In fact, measurements including impedance, phase and FR interest me more than most on this forum. My Dyns were first order affairs and measured quite well, despite the 85db efficiency:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaudio-confidence-c1-loudspeaker-measurements

This is one issue with Ron's Pendragons - we only know nominal vs the entire spectrum and therefore its difficult to derive amplification suggestions that might or might now suffice. That is why he has posted several types to try.

the sound of Tao · Mar 12, 2018

caesar said:
And are Apogees naturally tonally rich, or are more "neutral" and thus require an amp to bring the rich tonality?
Thanks!

All the full range ribbons I’ve heard have tended towards neutrality but this is still just relative to many speakers that are just less neutral ie a general lack of characteristics in themselves but they still do have characteristics so aren’t actually utterly neutral imo. As Ked says this sense of neutrality isn’t at all about sterility or analytical qualities in terms of presentation as both these traits are clear characteristics (and destructive ones if you are engaging in music rather than listening to sounds).

Which Symphonic Line amps are yours Caesar. The praise I’ve heard has specifically been about the top of the range which where anything but inexpensive amps in their day. Also which speakers are you running and which end of the sensitivity spectrum do they inhabit. Are they communicating music to you and what music do you listen to, just trying to get some data points from you if poss so I can understand where you are coming from with the op or are you just relating a trend you have read about.

Just to add another data point, Harbeths aren’t perfect but they can be amongst the most emotionally engaging speakers I have heard and they are barely mid 80s dB in sensitivity.

Pb Blimp · Mar 12, 2018

KeithR said:
We are in agreement Paul. In fact, measurements including impedance, phase and FR interest me more than most on this forum. My Dyns were first order affairs and measured quite well, despite the 85db efficiency:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaudio-confidence-c1-loudspeaker-measurements

This is one issue with Ron's Pendragons - we only know nominal vs the entire spectrum and therefore its difficult to derive amplification suggestions that might or might now suffice. That is why he has posted several types to try.

Indeed, the Pass 250 was more than capable.

Folsom · Mar 12, 2018

Pb Blimp said:
Keith, My point was a bit more subtle than just power. Power ratings are watts and voltage at a specific impedance (i.e., frequency). Some speakers have a certain frequencies were both impedance and phase angle combine to crush amplifiers with high current demand. You can take two amps both rated at 250 watts and if one is not capable of delivering the necessary current at the frequency in question, you will get very different results with such a speaker. Understanding the impedance and phase curves across the entire frequency range and then understanding the current availability of the amplifiers in question across this range is essential to getting performance from inefficient speakers. Buying low efficiency speakers without this is a complete guess.

Indeed, there is a problem of amps that cannot do what they say... some manufacturers grossly overcall their power. Example is the "350w" plate amps that ATC speakers use, were they to actually put out 350w regularly, you'd have the start of a bonfire. Now Pass, under rates his so they typically can deliver more than they spec. But even most equipment that can produce what they claim, somewhat regularly, still could not play a sinewave at that power rating. Very few companies build for full continuous output.

And, I think you have a typo. P(Watts) = V*C. As in Power is watts, not made of them, and it is derived from voltage multiplied by current. Another way to look at current is to see the draw, which is calculated like this I=V/R so we see that the impedance defines the current. This is why amps are rated and 4 and 8 ohm, because they cause different current responses.

Ron Resnick · Mar 12, 2018

Folsom said:
Indeed, there is a problem of amps that cannot do what they say... some manufacturers grossly overcall their power. Example is the "350w" plate amps that ATC speakers use, were they to actually put out 350w regularly, you'd have the start of a bonfire. Now Pass, under rates his so they typically can deliver more than they spec. But even most equipment that can produce what they claim, somewhat regularly, still could not play a sinewave at that power rating. Very few companies build for full continuous output.

And, I think you have a typo. P(Watts) = V*C. As in Power is watts, not made of them, and it is derived from voltage multiplied by current. Another way to look at current is to see the draw, which is calculated like this I=V/R so we see that the impedance defines the current. This is why amps are rated and 4 and 8 ohm, because they cause different current responses.

A pure non-sequitur but in amateur radio land RF amplifiers are rated at continuous power. The advertisement for the single most impressive amateur radio amplifier ever made (something called an Alpha 9500) shows a red brick pinning down a Morse code key, with the amplifier pumping out 1,500 watts continuous at 3 MHz to 30 MHz all day long.

morricab · Mar 13, 2018

bonzo75 said:
That's correct. Apogees are fine at normal volumes when you are feeding it sufficient power. Brad and Justin fed it low power

I had two amps when I had my Apogees...one was the Sphinx Project 14, which was well over 300 watts into the 3 ohm load of the Caliper Signatures and the other was a pair of Cary CAD-572se monoblocks at 20 watts. BOTH worked very well at normal listening levels with all kinds of music. Only when things got really wound up did hte Carys run out of gas but that was mostly with low dynamic range music played very loudly. For wide dynamic music where hte average power is still quite low it did just fine and peaks were well masked even though it was for sure clipping...it wasn't really audible as such. The Carys sounded quite lively on the Apogees, which wake up earlier than Magnepans.

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

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Similar threads