Is there a reason to make low efficiency box speakers in this day and age?

[caesar]

I understand that stats and planars will how low efficiency and will take monster amps to drive them.

Why do people still make low efficiency box speakers these days?

 

[diibadaaba]

Deep bass and slim, high(ish) WAF design = low efficiency box, such as Salon 2.

 

[JackD201]

Same reason they became popular in the first place. They take up less space.

 

[caesar]

Thanks. Make sense. But whatever space is saved vertically gets eaten up horizontally by the monster powered amps.

 

[Old Listener]

Thanks. Make sense. But whatever space is saved vertically gets eaten up horizontally by the monster powered amps.

Trash talk.

A Bryston 4B 300W / channel, 2 channel amp fits in a standard rack and isn't very high. I doubt that it is any bigger than many flea power amps that can't drive low efficiency speakers. A Bryston PowerPac amp can be installed on the back of a speaker if space really matters.

Bill

 

[Bruce B]

The main reason I didn't get the ISIS was because of the inefficiency and I wasn't going to change amps.

 

[Old Listener]

The main reason I didn't get the ISIS was because of the inefficiency and I wasn't going to change amps.

What is the ISIS? What amps did you have that would not have provided enough power?

Bill

 

[Bruce B]

What is the ISIS? What amps did you have that would not have provided enough power?

Bill

Avalon ISIS

We had Pass Labs XA-100.5 amps and just turning them up to listening level the amps were "workng" pretty hard according to the needles on the front. The sound felt restrained and compressed.

Put some 300 watt + amps on them and I'm sure they'll be fine.

 

[Old Listener]

Thanks for the info, Bruce. For $ 60,000+ list, you'd think they could throw in a couple of monoblocks.

Bill

 

[Tom Danley]

“Why do people still make low efficiency box speakers these days?”

There is a very good reason, one can pick the box volume and low corner frequency and find the maximum sensitivity possible given the “perfect” driver parameters.
Should one lower the corner frequency an octave but leave the box volume unchanged, one then finds the maximum efficiency possible goes down 9dB.
This is a problem of “sensitivity –vs- low corner –vs- small box, pick any two” and the fact that some driver parameters are not realizable in the real world.

Also, while direct radiators follow one set of rules, other designs have other rules but still follow along similarly.
For example here is a subwoofer used in larger outdoor applications, it has a -3dB corner at 28Hz and 1W1M half space sensitivity of about 107dB. Note it’s physical size relative to the trade off above..
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/TH 812 Spec Sheet.PDF
Best,
Tom

 

[Bruce B]

Yeah, it just amazes me how Wilson can get the Alexandrias so efficient.

 

[Steve Williams]

Yeah, it just amazes me how Wilson can get the Alexandrias so efficient.

I was driving my Alexandrias with all of 18 watts with plenty of room to spare. Now I am driving them with all of 32 watts and even more headroom

 

[triode]

I was driving my Alexandrias with all of 18 watts with plenty of room to spare. Now I am driving them with all of 32 watts and even more headroom

Yep, I'm still "stuck" with those measly 18 watt ML2s but like to dream about the monster ML3s...sigh...one day.

To the OP's point, though, I don't get it either. To my ears, low sensitivity speakers sound like they have a wet blanket over them. Of course, I also prefer light, nimble sports cars to the 4,000 pounders...

 

[JackD201]

Yep, I'm still "stuck" with those measly 18 watt ML2s but like to dream about the monster ML3s...sigh...one day.

To the OP's point, though, I don't get it either. To my ears, low sensitivity speakers sound like they have a wet blanket over them. Of course, I also prefer light, nimble sports cars to the 4,000 pounders...

Yup. There's something about that "jump factor" on higher efficiency speakers that is addicting.

 

[FrantzM]

Yep, I'm still "stuck" with those measly 18 watt ML2s but like to dream about the monster ML3s...sigh...one day.

To the OP's point, though, I don't get it either. To my ears, low sensitivity speakers sound like they have a wet blanket over them. Of course, I also prefer light, nimble sports cars to the 4,000 pounders...

Hi

I had what I consider extremely good speakers. My quibble with them was their very low sensitivity. This is the first time I have read the same from another person ... It seems to me that high efficiency speakers have something different about them .. Not the ability to play loud that can be pobtained with alow sensitivity speakers with sufficient handling power capabilities... No it is a different kind of realism ... This has made my search very difficult ... I am looking for >95 dB speakers .. Those who have really struck my fancy are more around 90 dB ... The few in the 95 dB I like .. I don't like their prices
On the subject of efficiency I must however say that high efficiency speakers seems to me even more realistic with power to spare ... I can understand the fascination with low power SET amplifers .. I do not share it .. I recognize their particular signature sound and appreciate it , even to the point of understanding the seduction ... I require much more power .. For my taste in music ... 100 watts would be the bare minimum even with a 95 dB /w/m speaker ... There is something quite magical with high power in amps be they tube or SS ...

 

[DS-21]

It seems to me that high efficiency speakers have something different about them .. Not the ability to play loud that can be pobtained with alow sensitivity speakers with sufficient handling power capabilities... No it is a different kind of realism ...

I think it's about thermal compression, or rather the lack thereof. Because the coil is operating at a lower temperature, its "large signal" behavior is not markedly different from its "small signal" behavior.

Being used to speakers that are both efficient and designed for smooth sound power (most "high efficiency" speakers sold today are not designed for flat frequency response and even coverage), when I listen to typical "audiophile" speakers they sound "rounded off" in dynamics to me. Even big ones with enough cone area and volume displacement to get way louder than anyone would realistically ever need in a domestic living room, such as the flagship Revels.

This has made my search very difficult ... I am looking for >95 dB speakers .. Those who have really struck my fancy are more around 90 dB ... The few in the 95 dB I like .. I don't like their prices

FWIW, what I did was buy some used studio monitors (Tannoy System 12 DMT II, rated 96dB/W/m and actually measure within reasonable error tolerances of that) and commission new cabinetry for them of my own design and specifications. I kept baffle dimensions the same, albeit with much larger roundovers and nothing on the baffle to cause diffraction. That was a good thing, because it turned out I was not able to design a better crossover than Tannoy's engineers did, and did not want to go active.

That route is certainly less expensive than than buying a pair of modern Tannoy Prestige or Definition series speakers, and unlike the big towers Tannoy currently sells they actually fit into my room decor. The downside is, if someone regularly "gets tired" of gear, the resale value is likely just scrap value.