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

[microstrip]

I would not say anyone would dislike "alive" sound. I think it's more what can I drop in my living room. It's all Hofman's Iron Law. You don't get high efficiency and bass without large speakers, Not many people can drop a pair of dual 15" 8 cubic ft enclosures in their living room.

Not an argument IMO - we can have small high-efficiency speakers.

I get the same perception that many feel horns are compromised. I don't get it but then again I don't know what they have heard or the circumstances. Also wonder if it's just parroting with no real world experience.

Sorry, discrediting others opinion in general with the "no real world experience" is not an argument for me. And just because we prefer another product does not imply that those we did not prefer are "compromised".

In any case high efficiency speakers are on the right side of the power curve and that does make a difference.

Is there a left side of the power curve? Do you think that a low efficiency horn would sound poor?

BTW, I really enjoyed the Avantgarde Trio G3 (or the previous model) several times, but consider it an exception in the horn world.

 

[microstrip]

(...) In my experience, as a general rule of thumb, small speakers typically require big, powerful amps, while large speakers can often perform well with low-powered amps.

Yes, it it is due the physics behind the efficiency versus speaker volume versus cut off frequency of box speakers. Also, many times powerful amplifiers have high power power supplies that create a subjectively fuller bass, managing to hide the absence of real low bass of small speakers.

The Magico Mini II sounded like a large speaker with the Audio Research REF750.

 

[Robh3606]

Not an argument IMO - we can have small high-efficiency speakers.

Hello

You have me curious. Of course they can be small but that compromises the low end say 40Hz and down. Care to point out a high efficiency system with good bass response that are small? Small being defined as? Talking high 90's and up. No subwoofer included in the mix.

Sorry, discrediting others opinion in general with the "no real world experience" is not an argument for me. And just because we prefer another product does not imply that those we did not prefer are "compromised".

I didn't discredit anyone's opinion just don't understand why some are so entrenched. I have a combination of high and low efficiency systems and enjoy both. WRT people not actually have heard a horn set-up and parroting. Have seen it happen where strong opinions were just that when the person admitted they just repeating what was posted.

Is there a left side of the power curve? Do you think that a low efficiency horn would sound poor?

No actually I have a pair where the horns are attenuated to match the woofer at 91db bass to 25Hz, That said my active system at 98db can clean the passive systems clock with respect to dynamics. Need subs under 15" in a 5.5 cubic ft box. The woofer being the gate keeper on the 91db system.

It's all about balancing compromises.


Rob

 

[microstrip]

Interesting you note as such. I agree we are a long way from live unamplified reproduction. So why waste your time trying to get there. It may be that attempting to reach something your not that near actually works against you. Maybe its better to use large amps and low efficiency speakers to recreate sound. Why not if Its all just a flavor. It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal. Maybe its more about making a sound that humans gravitate too in order to relax. Live Unamplified might not be that sound. Simply having low distortion, a smooth frequency response and lots of bass to give rhythm and drive is a better sonic stimulation for the senses. Maybe there is a lot more "Emotion" in massive amps and low efficiency speakers.

IMO the goal of sound reproduction is recreating the emotion and relax (as you refer) of music in the listener. Several tactics or strategies can be found on how to get there.

The OP premise has no basis in anything. Its just lobbing a concept into the crowd. It may be completly false and backwards. It may be high efficiency speakers are worse at conveying "Emotion".

Yes, it is the type of provocative sentence used to create conflict and avoid a proper debate with people who have different preferences. I can't see any universal rule connecting efficiency with emotion. Curiously keywords in such type of debate could be speaker directivity and speaker dispersion, but they are systematically ignored by the proponents such pseudo theories. keywod

 

[Kingrex]

Rex, this post shows a fundamental misunderstand of my system thread and my opinion of natural sound. I tried to make clear that it is but one approach to the hobby. It is not the only approach. I never wrote that it is the best approach, nor did I suggest it was the right approach for everyone. It is simply a different approach that relies on the reference of live unamplified music. For me, and this is the whole point of my system thread, the target is natural sound as judged by that reference. It is my approach and that of a few others. You may do whatever you want, have whatever target you want, and make choices for you based on your own criteria.

I happen to think that the best systems can give the listener an experience that is not far removed from that of live unamplified music. It is a matter of degree and perspective, and I do not see it as a worthless pursuit, nor a waste of time trying to get there. Some recordings and types of music are easier to resemble than are others. It is a hobby, and as such, I think should be fun.

I think the original post premise does in fact have a basis in reality. It describes a condition that some have indeed experienced. The whole idea of natural sound as I write about is a listening experience that gets me closer to the sound of the instruments and the emotion of the music. It also happens to get me further away from audiophile vocabulary, as I have described in some of my posts. @caesar asks a very interesting question in his post, one he asked years before I formulated my own thoughts on the subject.

I think you missed the point. Its not about you. Its not about Natural Sound. It's my musings that a high efficiency speaker may do no better than any other speaker at conveying music enjoyment. It may do a worse job. Less people might be moved by them.

My post was about us all having our own personal preferences of sonic reproduction In a flawed system. Its erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment.

 

[PeterA]

I think you missed the point. Its not about you. Its not about Natural Sound. It's my musings that a high efficiency speaker may do no better than any other speaker at conveying music enjoyment. It may do a worse job. Less people might be moved by them.

My post was about us all having our own personal preferences of sonic reproduction In a flawed system. Its erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment.

Oh, I understood your post, and the point you were making. But you also made some presumptions here:

"It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal."

I never wrote that anything is supposed to be the goal. And I never wrote about right and wrong. That opinion misinterprets or misrepresents my thread. Natural sound is only one approach and one goal of many possible ones. Obviously others have different approaches, and none is better or worse than any other in absolute terms. Better or worse is for the individual to decide for himself based on his own values. It is about a listener or hobbyist having a target and then following an approach to achieve it, or not achieving it. I recognize that some readers find the thread controversial and fully appreciate others follow different approaches.

You focus on might, or may, or possibly. That is fine, but where does it get us? Specifics usually lead to more focused discussions. @caesar asked a very specific question in his original post. You can agree or disagree, but simply re-asking if he is right or wrong does not get us very far? What is your actual opinion? What do you hear? Are you more emotionally engaged? It seems you have doubts.

It is easy to claim all systems are flawed. It gets interesting when people claim some systems are less flawed and then actually explain why they think so. I do not think it is erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment. In fact, I think it is a good way to approach that particular goal, but perhaps it is not the only way. I was emotionally attached to my former very inefficient systems too.

To me, the really interesting part of the original post is not whether a system is efficient or not, it is the question posed about a given system conveying the emotion of the music versus audiophile vocabulary. And as a bonus, I find it rather rich and somewhat ironic that The Absolute Sound got us all thinking about live unamplified music as the reference against which to judge system performance while also introducing us to the glossary of audiophile terms.

 

[Tangram]

Oh, I understood your post, and the point you were making. But you also made some presumptions here:

"It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal."

I never wrote that anything is supposed to be the goal. And I never wrote about right and wrong. That opinion misinterprets or misrepresents my thread. Natural sound is only one approach and one goal of many possible ones. Obviously others have different approaches, and none are better or worse than any other in absolute terms. Better or worse is for the individual to decide for himself based on his own values. It is about a listener or hobbyist having a target and then following an approach to achieve it, or not achieving it. I recognize that some readers find the thread controversial and fully appreciate others follow different approaches.

You focus on might, or may, or possibly. That is fine, but where does it get us? Specifics usually lead to more focused discussions. @caesar asked a very specific question in his original post. You can agree or disagree, but simply re-asking if he is right or wrong does not get us very far? What is your actual opinion? What do you hear? Are you more emotionally engaged? It seems you have doubts.

It is easy to claim all systems are flawed. It gets interesting when people claim some systems are less flawed and then actually explain why they think so. I do not think it is erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment. In fact, I think it is a good way to approach that particular goal, but perhaps it is not the only way. I was emotionally attached to my former very inefficient systems too.

To me, the really interesting part of the original post is not whether a system is efficient or not, it is the question posed about a given system conveying the emotion of the music versus audiophile vocabulary. And as a bonus, I find it rather rich and somewhat ironic that The Absolute Sound got us all thinking about live unamplified music as the reference against which to judge system performance while also introducing us to the glossary of audiophile terms.

Peter, honestly, go for a walk, listen to the birds and smell some flowers. Your nitpicking is reaching a crescendo.

 

[Porsche]

several on here need to chill with there expert opinions imo

 

[PeterA]

Peter, honestly, go for a walk, listen to the birds and smell some flowers. Your nitpicking is reaching a crescendo.

My childhood friend used to tell his mother "Chill Out Marie!"

Great idea Tangram. The afternoon seabreeze is picking up, and the seas look fairly calm from here. Time for a sail.

 

[microstrip]

(...) It is easy to claim all systems are flawed. It gets interesting when people claim some systems are less flawed and then actually explain why they think so. (...)

No one claimed that all systems are flawed. Why do you insist in a pseudo naive argumentation in opposition to such absurd situation.

To me, the really interesting part of the original post is not whether a system is efficient or not, it is the question posed about a given system conveying the emotion of the music versus audiophile vocabulary.

Nice try to disguise the sense of the tittle omitting the word "better" ...

And as a bonus, I find it rather rich and somewhat ironic that The Absolute Sound got us all thinking about live unamplified music as the reference against which to judge system performance while also introducing us to the glossary of audiophile terms.

In fact live unamplified music was their definition of natural sound. Harry Pearson wrote a lot about his concert experiences, analyzing sound in very interesting essays. But it was what drove him many times in contradictory findings and in permanent change, changing direction like a weather vane.
I admire him for his great work, but disagree with many of his points. TAS was never a scientific publication, more a space for essays and disclosure, sometimes with good debates.

The audiophile glossary was an attempt to create effective and reliable communication of audiophile experiences and values.

Remember that musicians are often used in high-end marketing, as people naturally associate them with real music performances, but are not better or more reliable sound evaluators than ordinary people.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...a few months ago, a friend who has a CD forthcoming in September, gave me the master files for a once-over before the final OK for the mastering lab.

I listened to the CD on a Luxman spinner, and files played through speakers and headphones on a small system. Lastly, files on the main system.

To me, one track seemed off. I had him listen via all the systems. He agreed. He had listened many times live, and editing with the recording engineer, but they hadn't noticed it.

Many possible reasons for this, but when pointed out, they agreed and revisited the tapes. Re-sent for mastering in NYC.

I might still change the mix for my ears, but what they settled on is what sounds the most like what they hear (they said) when playing and recording in the hall.

Who is right?

Interesting experience for me, and another insight into the process.

 

[Kingrex]

Oh, I understood your post, and the point you were making. But you also made some presumptions here:

"It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal."

I never wrote that anything is supposed to be the goal. And I never wrote about right and wrong. That opinion misinterprets or misrepresents my thread. Natural sound is only one approach and one goal of many possible ones. Obviously others have different approaches, and none are better or worse than any other in absolute terms. Better or worse is for the individual to decide for himself based on his own values. It is about a listener or hobbyist having a target and then following an approach to achieve it, or not achieving it. I recognize that some readers find the thread controversial and fully appreciate others follow different approaches.

You focus on might, or may, or possibly. That is fine, but where does it get us? Specifics usually lead to more focused discussions. @caesar asked a very specific question in his original post. You can agree or disagree, but simply re-asking if he is right or wrong does not get us very far? What is your actual opinion? What do you hear? Are you more emotionally engaged? It seems you have doubts.

It is easy to claim all systems are flawed. It gets interesting when people claim some systems are less flawed and then actually explain why they think so. I do not think it is erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment. In fact, I think it is a good way to approach that particular goal, but perhaps it is not the only way. I was emotionally attached to my former very inefficient systems too.

To me, the really interesting part of the original post is not whether a system is efficient or not, it is the question posed about a given system conveying the emotion of the music versus audiophile vocabulary. And as a bonus, I find it rather rich and somewhat ironic that The Absolute Sound got us all thinking about live unamplified music as the reference against which to judge system performance while also introducing us to the glossary of audiophile terms.

You appear to be hyper sensitize by your thread. You seem to have a lot to unload.

 

[Folsom]

There are many things to like about high-efficiency speakers—such as their use of simple crossovers and their compatibility with low-powered tube amps—but there’s a big catch: integrating drivers without relying on complex crossovers, all while keeping capacitance low and impedance high, is a real challenge.

Speaker sensitivity ratings often cause confusion because they’re typically stated based on 2.83V input rather than the 1-watt standard. While 2.83V equals 1 watt into 8 ohms, most high-end speakers are 4 ohms. In that case, 2.83V into 4 ohms equals 2 watts. To measure correctly at 1 watt for a 4-ohm speaker, the input should be 2V.

If you’re using solid-state amplification, this usually isn’t an issue, since a properly designed solid-state amp doubles its output power when the load drops from 8 ohms to 4 ohms. But with tube amps, output power remains (almost) constant regardless of load. This means that a speaker rated at 90dB sensitivity and 4 ohms is effectively 87dB from the perspective of a tube amp.

In my experience, as a general rule of thumb, small speakers typically require big, powerful amps, while large speakers can often perform well with low-powered amps.

There's quite a few fullrange drivers that are 90+ and are small. It's a choice of driver design, but bass isn't easily achieved the higher the sensitivity gets without complicated boxes.

 

[Folsom]

Also I think anyone that believes the most prominent "natural sound" videos on this forum sound like live music simply has no idea what live music sounds like. Most of the time I'm fairly polite on this because people like Peter will have musicians play at his place, but they're also probably restricting themselves a bit as to not blow their own ears out.

There are certain, and important, overlaps but by and large live music is considerably more brutal in almost all settings outside of classical. I'd go as far as to say most live music is irrationally loud and abrasive largely to prevent dopamine fiends from talking if it's easy to do so - thereby making the experience seem boring.

I literally don't think most people here want live sound. And to some degree I'm often one of them. I'm not sad that all my albums don't have that intense dynamics that is unparsed by sensibility of home and car environments. Some of my albums that are extremely unhinged live sounding don't get a lot of play for the same reason I don't want to be at a concert every single night.

To the original topic I still think "large" speakers are simply better matches for equipment that can convey the emotional side - and are less bound by small loose-damping-drivers to make bass. But large could also mean not a small ported box but a rear horn loaded single driver playing jazz from 2w. But even a single driver speaker like that can still produce some pretty damn powerful sound when not paired with an easily but pleasantly clipped amplifier.

 

[Al M.]

There are certain, and important, overlaps but by and large live music is considerably more brutal in almost all settings outside of classical. I'd go as far as to say most live music is irrationally loud and abrasive largely to prevent dopamine fiends from talking if it's easy to do so - thereby making the experience seem boring.

Classical live music can be very loud. Sitting rather close to a large orchestra or sitting close to a chamber ensemble in a small venue, like a large living room, you can experience some serious SPL, even though it's not the insane 120 dB as at some rock concerts.

Even though I don't want or need 110 dB orchestral peaks in my music room, the system needs to reproduce 100 dB peaks cleanly (yes, I do pay attention to max daily recommended SPL exposure, I care about my ears). That is finally a reality in my room. Sure, it is the gear, but it's not just that. It's also high-quality power supply and it is taming room distortions, which is not easy, especially in just a medium-sized room like mine. The latter can be quite an intense effort. *)

Getting a system to play well at 100 dB or even above is a very, very different ballgame than getting it to sound good at just 80 or 85 dB.

If a system cannot play relatively close to realistically loud in an undistorted manner you can talk about "natural sound" as much as you want, it ain't happening. Unless you always sit further back at live concerts, but most recordings have a quite close-up perspective that comes with appropriate playback volume.

Yes, not all unamplified live music is loud, and there is a huge difference in loudness between a Beethoven piano concerto and a Shostakovich symphony for very large orchestra, but when it's loud it's loud.

__________________

*) I have heard room distortions everywhere, also in large rooms. It's a vastly underestimated problem, in my experience. Room distortions at loud volume can add hardness and harshness, and literally can also sound like amplifier clipping, even when the amp is not actually doing it.

 

[tima]

Interesting you note as such. I agree we are a long way from live unamplified reproduction. So why waste your time trying to get there. It may be that attempting to reach something your not that near actually works against you. Maybe its better to use large amps and low efficiency speakers to recreate sound. Why not if Its all just a flavor. It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal. Maybe its more about making a sound that humans gravitate too in order to relax. Live Unamplified might not be that sound. Simply having low distortion, a smooth frequency response and lots of bass to give rhythm and drive is a better sonic stimulation for the senses. Maybe there is a lot more "Emotion" in massive amps and low efficiency speakers. The OP premise has no basis in anything. Its just lobbing a concept into the crowd. It may be completly false and backwards. It may be high efficiency speakers are worse at conveying "Emotion".

So much hearsay. Maybe this maybe that. Are you just spouting off?

Tell you what Kingrex, why don't you make a positive case for what your goals are?

 

[tima]

I might still change the mix for my ears, but what they settled on is what sounds the most like what they hear (they said) when playing and recording in the hall.

Uness the goal of mastering is performance art in itself, what else could they have settled on?

 

[Folsom]

Classical live music can be very loud. Sitting rather close to a large orchestra or sitting close to a chamber ensemble in a small venue, like a large living room, you can experience some serious SPL, even though it's not the insane 120 dB as at some rock concerts.

Yes classical gets loud and powerful but it's literally nothing like standing next to someone banging drums as hard as they can in some crazy fashion. The sheer and unrelenting intensity isn't relatable. Drums are hard to mic, and almost no one has them sounding raw on any album. I can't imagine wanting to listen to realistic drums in my face regularly. I don't need 130db crashing and banging full blast to relax every evening.

 

[wil]

Uness the goal of mastering is performance art in itself, what else could they have settled on.

That makes sense, but all too often, with classical music, the sound in the hall is not all that good — and worse. Sometimes a good recording is a better experience and connection to the music in my experience.

 

[bonzo75]

That makes sense, but all too often, with classical music, the sound in the hall is not all that good

Yep. SQ totally sucks even if you get good seats, it won’t be like the acoustics you are used to