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

Hi Guys

The inescapable conclusion here is that we all have our own views (prejudices?) which are unlikely to be changed, and the circle of this discussion cannot therefore be squared. My suggested solution for each of us to go for whatever floats our individual boat. If YOU like it it must be good for you so go to it. There is no right or wrong answer. I for one find it fascinating and reall enjoyable to hear other peoples excellent attempts at solving this never ending conundrum.

My personal view, for what its worth, is that I prefer high efficiency systems but that said I have heard low efficiency systems that sound sublime (LS3 5a’s for instance)

JackD201 said:

Maybe if you forget to plug in the other half Lol

Seriously though, it is power to weight ratio. Obviously the quality of that power is paramount ESPECIALLY in the critical hearing sensitivity range.

Wrong amp on a high efficiency speaker is where you will certainly get more emotions. None of them what non-masochists want.

Click to expand...

+1

IMHO too general questions never get adequate responses. We all know what are high-efficiency speakers, but unless we deeply analyze what are the different sections of a loudspeaker responsible for the higher efficiency we are not able to identify the real reasons of its type of sound.

For example, let us suppose that we have a high-efficency single drive loudspeaker that conveys a lot of emotion. Imagine we redo the coil, reducing the number of turns by a factor of two, but keeping the same coil geometry and resistance. It will surely reduce its efficiency. Will it also intrinsically reduce the emotional content of the music?

BTW, my post is triggered by the information that the Alsyvox Bollicelli magneto planar speaker is 10 dB more efficient that typical similar size Apogee's. Should we expect it to convey x10 more emotion?

High efficiency speakers move more easily so can often, when done right, be more microdynamic. Maybe that, the speed, the immediacy, helps in that musicality. However ribbons and stats can also do that because though low efficiency they are equally fast due to lesser excursion. So it is a case of low power high efficiency vs high power low efficiency but low excursion too

bonzo75 said:

High efficiency speakers move more easily so can often, when done right, be more microdynamic. Maybe that, the speed, the immediacy, helps in that musicality. However ribbons and stats can also do that because though low efficiency they are equally fast due to lesser excursion. So it is a case of low power high efficiency vs high power low efficiency but low excursion too

Click to expand...

not quite that simple i think.

the more friendly amplifier load and and the amp options that provides also pay dividends to high efficiency speakers in relating emotion. those ribbons and stats have less excursion, but also less perceived weight and tonal density, along with greater amplifier needs. so the amplifier needs of the low efficiency planar speaker are considerable since that speed will reveal any hardness or sterility. the tech is pushing it that way.

it all depends on what your expectations are.

microstrip said:

IMHO too general questions never get adequate responses. We all know what are high-efficiency speakers, but unless we deeply analyze what are the different sections of a loudspeaker responsible for the higher efficiency we are not able to identify the real reasons of its type of sound.

For example, let us suppose that we have a high-efficency single drive loudspeaker that conveys a lot of emotion. Imagine we redo the coil, reducing the number of turns by a factor of two, but keeping the same coil geometry and resistance. It will surely reduce its efficiency. Will it also intrinsically reduce the emotional content of the music?

BTW, my post is triggered by the information that the Alsyvox Bollicelli magneto planar speaker is 10 dB more efficient that typical similar size Apogee's. Should we expect it to convey x10 more emotion?

Click to expand...

Its probably the best and most dynamic planar I have ever heard...as to emotion...well that is pretty subjective. Objectively, it conveys microdynamics and macrodynamics that are comparable to a decent horn with less coloration and higher transparency...a really good speaker.

Why does everyone assume they're more accurate? Perhaps the higher sensitivity actually makes the phase a little more sloppy on the edges, so it "conveys emotion" better. I could go at it for awhile why "worse" performance may make many of these sound better.

There is no GOOD reason to believe what sounds better is technically "better" from the average engineering point of view.

Folsom said:

Why does everyone assume they're more accurate? Perhaps the higher sensitivity actually makes the phase a little more sloppy on the edges, so it "conveys emotion" better. I could go at it for awhile why "worse" performance may make many of these sound better.

There is no GOOD reason to believe what sounds better is technically "better" from the average engineering point of view.

Click to expand...

Frequency response is usually less accurate with high sensitivity speakers but for most else they are more accurate. Flat FR seems to be way overrated...

As it is all about the power of an electrical signal controlling a mechanical device, its' worth considering this analogy.

Pete Sampras used a racket of around 420 grams. Most club players use around 300 gram rackets. But Pete had the power precision and strength to use that heavy racket. Whilst I can hit with a 420gm racket, I would control 300 grams better. But in Petes' hands the weight in fact gave him the control and added weight to his shots. Indeed as you get stronger in the forearm, a heavier racket is actually far more accurate plus adds weight.

My point being that a difficult speaker load does not mean the driver can't be controlled - you just need an amp to control it. Being less efficient does not mean big speakers can't do delicate.

The unfortunate problem is that unless one is well heeled those kind of muscular amp speaker combos are often out of the league for people like me who instead goes the small amp precision route to audio nirvana.

Out of interest, and as an aside, does anyone make servo controlled speakers - not just subs?

caesar said:

Anyone understand WHY -on average - the high efficiency models grab the emotions, while so many lower-efficiency models sound like a check list of the audiophile vocabulary?

Click to expand...

Imo it's pretty simple, but the underlying reason is a dirty little secret that most speaker manufacturers don't admit to, so most people are unaware of it.

The key is: Preserving dynamic contrast!

The dirty little secret is: Thermal compression!

The enemy of dynamic contrast is compression, and the primary compression mechanism is thermal. Thermal compression also has a short-time-constant counterpart, "thermal modulation", which is probably of greater consequence in a discussion about dynamic contrast. Basically, thermal modulation rapid-onset thermal compression. I'm going to use the term "thermal compression" to include both slow-onset and rapid-onset thermal effects.

Briefly, the closer we get to a driver's rated thermal power handling, the more thermal compression we get. At 10% of the rated power handling, thermal compression is typically below 1 dB. At the full rated power handling, thermal compression is typically 3-4 dB. Imo that is too much.

High efficiency speakers typically have negligible thermal compression at the SPL's we encounter in home audio because they are getting such small wattages relative to their thermal power handling, so they preserve dynamic contrast very well.

As we go down in efficiency, we need correspondingly greater thermal power handling capacity in order to avoid thermal compression effects and preserve dynamic contrast. This needs to come from greater thermal mass (like bigger and/or more voice coils), and not just from glues that have a higher melting point.

Thermal compression effects aren't the only mechanism involved, but imo they are usually the dominant one, when it comes to preserving dynamic contrast.

And it is largely dynamic contrast that conveys emotion in the music.

In an industry enamored with sexy little audio jewelry speakers, thermal effects don't make it into ad copy. But imo relative freedom from thermal effects (at normal in-home SPLs) explains why high efficiency speakers usually do such a good job of conveying emotion, as well as why some speakers that don't necessarily qualify as "high efficiency" (but have a lot of thermal capacity) still do a good job in this area.

Unfo

Loheswaran said:

As it is all about the power of an electrical signal controlling a mechanical device, its' worth considering this analogy.

Pete Sampras used a racket of around 420 grams. Most club players use around 300 gram rackets. But Pete had the power precision and strength to use that heavy racket. Whilst I can hit with a 420gm racket, I would control 300 grams better. But in Petes' hands the weight in fact gave him the control and added weight to his shots. Indeed as you get stronger in the forearm, a heavier racket is actually far more accurate plus adds weight.

My point being that a difficult speaker load does not mean the driver can't be controlled - you just need an amp to control it. Being less efficient does not mean big speakers can't do delicate.

The unfortunate problem is that unless one is well heeled those kind of muscular amp speaker combos are often out of the league for people like me who instead goes the small amp precision route to audio nirvana.

Out of interest, and as an aside, does anyone make servo controlled speakers - not just subs?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your analogy doesn’t really apply to audio. See the excellent post just above that explains the issues with low sensitivity drivers and thermal compression. Pouring more power on the situation doesn’t correct the fundamental issue...the driver will just heat more and therefore compress more. Eventually it just stops getting louder. High sensitivity drivers have the same physics but it is offset by 10db or so and this makes a big difference with 2 things. 1) it allows at normal listening levels a less compressed sound and lower distortion from the speakers, particularly dynamically. 2) Better sounding amps can be used.

Duke LeJeune said:

Imo it's pretty simple, but the underlying reason is a dirty little secret that most speaker manufacturers don't admit to, so most people are unaware of it.

The key is: Preserving dynamic contrast!

The dirty little secret is: Thermal compression!

Click to expand...

Thermal compression in loudspeakers is not a secret and is a well studied process since decades - for example manufacturers such as Dynaudio supply thermal information on the datasheet of their speaker units. German audio magazine and Soundstage measurements test for it, altough in steady mode, not under transient mode.

Anyway, it is extremely simple to measure - all is needed is apply peak pulses monitoring the current transients - any change in coil resistance shows immediately with great precision. It is very easy to design such tests, people do it when wanting to deliver very precise amounts of power in instrumentation.

Although it can be a problem with some speakers, IMHO it can not be pointed as a general
reason. Particularly because most of the time speakers are less efficient due to the crossover, not just because of the speaker units.

IMHO the problem is too complex to have a general simple answer. Particularly as I never saw a publisehd graph of emotion versus efficiency!

bonzo75 said:

High efficiency speakers move more easily so can often, when done right, be more microdynamic. Maybe that, the speed, the immediacy, helps in that musicality. However ribbons and stats can also do that because though low efficiency they are equally fast due to lesser excursion. So it is a case of low power high efficiency vs high power low efficiency but low excursion too

Click to expand...

I think Stats and planars can do well up to a point because they don't have thermal compression problems but they have mechanical compression problems...ie. they reach the limits of their excursions relatively quickly. You can compensate for this by having a huge radiating area, which also raises the sensitivity and they will play louder with less power and have higher limits.

So, a big stat or planar will sound quite dynamic right to the point were it will more or less refuse to go louder... this is very different behavior than a typical cone speaker which starts thermal compression from quite low powers and only gets worse as you pump in the power. They also often have weak magnets and high mass cones...and thus a fundamental insensitivity to the incoming signal...they don't want to move. A low mass /high magnet strength driver will thermally compress just like any other voice coil driven speaker but the onset is higher because of the high field strength/weight ratio gives an inherent responsiveness. They will still compress at 110 or 120 db but not at 80-100 db, where most of us listen. At the levels I listen I found big electrostats to be nearly as dynamic as my horns...at louder levels not so and much more distorted sounding.

microstrip said:

Thermal compression in loudspeakers is not a secret and is a well studied process since decades - for example manufacturers such as Dynaudio supply thermal information on the datasheet of their speaker units. German audio magazine and Soundstage measurements test for it, altough in steady mode, not under transient mode.

Anyway, it is extremely simple to measure - all is needed is apply peak pulses monitoring the current transients - any change in coil resistance shows immediately with great precision. It is very easy to design such tests, people do it when wanting to deliver very precise amounts of power in instrumentation.

Although it can be a problem with some speakers, IMHO it can not be pointed as a general
reason. Particularly because most of the time speakers are less efficient due to the crossover, not just because of the speaker units.

IMHO the problem is too complex to have a general simple answer. Particularly as I never saw a publisehd graph of emotion versus efficiency!

Click to expand...

Don't you think wider dynamics would result in a higher likelihood for an emotional response? I certainly think so and I hear this also with recordings that are heavily compressed vs. those with wide dynamic range. There is more emotion conveyed in the wide dynamic range recordings. Emotion requires stimulus, you agree? Sameness does not make for good stimulus. Compressed recordings and compressed dynamics in reproduction result in a sameness that lacks stimulation and therefore, I would argue, emotion.

morricab said:

Don't you think wider dynamics would result in a higher likelihood for an emotional response? I certainly think so and I hear this also with recordings that are heavily compressed vs. those with wide dynamic range. There is more emotion conveyed in the wide dynamic range recordings. Emotion requires stimulus, you agree? Sameness does not make for good stimulus. Compressed recordings and compressed dynamics in reproduction result in a sameness that lacks stimulation and therefore, I would argue, emotion.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Some of the most emotional pressings I have are those where compressors and limiters were omitted from the recording chain albeit a bit of a ball ache to make I would think lol.

In terms of musicianship for almost all instruments (some more than others though), clearly dynamics are a huge part of the “palette” an artist draws on to overtly communicate their interpretation from notes on paper. Thus any system not adequately able to extract this will not maximally emotionally communicate IME. For me the microdynamic variations and inner resolution is essential for full impact emotional connection. Those tiny musical inflections speak to me.

Audiophile Bill said:

I totally agree. Some of the most emotional pressings I have are those where compressors and limiters were omitted from the recording chain albeit a bit of a ball ache to make I would think lol.

In terms of musicianship for almost all instruments (some more than others though), clearly dynamics are a huge part of the “palette” an artist draws on to overtly communicate their interpretation from notes on paper. Thus any system not adequately able to extract this will not maximally emotionally communicate IME. For me the microdynamic variations and inner resolution is essential for full impact emotional connection. Those tiny musical inflections speak to me.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that dynamic palette also results in a broader tonal palette...at least for acoustic instruments. I was analyzing notes played on a violin at different amplitudes and with different manners of excitation and all produced a different harmonic structure in addition to the loudness of what was being played.

morricab said:

Don't you think wider dynamics would result in a higher likelihood for an emotional response? I certainly think so and I hear this also with recordings that are heavily compressed vs. those with wide dynamic range. There is more emotion conveyed in the wide dynamic range recordings. Emotion requires stimulus, you agree? Sameness does not make for good stimulus. Compressed recordings and compressed dynamics in reproduction result in a sameness that lacks stimulation and therefore, I would argue, emotion.

Click to expand...

I have seen it argued that CDs have a greater dynamic range than vinyl LPs. Would it not then follow, according to your post and if all else is equal, that CDs deliver more emotion to the listener?

PeterA said:

I have seen it argued that CDs have a greater dynamic range than vinyl LPs. Would it not then follow, according to your post and if all else is equal, that CDs deliver more emotion to the listener?

Click to expand...

Ha. Like the thinking Peter. Here is my 2 penneth for what it’s worth:

> Whilst the figures in terms of the medium itself (digital) purport to capture a potentially larger dynamic range, often the recordings are subject to the vagaries of compressors and limiters that restrict this. That said (and I don’t know why) the most dynamic sounding systems to my ears both in terms of macro and micro dynamics and also the speed of these changes has always occurred via the analogue medium. R2R tape being particularly savagely dynamic but similarly my TTs have been the same.

> On another note, the very high efficiency speakers / horns we discuss herein have the ability to act as microscopes into the source. More often than not I have preferred the timbre, flow and musical communication of analogue via SET/horn much more so than the digital. I got rid of digital in my system as it sounds too artificial through my SET/Horn so regardless of dynamic ability I couldn’t listen and enjoy anyway lol.

morricab said:

Don't you think wider dynamics would result in a higher likelihood for an emotional response? I certainly think so and I hear this also with recordings that are heavily compressed vs. those with wide dynamic range. There is more emotion conveyed in the wide dynamic range recordings. Emotion requires stimulus, you agree? Sameness does not make for good stimulus. Compressed recordings and compressed dynamics in reproduction result in a sameness that lacks stimulation and therefore, I would argue, emotion.

Click to expand...

You are admitting that more efficient speakers have wider dynamics, something I was just saying it is not proved - all arguments I have read in this thread are old dogmas or biased views of users/lovers.

And no, I do not know think anything solid concerning emotion in sound reproduction - except that its an extremely subjective aspect, that would need a lot of resources to be properly studied. Usually audio scholars do not debate emotion per se, but enjoyment, probably considering that emotion is part of enjoyment.

All planar speakers are essentially non-linear - the electrical or magnetic field where the diaphragm moves is not uniform. There is some advantage of having higher area at some frequencies, as it improves the "coupling" to air. But for some other frequencies it is a nuisance - technically the best existing planar speaker, within its limits of bandwidth and dynamics, is the Quad ESL 63, that behaves live a point-like planar.

Audiophile Bill said:

> On another note, the very high efficiency speakers / horns we discuss herein have the ability to act as microscopes into the source. More often than not I have preferred the timbre, flow and musical communication of analogue via SET/horn much more so than the digital. I got rid of digital in my system as it sounds too artificial through my SET/Horn so regardless of dynamic ability I couldn’t listen and enjoy anyway lol.

Click to expand...

I was wondering why I don't read much about SET/Horn combinations with digital sources. There must be some, but I usually see them with analog. Al M. does have tube electronics with fairly high efficiency speakers and a digital source, and it sounds great.