If you read the thread from the beginning, Morricab and others brilliantly make the case for it - objectively. If that is not so for you, subjectively, all good. this is a big enough for everyone.
WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
If you read the thread from the beginning, Morricab and others brilliantly make the case for it - objectively. If that is not so for you, subjectively, all good. this is a big enough for everyone.
...actually, I have read along. This was an interesting post from 2018:
"Caesar,
I thought that such invitations to stay out of the thread if we do not agree with the main statement were a thing of the past in WBF. Particularly when the opening sentence is used to denigrate one class of speakers."
I recognize you don't actually like to be questioned on such things. No problem to stay out of your sandbox. I thought I asked a simple question regarding your thesis. Carry on without me. Cheers...
"Caesar,
I thought that such invitations to stay out of the thread if we do not agree with the main statement were a thing of the past in WBF. Particularly when the opening sentence is used to denigrate one class of speakers."
I recognize you don't actually like to be questioned on such things. No problem to stay out of your sandbox. I thought I asked a simple question regarding your thesis. Carry on without me. Cheers...
Considering that most people prefer and own medium efficiency speakers, not high efficiency, should we consider that most people dislike "nimble dynamic and alive" sound).
Preference is surely an individual subjective matter. But when we make statistics on it, it becomes an objective matter and can be questioned.
In fact, although I do not have numbers to support it, my perception is that most audiophiles still perceive horns as colored and/or aggressive.
Don't worry Micro, it only indicates the slow and steady decline in Western Civilization...Considering that most people prefer and own medium efficiency speakers, not high efficiency, should we consider that most people dislike "nimble dynamic and alive" sound).
Preference is surely an individual subjective matter. But when we make statistics on it, it becomes an objective matter and can be questioned.
In fact, although I do not have numbers to support it, my perception is that most audiophiles still perceive horns as colored and/or aggressive.
. We went from the mighty Western Electric to the not-so-mighty box/cone/dome 87dB speaker.THX! Just passing along the passion... I wonder what would happen if they attached 4 large SET (like a NAT Magma or AC triodeFET amp) to those M9s rather than big SS monsters?? I bet you would get a much more agreeable sound from the speakers. One of the things I have done in the way of experimentation is to try out mid power SET amps on speakers with moderate sensitivity (like form 88-92 dB). You know, what people "know" can't work. It turns out that in a normal room with normal listening levels most systems are in single digit watts for nearly the whole listening session. So, unsurprisingly it works quite well...unless the speaker has a really difficult impedance curve...particularly at low frequencies. While it doesn't give you the same punch as a good horn it can take what many would say is a so-so speaker and makes it sound WAY better. So, the M9 with better sounding electronics than what you heard will definitely sound a lot better...how much? No idea.
I seem to remember Peter A, back when he had Magico M3s, swapped out his Pass Labs amps for Lamm hybrids and even tried his ML2 18 watt SETs on them and found it to sound a lot better than the not-so-good sounding Pass amps (I haven't heard any First Watt stuff but the normal Pass Labs amps to my ears don't sound good)...so much of the issue synthetic sound, which is what I will call from what I glean from your M9 experience, is the electronics used in the thinking that those kinds of speakers "need" high powered beasts.
The absolute best I ever heard a Wilson speaker sound was playing the original Wilson X1 Grand SLAMM (V1 and V3) with a 30 watt KR Audio integrated amp. People seem to forget that the X1 was very easy to drive at a true 95dB with a very benign impedance curve. Those that owned the speakers were gobsmacked...they had never heard their X1s sound that good before. Those speakers LOVED a good 30 watt tube amp. That was a speaker with both good micro and macro dynamics...not world class but definitely a cut above other cone/dome box speakers. Funny thing is that each subsequent big Wilson got harder to drive...and then by no loner being able to use the best sounding amps the whole system sound gets worse even if objectively the newer speakers are somewhat objectively "better".
Don't worry Micro, it only indicates the slow and steady decline in Western Civilization...
IMO the decline was the fault of Lee de Forest in 1906 when he invented the triode. True sound reproduction of music should have stayed purely mechanical - long ago I got and restored an Edison Phonograph and an HMV gramophone. Unfortunately the gramophone plays too loud for late night listening and has no volume control - it is why I also have an expensive stereo system ...
Old sock will work as a volume control.IMO the decline was the fault of Lee de Forest in 1906 when he invented the triode. True sound reproduction of music should have stayed purely mechanical - long ago I got and restored an Edison Phonograph and an HMV gramophone. Unfortunately the gramophone plays too loud for late night listening and has no volume control - it is why I also have an expensive stereo system ...
I have heard a few gramophones and they do sound pretty amazing in many ways...they are definitely too loud for many situations.IMO the decline was the fault of Lee de Forest in 1906 when he invented the triode. True sound reproduction of music should have stayed purely mechanical - long ago I got and restored an Edison Phonograph and an HMV gramophone. Unfortunately the gramophone plays too loud for late night listening and has no volume control - it is why I also have an expensive stereo system ...
I think a lot of people like the heavy handed, robust sound of high power SS amps and low efficiency ported box speakers. Its a sound. Its not a sound that tries to be as close to live unamplified music as can be. But its also a sound you can't get with SET and horns. Its punchy, robust and full of bass. Its also very clear with 0 hiss. That Black background. I would not say anyone that prefers that is doing something wrong. Its their taste. And the manufacturer are building to it.Considering that most people prefer and own medium efficiency speakers, not high efficiency, should we consider that most people dislike "nimble dynamic and alive" sound).
Preference is surely an individual subjective matter. But when we make statistics on it, it becomes an objective matter and can be questioned.
In fact, although I do not have numbers to support it, my perception is that most audiophiles still perceive horns as colored and/or aggressive.
Sort of like with a car. Someone might brag they can do Nuremberg in 12 minutes. Someone else might say it takes 30 minutes in their Bentley. Maybe. Their not sure. They were sitting in the back sipping Scotch.
Good memory, Brad. I actually had the Magico Q3, but the rest is accurate. I compared the entire Pass chain to the entire Lamm chain with the M1.100 W hybrid. The sound was considerably more natural.
As I had gone as far as I thought I could with the set up for a more natural sound, I asked DDK about my system. He said the turntable was what was holding it back. So I got the big Micro Seiki turntable. Big improvement. Then I asked about the speakers. He said Magico is not the problem. It is the electronics, so he sent me both the ML2 and the M1.1 along with the preamp and phono stage. The Lamm simply sounded more natural. Much more open and dynamic with better tone. The SET had some magic, but could not drive the speakers. That’s when I decided to get the corner horns.
The point is that it is the combination of electronics and speaker that make the magic.
Last edited:
Well, sound reproduction is so far from live unamplified music that what is closer depends mainly on our biases and preferences. As I said before, listening to live music is excellent to create and feed our own preference, making it more solid and bullet proof, but not to support general absolute statements. Just IMO, YMMV.
Considering that most people prefer and own medium efficiency speakers, not high efficiency, should we consider that most people dislike "nimble dynamic and alive" sound).
Preference is surely an individual subjective matter. But when we make statistics on it, it becomes an objective matter and can be questioned.
In fact, although I do not have numbers to support it, my perception is that most audiophiles still perceive horns as colored and/or aggressive.
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.
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.
In any case high efficiency speakers are on the right side of the power curve and that does make a difference.
Rob
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-efficiency 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.
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-efficiency 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.
The irony is that most people get the speaker amp relationship backwards, putting the small amp with the small speakers and the behemoth amps with the big, and often significantly more sensitive, big speakers. What I am really liking about the Hornings I use is that they work with everything from about 2 watts (Decware Zen anniversary) up to at least 30 watts (Ayon Crossfire III...I haven't tried a higher powered amp on them than this). My main amp is the Aries Cerat Protos but I also use occasionally a 3.5 watt Silvercore 2A3 integrated or a 17 watt NEM 520b integrated.
Which Horning Hybrid do you have? Two of my friends used to have the Eufrodite, and one had the big one.
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".
just think about your extended family that you know well. why or why not each one is either an audiophile or not? even children of audiophiles.....how likely varies greatly.
to understand this issue you have to approach it from a different perspective. it's not like life funnels you into being an audiophile......that everyone even ever thinks about it. just the opposite. what combination of circumstances does it take for an audiophile to be created? there is a lot of different things involved. degree of wealth is just one enabler. but down the list of indicators.
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.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |