|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.184.99.60
Hi all, first post here obviously. I've recently started being concerned with my stereo and decided to start with speakers as an upgrade path. I'm just wondering what HI Eff speakers are? Theory and some specific examples would help me understand a lot. thanks all.
Follow Ups:
perhaps many (most?) of the units mentioned in this forum will
be of little/no interest to you. If you are using tube amplification,
then you absolutely have everything to gain by studying up on what
you find here. The startling aliveness of reproduction possible
with high-eff speakers will be revelatory to you if you are accost-
omed to more conventional multi-way loudspeakers of low/moderate
sensitivity/efficiency. But again, the mating of the amplifier
type with the/a particular hi-eff speaker can be critical to the
sonic end result.Good Luck,
-T.M.
I have to agree with Tom.I'm using Altec Valencias in a DIY active system.The amplification is Kenwood 700C preamp(EchoWars modified),Yamaha B-2 v-fet amp for treble,Kenwood Basic M2 for bass range.All solid-state.
Best sound I've ever heard any where.
I maintain that all the Valencias require is good quality electronics.I've found them fussy though,they have revealed a few well regarded solid-state preamps to be not up to snuff.The source needs to be pretty good also,if the electronics(amps)are sufficiently transparent.
There's no such thing as a free-lunch in hi-fi.The weakest link in the chain can undo a lot of otherwise good purchasing decisions.
TM---I disagree.
I don't hold at all with this new orthodoxy, this tube-high efficiency thing. I've known people that have used horns and SS for over 35 years, I'm one of them. I've used horns with many amps from Dynaco 400s to SETs, PP tubes, chip-amps and tri-paths. And horns have always sounded better to me than any other type of speaker.I wouldn't doubt that for every guy using horns with tubes there are a dozen using SS and some of the best I've heard used Mac and QSC SS gear.
Right now I'm running one horn system with a Fisher tube receiver, another with a Denon SS HT receiver, another with a Dynaco tube preamp and a gain-clone and ANOTHER with a Sonic Impact. None of these systems would sound better with conventional speakers, not to me.
I posted (On DIYtubes) that once I had an amp tied directly to a driver, with no crossover parts in between, and said driver had a constant impedance in its pass band, then the differences between amps was much harder to hear.Given that, I can now better understand how so many of the guys here don’t find solid state objectionable. Before that experiment I would have expected a compression driver and horn to be a real ear driller with a pro sound reinforcement amp. I suppose those amps are now a lot better than the old Crowns of yesteryear.
Interesting. I supoose I shall know for myself eventually since I see at the end of my road a DIY tube amp. I will defiantly be comparing. Of course that is long ago and far away. It is nice to hear that I could be very happy before I get to that point though.
That may help to answer you, if you tell us.It is not hard to get some big sound and for cheap
on pop/techno.
What is difficult and what good hifi does is to put
"ghosts in the room" (as someone said once on this list
- i liked it). For this, my view is the simpler the better,
and this is why high-eff is interesting.Anyway to be convinced you need to listen.
It is just like wines (i am french).
1/ Do not necessarely buy the most expensive
0/ Test by yourself (if you are unable to make your mind
by yourself then it is not for you)
2/ Finish with SETS and burgundy.
I listen to anything in the rock genre and lot's in the jazz genre. My big loves are Proggressive rock, Psychedelia, and Fusion. By ghosts in the room you refer to stereo imaging? and is that the same as when people say "soundstage"? Whatever ya call it, it is very important to my listening experience.I supoose if I start with enough burgundy instead of finishing with it maybe I will like what I hear all the more :)
Ah..ah..
Yes i appreciate also some old King Crimson stuff...
Ghosts: I have an old mono record 61 from the BBC
on a live performance of Fidelio... Incredible these
old tapes. You would think that it should sound crap
with that old technology limited dynamic etc..
Actually it is incredibely alive.
By the way last advise: keep your system simple!
I do not like many way systems. Others in the list
will argue for it but by experience X-overs really
suck.
"Others in the list
will argue for it but by experience X-overs really
suck."Well Vince I think there are worse things than crossovers. Such as the poor dynamics, poor bass, poor highs and high distortion of single-drivers.
Regards
Hi Tom,
i have no pbs to play loud if i xo at 200Hz.
I use a 38cm woofer.I am using this deqx for the xo but still
do not like too much the sound of the dac.
With an electronic xo i could not get anything
clean. The bass sounded muddy and "slow".One observation: its seems that an xo at 70-80Hz
is not audible.
You have an article about fullrange high efficiency speaker fromdecware (understanding high effeciency full range driver)
that might give you an idea of the characteristics of an
high eff. speaker. High eff. speakers don't do everything well,
but what they do well it's difficult to look back at other type
nt
Here is a little story that should explain nicely why you should be interested in high efficiency speakers and horns.When I first became interested in pursuing a different path in audio, what you might call "ultra fi" I visited a very knowledgeable denizen of this forum, who had very large horns and field coil drivers. Initially, he used for signal and amplification one of the little, tiny $100 stereo things that usually has it own tiny speakers which are detachable. Maybe it was made by Admiral, or JVC. You know, the CD loads from the top, and the player is just a bit bigger than a walkman? The amplifier is about the size of a sandwich? All stacked up in the space of half a shoebox. That was the electronics.
It did not matter. Within seconds, I was both shocked and amazed by the music coming out of these extremely high efficiency speakers. (Later a 45 SET amp was used, if you must know.) This was a permanently transformative experience, not involving narcotics nor hospitalization.
The point is, if you want to really make a difference (upgrade), deal with the component that acually transduces the signal. And only high efficiency speakers do that really well.
Jonathan
"The point is, if you want to really make a difference (upgrade), deal with the component that acually transduces the signal. And only high efficiency speakers do that really well."
That's why I'm starting on my path with speakers. It makes so much sense. SO If only hi eff speakers so it well I guess ill have to go that route. Thanks for the link, looks like plnety to get me going.
Hello Flyingsod,Welcome! Regardless of which direction you end up going in with your speakers, the more you know the better choices you are likely to make. High efficiency obviously isn't all things to all people, but a good high efficiency system can do some things extremely well.
Generally speaking, high efficiency speakers give you better dynamic contrast than low efficiency speakers. This is because of "power compression". Most home audio speakers don't give you an honest 3 dB increase in loudness for a doubling of input power - they give you more like 2.4 to 2.7 dB increase. So when a 20 dB peak comes along (happens all the time), you may only get 17 dB out of low efficiency speakers. Since musicians use dynamic contrast to convey emotion, some of the emotion in the performance is lost right there. Many high efficiency speakers have negligible power compression at typical in-home sound pressure levels simply because there is less wattage going into heating up the voice coils.
Second, high efficiency speakers have less change in tonal balance with change in volume level. It is much more likely that woofer and tweeter have very similar power compression characteristics at normal home listening levels (which are way below prosound levels). In the case of a single-driver speaker, obviously this won't even be a consideration.
Third, horn-based or single-driver-based speakers tend to have more uniform radiation patterns than multiway direct radiators do. So here I'm really advocating horn & single driver speakers for a reason that has nothing to do with efficiency. I can go into detail about the virtues and vices arising from loudspeaker radiation pattern issues if you would like.
Fourth, I'm among those who believe specialty tube amps (SET and OTL designs) sound better than other types of amplifiers, and high efficiency and/or easy-to-drive speakers are required with such amps.
On the other hand, high efficiency will cost you in real estate if you also want deep bass extension. High efficiency and deep bass simply cannot be combined in a small enclosure - at least not by speaker designers, who are limited by the laws of physics. Marketing departments are under no such constraints.
Duke, I`ve read and enjoyed alot of your posts here, and this one hits the nail on the head. I`ve been in this hobby 30 yrs and it seems, the more I know, the less I know. There is alot of BS marketing out there, so much that I`ve taken the DIY path and I have more fun now. Your clarity is always appreciated, (as well as many other who post here.)
nt
True for so many things. First of all Thanks for your insightfull answer Duke. I think I would like to hear just a bit more on speaker radiation patterns. It sounds like what I am really interested in. Does it have to do with stereo imaging? Real estate isnt a problem for me although I don't need or want anything that thumps. I'll redesign the house if it'll make things sound better :)
Hi Flyingsod,Okay, on the radiation pattern thing:
Assuming you're in a non-anechoic room and sitting more than about 5 feet away from the speakers, most of the sound that reaches your ears is reflected rather than direct sound. The farther back you are, the more the reverberant sound dominates. We get directional cues primarily from the direct sound, but the reverberant sound contributes to loudness, timbre, and a sense of spaciousness.
So if you accept that the reverberant field matters (and not everyone accepts this), it would be desirable to "get it right". In my opinion "getting it right" has two parts.
First, we want to delay as much as possible the arrival of the first reflections, as early-arriving reflections are more likely to be detrimental to imaging or timbre or both. Typical first reflection zones are floor and ceiling bounce, and a bounce off of each side wall. We'd like a path length difference of at least 10 feet between the direct and reflected sound for those first reflections, and we'd like to have a time delay of 10 milliseconds or more before the onset of reflections. I like to use diffusion at the early reflection zones when it's practical.
Second, when the reverberant sound does arrive, we want it to be spectrally correct (not have a significantly different tonal balance than the direct sound) and be highly diffuse (which prevents image skewing and promotes spaciousness). We'd also like for the reverberant field to decay slowly (which means we don't want the room to be overdamped).
Now some of this is obviously room-related, and some is loudspeaker-related. A speaker with a well-controlled radiation pattern can be "aimed" to minimize early sidewall reflections. I like to criss-cross the radiation patterns slightly in front of the listening position, as this not only minimizes that first sidewall reflection but also gives a wider sweet spot. Let me digress here for a moment.
The ear localizes sound by two mechanisms: Arrival time and intensity. If the speakers are pointed straight ahead or only toed in a little, the image is pulled to one side pretty severely for an off-centerline listener because the same speaker wins both arrival time and intensity - the latter because he's moving more on-axis of that nearer speaker. Now if we criss-cross the speakers' axes in front of the listening position, an off-centerline listener still gets pretty good soundstaging because one speaker wins arrival time but the other speaker wins intensity, since he's now more on-axis of that farther speaker. With a well-controlled radiation pattern, this extreme toe-in also virtually eliminates that early same-sidewall reflection.
Okay the next thing a fairly uniform radiation pattern does is maintain good spectral balance in the reverberant field. Most speakers have poor spectral balance in the reverberant field, so the perceived tonal balance is skewed accordingly. Below is a link to SoundStage measurements of a 6.5" two-way. Its response is amazingly flat on-axis, but off-axis we see a dip where the woofer starts beaming and then a broad peak at the lower end of the tweeter's range because the tweeter has such a wide radiation pattern. The problem area is that lower treble region (3-5 kHz) where the tweeter is putting out a lot of extra energy into the reverberant field. This is right where the ear is most sensitive, so there's a pretty good chance this speaker would sound a bit bright and forward despite its excellent on-axis performance.
The ear is constantantly analyzing incoming sounds to see if they are reflections of a recent signal or brand-new signals. If it's a reflection, then the directional cues are ignored - this is how we tell the direction of a sound source in a reverberant environment. The ear makes this comparison based on spectral content. So if the spectral content of a reflection is way off, the brain has to work a bit harder to correctly classify it as a reflection. I believe that a long-term result of this "increased CPU usage" can be listening fatigue.
So in my opinion radiation pattern matters for natural timbre, sweet spot width, and reducing listening fatigue.
Duke
Hey Duke,Thanks again for the call. You have mentioned reverberant sound and its importance many times. I was playing around and had an experience that I felt was related. I did make a post but it didn't attract attention. So let me ask this question, especially since I saw you post that you are fond of certain tube amps (as I am).
Imagine you have 2 speakers that you are basically happy with. Speaker A is rather particular about the amp. Perhaps even to the point of what music you are playing. But with the right amp and music it is pure hair raising, goose bump causing, copping wood, "magic". Speaker B on the other hand hardly cares which amp you use. It isn't that you can't hear any difference but it is much less, regardless of music selection, volume, etc. It sounds good with any amp, darn good even, but somehow it is never true "magic".
So what is your take on this? Is speaker A better because it does "magic" or is this "magic" just some anomoly caused by a freak chance of perfect impedance match (or something along these lines)? Could it be that speaker B is clearly better but maybe has something not quite right with the reverberant sound and therefore can't quite reproduce that last little subtle nuance that allows us to hear the "magic" that good tubes amps do so well?
TIA,
Russ
P.S. If you want to get bugged with a million questions, email me sometime. I'd even let you call me grasshopper and I'd worship at your feet (but from afar cuz they stink...lol).
Hi Russ,Well, I'd pick Speaker A, but without knowing specifics I couldn't even guess as to the cause of the difference you describe.
Speaker B's failure to differentiate much between different recordings tells me that it's imposing its own sonic signature over everything. That would probably get tiring after a while.
In my opinion a speaker must meet two criteria: First, it must do something magical. That something can be timbre, imaging, impact, coherence, dynamics, inner detail, whatever. But it has to do something so well that you can close your eyes and get lost in it.
The second thing is, a speaker must NOT do anything so badly that it ruins the illusion and jerks you back to reality like fingernails on a chalkboard. It can fall short in various areas, just not to the point of distraction.
From your description, the Speaker A is capable of meeting both criteria under favorable conditions, but Speaker B never meets the first although it apparently meets the second without too much trouble.
Just my $.02.
Efficeint, less watts to get the sam volume. If you get speakers (Reguardless of type) horn or single driver or open baffle, you have more amp choices..WHats your listening habits, do you live in an apartment (Large room or small)- need to, or like to listen at low levels. What style music, Clasical, Jaz, Rock?
These are the questions you need to answer then find the best speaker then amp to drive them
Music type is described in an above post (rock/jazz). House with a semi dedicated listneing room about 12x15. Normally I listen at moderate levels but at times I need to listen at low levels. So are there any major pitfalls I have to look out for given the above? I don't need any specifcs yet I guess Just wondering if there any HUGE mistakes I could make. If not, no need to reply. Thanks for your steering.
There are different schools of HE. You have the horn guys who use big horn or horn-direct radiator combo speakers---Altecs, JBLs, EVs, Edgars, Klipsch etc. Typically using compression driver with horn mids and highs and large woofers in vented or horn enclosures. These speakers can give superb dynamics and high output with very low distortion. Big effortless sound. BIG sound.Then you have the single-drivers, some of which are high efficiency and many which really aren't. These speakers generally have limited dynamics and have nothing in common with big horn systems using 15" woofers and compression drivers. Personally I see little advantage to such speakers. Some sound very nice but so do my KRKs from Guitar Center.
So efficiency itself is no guarantee a speaker will sound good or have anything in common with other high efficiency speakers. And there are many speakers that claim high efficiency but aren't.
k
Means High Efficinentcy, or requires very little amplifier power to drive to adequate sound levels. This permits low-powered Single-Ended connection Triode tube (SET) circuts, which some find more satisfying than push-pull pentode tube output designs. But irregardless of the amplifier circut or power, such speakers enable louder and/or greater dynamic range (the diff between soft & loud passages within the same music) with any given amplifier. Since the amplifier does not have to work as hard, it produces less distortion, too.
.
Another opinion: C.Hendricson, extracted from handbook of sound engineering." Listening for hi-fi pleasure at 3m (10ft) from the loudspeaker looses about 10db (ref 1m) and a 90 db level is certainly a typcial and pleasureable one if the music comes out clean: 100db is more typical of studio control room levels, which is often exceeded. On top of this, peak to average levels of 15 to 20 db are realistically available from a tape master, direct to disk, or digital source. Real life is this way, especially the spectacular and agresssive music that is enjoyed by and produced for the American public.
.
.A look a larger loudspeaker systems, such as recording monitors, shows that average sensitivities range from 96 to 100db/1w/1m. At 98db/1w/1m we have 88db available at 3m and need +2db or 1.6w to listen at 90db, 160w (+20db) to handle peaks. This is definitely a real world pracitcality. However, as 100db levels are reached, 1600W is required for 20db peaks. Most large power amplifiers are limited to 200 to 400w per side in sterio; 1600w may be approached by bridgeing an amplifier, but the loudspeaker may be damaged.
For 100db listening levels, a 15db peak to average will be handled by a 500w amplifier, something more realizable. "
.
Higher spl specification is more efficient. So a speaker with an spl or sens. specification of 100dB is more efficient than a speaker spec'ed @ 85dB.
.
.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tin-eared audiofool and obsessed landscape fotografer.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: