Do high-efficiency speakers really have better 'dynamics'?

[tuga]

I can't although my latest theory is that if you push an inefficient speaker enough to get loud, perhaps it gets too distorted to sound good.

How is that possible when measured HD and IMD levels of low sensitivity speakers at high SPLs is just as good as that of high sensitivity speakers?
It's quite puzzling; a case where perhaps more/different (fit-for-purpose) measurements are required?

Also, could this be partly related to high- vs- low-power amplifiers? Again, existing measurements will tell otherwise...

 

[fineMen]

... a case where perhaps more/different (fit-for-purpose) measurements are required ...

I don't think so. The claim we're talking about doesn't provide enough 'beef' to motivate the endevour. Not the least, the originator of the indication might be in charge to prove it.

There is a rule, which is already established as 'true'. Objective experience proved it.

Every dynamic speaker is a compromise of efficiancy, size and bass extension.

Given a desired bass extension, one has to balance size and efficiancy. Chose a bigger box, You have more efficiancy.

The big one doesn't only have more efficiancy. It would comprise a bigger woofer also. That would be capable of more output, than the alternative. Which was a smaller box with lower efficiancy, naturally, but a smaller woofer.

Given a agreed-on minimum bass extension, there is very strong correlation between efficiancy and output capabilities. I take this as an indication, that the originator of the discussed claim doesn't speak of dynamics or even micro dynamics, but just about sheer volume (sound pressure level, and--size/box interior).

 

[Flak]

I agree about the horns--you set a lot of air into motion instantly. Same can be said for large panel speakers which can have superb dynamics, e.g. Sanders 10e. At least that's my naive understanding.

Interesting... I had the same subjective experience with the previous Sanders 10 (those with the previous TL woofer)... horns and electrostats seem to sound much more similar than expected, provided that sufficient power (500+500 watts per channel) is available to the latter and both are properly EQed

 

[tuga]

I don't think so. The claim we're talking about doesn't provide enough 'beef' to motivate the endevour. Not the least, the originator of the indication might be in charge to prove it.

There is a rule, which is already established as 'true'. Objective experience proved it.

Every dynamic speaker is a compromise of efficiancy, size and bass extension.

Given a desired bass extension, one has to balance size and efficiancy. Chose a bigger box, You have more efficiancy.

The big one doesn't only have more efficiancy. It would comprise a bigger woofer also. That would be capable of more output, than the alternative. Which was a smaller box with lower efficiancy, naturally, but a smaller woofer.

Given a agreed-on minimum bass extension, there is very strong correlation between efficiancy and output capabilities. I take this as an indication, that the originator of the discussed claim doesn't speak of dynamics or even micro dynamics, but just about sheer volume (sound pressure level, and--size/box interior).

I agree that there are so many design aspects and constraints in a loudspeaker affecting its "presentation" that one is never comparing apples to apples, but I disagree with your last sentence.

The question which prompted this thread is "Do high-efficiency speakers really have better 'dynamics'?".

Since the word 'dynamics' is between inverted commas I am convinced that @Gorgonzola is referring to a perceived sense of 'dynamics', but only he can tell for sure.

Perhaps we should start by agreeing on what it means. When discussing subjective descriptive terms it helps that they mean the same thing to all of us. Stereophile's glossary describes perceived 'dynamics' as giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast.

And you accept Stereophile's description, then a perceived sense of 'dynamics' does not only relate to dynamic contrast/amplitude and thus the ability to play louder without distortion does not necessarily make a speaker sound more 'dynamic'.
So how do we go about correlating 'speed' with loudspeakers measurements? ('speed' is described as the apparent rapidity with which a reproducing system responds to steep wavefronts and overall musical pace and 'fast' as Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it)

 

[dlaloum]

Perhaps we should start by agreeing on what it means. When discussing subjective descriptive terms it helps that they mean the same thing to all of us. Stereophile's glossary describes perceived 'dynamics' as giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast.

And you accept Stereophile's description, then a perceived sense of 'dynamics' does not only relate to dynamic contrast/amplitude and thus the ability to play louder without distortion does not necessarily make a speaker sound more 'dynamic'.
So how do we go about correlating 'speed' with loudspeakers measurements? ('speed' is described as the apparent rapidity with which a reproducing system responds to steep wavefronts and overall musical pace and 'fast' as Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it)

This is why (I think) many "exotic" designs - such as electrostatics - are so dynamic.... negligible moving mass (mylar film) - with a large moving area, moving instantly.

Amplitude is ultimately limited, depends on design, but for ESL's, push them too hard and they will ARC.... and then you have a hole in your mylar, and reduced efficiency, heading for a visit to the repair shop ultimately. The mylar only moves within a very restricted space - makes up for it in surface area, but most of them won't do super loud.

But they are absolutely fast, precise, dynamic - Quad ESL's are known as being one of few speakers capable of reproducing a 1khz square wave, I would be surprised to see a "dynamic" (magnet/paper cone) speaker achieve that.

The Gallo CDT tweeter seems to achieve most of the same magic.... in a much more WAF friendly manner (small... relatively unobtrusive) - sigh.

 

[Tom Danley]

This is why (I think) many "exotic" designs - such as electrostatics - are so dynamic.... negligible moving mass (mylar film) - with a large moving area, moving instantly.

Amplitude is ultimately limited, depends on design, but for ESL's, push them too hard and they will ARC.... and then you have a hole in your mylar, and reduced efficiency, heading for a visit to the repair shop ultimately. The mylar only moves within a very restricted space - makes up for it in surface area, but most of them won't do super loud.

But they are absolutely fast, precise, dynamic - Quad ESL's are known as being one of few speakers capable of reproducing a 1khz square wave, I would be surprised to see a "dynamic" (magnet/paper cone) speaker achieve that.

The Gallo CDT tweeter seems to achieve most of the same magic.... in a much more WAF friendly manner (small... relatively unobtrusive) - sigh.

Speakers like the esl 63 or 57 for that matter are a single radiating device covering a broad frequency range without crossover phase shift.
The directivity that provides means less room sound as it impacts the Modulation Transfer Function mentioned elswhere.

It is the loudspeakers acoustic phase response and amplitude response that governs the speaker's ability to reproduce a complex wave-shape like a square wave.
To "look perfect" on an oscilloscope (the the reason it was used an an analytic signal in electronics) requires flat response AND phase over about a factor of 10 in frequency above and below the fundamental.

It is still thought for the most part, the ability to reproduce the wave-shape of the signal is not particularly important and simulations with headphones back that up generally.

On the other hand perhaps the first person to recognize the importance of phase and and devised a way to measure acoustic phase was Dick Heyser (an under appreciated and brilliant man who was way ahead of his time).

When FM radio was new and popular he was editor of Audio magazine he did a radio interview (in 1976), this is part 2 of that where he gets deeper into phase and stereo image and might be interested in today's light now that FIR filters can correct many loudspeakers phase at least at one location..
Enjoy;

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/chwlns7y6lwi9td/AADVyw4sc1fHq-v9XhovEQCUa?dl=0
Best
Tom Danley

 

[fineMen]

I agree that there are ... Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it)

You actually don't agree. What looks like a paraphrase of my contribution, doesn't fit. Anyway, if the company Stereophile comes to paraphrase what other people really mean, I doubt it makes too much sense. What's the taste of vanilla--to give another example? In general, what is it about to say "gives the impression of"?

I've got a huge system running for now. I pulled it out of my stock few weeks back. It replaces some other pair of less than a tenth of internal volume. It neither sounds like Stereophile describes it, nor would I say it's 'dynamic'. I think, as long as one stays within the design limits of a speaker, one might also expect it to be just as any other. Would it otherwise be high fidelity?

Of course the smaller set ran into limitations easier. But that was it, just overload.

 

[JRS]

Interesting... I had the same subjective experience with the previous Sanders 10 (those with the previous TL woofer)... horns and electrostats seem to sound much more similar than expected, provided that sufficient power (500+500 watts per channel) is available to the latter and both are properly EQed

I suspect it can be traced to better acoustic mass loading/impedance matching in both cases-in the one case a super light element interfacing with air, and in a horn, the driver being loaded with a larger, more massive volume of air. Maybe, it's like being in the proper gear.

 

[tuga]

You actually don't agree. What looks like a paraphrase of my contribution, doesn't fit. Anyway, if the company Stereophile comes to paraphrase what other people really mean, I doubt it makes too much sense. What's the taste of vanilla--to give another example? In general, what is it about to say "gives the impression of"?

I've got a huge system running for now. I pulled it out of my stock few weeks back. It replaces some other pair of less than a tenth of internal volume. It neither sounds like Stereophile describes it, nor would I say it's 'dynamic'. I think, as long as one stays within the design limits of a speaker, one might also expect it to be just as any other. Would it otherwise be high fidelity?

Of course the smaller set ran into limitations easier. But that was it, just overload.

I think that you have missed my point.

An attempt to describe observed differences in perceived sound requires the use of words. Words have meanings, and for every one involved in the discussion to understand the message we must make sure that each term means the same thing to all participants. Hence the need for a glossary of audio terms.

Your example is a case in point, since the description of the observed differences is pretty much worthless. Unless there were no differences (impossible) or maybe you're not a particularly discriminating listener.

 

[Duke]

Funny thing too, if you took two identical sub-woofers with the same signal, one has +3dB more power but if you put them close together, less than 1/4 wl apart, then they act as one woofer with a larger radiation area and so one moves up the radiation resistance slope.
The combination of two close coupled radiators is also +3dB more efficient in what is also called "mutual coupling", this gain over separate radiation is perhaps the only free lunch in audio unless the guest of a salesman.

Does this +3 dB (relative to the summed separate radiations) from two close-coupled radiators extend to the power response? My understanding is that close-coupling generally results in pattern-narrowing in the plane the drivers share such that the power response remains the same, BUT I'm now sure how that would apply at frequencies where the two drivers are less than 1/4 wavelength apart.

 

[fineMen]

An attempt to describe observed differences in perceived sound requires the use of words. Words have meanings, ... the same thing to all ...

Your example ... or maybe you're not a particularly discriminating listener.

Science: measure things (Your proposal) = bring to same-ness. Find equalness to a ruler's mark, find balance on scale, means equal relation to gravitation. The measures of the measure: scales, see wiki https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement

I don't know how far, if at all, the terms of the glossary of the Stereophile ad-company would brings us along that path

Confimed, I'm not discriminating in my listening. I rather enjoy. I'm not into following down eternal distrust and re-buying in the forever unsatisfied hope of final redemption. (Courtesy of Toole)

 

[tuga]

Science: measure things (Your proposal) = bring to same-ness. Find equalness to a ruler's mark, find balance on scale, means equal relation to gravitation. The measures of the measure: scales, see wiki https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement

I don't know how far, if at all, the terms of the glossary of the Stereophile ad-company would brings us along that path

Confimed, I'm not discriminating in my listening. I rather enjoy. I'm not into following down eternal distrust and re-buying in the forever unsatisfied hope of final redemption. (Courtesy of Toole)

Blindness then. (observation has no place in Science)

 

[gnarly]

This is why (I think) many "exotic" designs - such as electrostatics - are so dynamic.... negligible moving mass (mylar film) - with a large moving area, moving instantly.

Amplitude is ultimately limited, depends on design, but for ESL's, push them too hard and they will ARC.... and then you have a hole in your mylar, and reduced efficiency, heading for a visit to the repair shop ultimately. The mylar only moves within a very restricted space - makes up for it in surface area, but most of them won't do super loud.

But they are absolutely fast, precise, dynamic - Quad ESL's are known as being one of few speakers capable of reproducing a 1khz square wave, I would be surprised to see a "dynamic" (magnet/paper cone) speaker achieve that.

The Gallo CDT tweeter seems to achieve most of the same magic.... in a much more WAF friendly manner (small... relatively unobtrusive) - sigh.

Yep, i used to think that about electrostats for a long time.

Now i realize that "speed", or rather transient response, and the ability to make a square wave, are all the same thing.
And are a function of flat frequency response and flat phase response.

That simple really, with low mass having little to do with it, i think.

To illustrate, here's a set of a few square waves i took from a DIY 3-way that uses a coaxial compression driver from 650Hz up, and two 12" cones down to 100Hz.
(Speaker is meant for use with a sub)

I've found on a number of conventional transducer DIYs, that such square waves are possible. And their super transient response adds aural confirmation.
(BTW, I keep a pair of full range 'stats' in the same room I set up the DIYs for compare).

 

[Doodski]

Yep, i used to think that about electrostats for a long time.

Now i realize that "speed", or rather transient response, and the ability to make a square wave, are all the same thing.
And are a function of flat frequency response and flat phase response.

That simple really, with low mass having little to do with it, i think.

To illustrate, here's a set of a few square waves i took from a DIY 3-way that uses a coaxial compression driver from 650Hz up, and two 12" cones down to 100Hz.
(Speaker is meant for use with a sub)
View attachment 164385

I've found on a number of conventional transducer DIYs, that such square waves are possible. And their super transient response adds aural confirmation.
(BTW, I keep a pair of full range 'stats' in the same room I set up the DIYs for compare).

Be careful with square waves and speakers. The flats of the waveform can be pretty much considered DC voltage even if they are little wiggly.

 

[fineMen]

Blindness then. (observation has no place in Science)

O/k, seems we departed in opposing directions. We could have met discussing => https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02613144

..., as to settle on a 'how-to' regarding an objective observation, as You previously recommended. You called for a "measurement" of "stereo high fidelity dynamic (Stereophile)".

... a case where perhaps more/different (fit-for-purpose) measurements are required ...

Isn't it a pitty that people talk about so much about criteria, that can be missed even with expensive / expansive stereo set-ups? This claim about efficiancy versus dynamic sticks around for literally several decades. Still no conclusions, not even a clue what to begin with. A pitty indeed.

 

[audio2design]

A very experienced audiophile on another forum recently asserted that high-efficiency speakers were inherently more dynamic than other types. By high-efficiency I believe he meant >92 dB sensitivity; by "dynamic" I believe he meant more brilliant response to transient signals.

That sounds like MillerCarbon on Audiogon, in which case you should replace "experienced" with "ignorant and delusional" in which case almost anything he says will make more sense.

From a practical standpoint, frequency response vs. output power vs. distortion. You can throw in a bit of room acoustics, but mainly, you are over thinking it looking at much else other than frequency response vs. output power vs. distortion. Frequency response vs. distortion at a given power level tells you how "dynamic" the speaker is. We can't discount our visual bias towards large speakers, but analysis in the frequency domain gives you time domain characteristics and vice versa.

The big variable is distortion vs. frequency vs. output power. Look at the reviews here and you can see how quickly the distortion rises. Keep in mind, when you have large cone movement, IMD also goes up for the frequency range of that driver, independently of THD (doppler), and that also effects even driver alignment. The drivers are aligned at the center of travel, but if the woofer is at an end of travel on either end, the driver is no longer aligned. There are not as many studies as one would expect w.r.t. the fast peaks in music, so I think there is a lot of underestimation of fast peak to average, for some types of music, and a system under powered, but not enough to trip clipping meters.

 

[fineMen]

That sounds like MillerCarbon on Audiogon, ...

Looked that fellow up, and found this, as he (she?) gave a link to it:

At minute (don't worry, it was a hit or miss trial) 33:40 this guy from MQA tells, that out hearing / auditory system 'was finished milennia before Fourier was born'. That opens the door to tell that the hearing is 5..50 time better than Fourier mathematically allows for.

Is it o/k to get into agonal respiration for a minute? So leave me alone just a little bit ...

 

[audio2design]

This is why (I think) many "exotic" designs - such as electrostatics - are so dynamic.... negligible moving mass (mylar film) - with a large moving area, moving instantly.

But they are absolutely fast, precise, dynamic - Quad ESL's are known as being one of few speakers capable of reproducing a 1khz square wave, I would be surprised to see a "dynamic" (magnet/paper cone) speaker achieve that.

The Gallo CDT tweeter seems to achieve most of the same magic.... in a much more WAF friendly manner (small... relatively unobtrusive) - sigh.

If it moved instantly it would have infinite bandwidth but of course it does not. It moves much like anything else. It may have low mass, but it also has low drive power too, which is why it does not move instantly, no more than anything else full range.

The large area does tend to me small amount of movement which helps for doppler (IMD) distortion.

 

[audio2design]

Looked that fellow up, and found this, as he (she?) gave a link to it:

At minute (don't worry, it was a hit or miss trial) 33:40 this guy from MQA tells, that out hearing / auditory system 'was finished milennia before Fourier was born'. That opens the door to tell that the hearing is 5..50 time better than Fourier mathematically allows for.

Is it o/k to get into agonal respiration for a minute? So leave me alone just a little bit ...

He also posts a lot of wrong stuff about vaccines and audio. He appears to have no limit on where his ignorance extends.

Please no, not this whole "hearing exceeds fourier limits" stuff. There is no magic. Nothing w.r.t. our hearing exceeds any "mathematical limit". It only exceeds one mathematical model that obviously does not apply. Fourier uncertainty principle only applies to linear systems. Our auditory system is anything but linear.

 

[tuga]

From a practical standpoint, frequency response vs. output power vs. distortion. You can throw in a bit of room acoustics, but mainly, you are over thinking it looking at much else other than frequency response vs. output power vs. distortion. Frequency response vs. distortion at a given power level tells you how "dynamic" the speaker is. We can't discount our visual bias towards large speakers, but analysis in the frequency domain gives you time domain characteristics and vice versa.

I think objective dynamic range and the perceived “dynamics” as described by some/many listeners are not the same thing.
Whether this is the result of artefacts/distortion or some other thing I cannot say. I tried to elaborate on this in an earlier post but was misunderstood.