AVS Forum banner

List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers

272K views 1K replies 161 participants last post by  garygarrison 
#1 ·


Link to Google Spreadsheet !

Link to [static, sorted by performance] published from Google doc .


Partial list below. Go to the PDF (below) or the Google spreadsheet for all info.

Klipsch\tKPT-Jubilee

Klipsch\tKPT-Jubilee 535

JTR\tTriple 12HT

ElectroVoice\tVariplex II HPK

ElectroVoice\tVariplex II

JBL Pro\t4722N

Danley S. L.\tSH-50

Danley S. L.\tSM-60F

JBL Pro\t3722N

JBL Pro\t3732

Klipsch\tLa Scala II

Klipsch\tKlipschorn

Yamaha\tDSR112

Klipsch\tKLF-30

JTR\tTriple 8HT

QSC\tKW153

JBL Pro\t4670D

JBL Pro\t4675

QSC\tKW152

Klipsch\tCF-3

Danley S. L.\tSH-60M

ElectroVoice\tSx300Pi

Klipsch\tCornwall III

Klipsch\tKLF-20

JBL Pro\tMRX512M

Procella\tP860

QSC\tK12

QSC\tKW122

Genelec\t1036A

RWO Fostex\tLS/3

AudioKinesis \tThunderchild

JBL Pro\t3677

RWO Fostex\tLS/4

JBL Pro\t3678

Klipsch\tHeresy III

Seaton\tCatalyst

QSC\tK10

Tannoy\tDefinition Install DC12i

Carvin\tPM10

JTR\tSingle 8HT

Danley S. L.\tSH-100

Klipsch\tKL-650-THX

Chase\tSHO-10

eD\teD[c]12

Klipsch\tKL-525-THX

RWO Fostex\tLS/2

Peavey\tPR10

Genelec\t1038B

ElectroVoice\tSx100+

Pro Audio Tech.\tSCR12sm

QSC\tK8

ElectroVoice\tELX112

Mackie\tC200

Zu Audio\tOmen Center

Yorkville\tYX10

Chase\tPRO-10

Klipsch\tRC-62 II

eD\teD[c]6.Center

Triad\tInRoom LCR Platinum

Klipsch\tRB-81

JBL Pro\tLSR6332

Ayon Audio\tBlackbird

Procella\tP610

Procella\tP8

ME Geithain\tRL 801K

Adam Audio\tS3X-V

Axiom Audio\tM50

PMC\tBB5

Dynaudio\tM2

Axiom Audio\tVP160

Seaton \tSpark

Coincident Speaker Tech\tTriumph Extreme II

Axiom Audio\tM22

PMC\tMB2S

ElectroVoice\tZX1

Genelec\t1038CF

Tannoy\tDefinition Install DC8i

eD\teD[c]6

Paradigm\tCC-390

Klipsch\tRB-61

Axiom Audio\tM3

JBL\tStudio L890

K+H\tO 410 Studio Monitor

Triad\tInRoom LCR Gold

Genelec\tAOW312B

JBL Pro\tLSR4326P

Ascend Acoustics\tCMT-340 SE

Tannoy\tDefinition Install DC6i

JBL Synthesis\tLs 80

KRK\tExpose

Paradigm\tCC-370

Paradigm\tSignature S8

Hsu Research\tHB-1 MK2

Hsu Research\tHC-1 MK2

SVSound\tMTS-02

PMC\tIB2S

Energy\tRC-10

 

 

Reference-Capable-Speakers.pdf 442.220703125k . file
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#28 ·
Ha. Well, you realize, the reason I wanted to start this is list is because I _don't_ know all the best speakers for high dynamics theater.


And your question is your contribution to getting Martin Logan added.



Do you know if the sensitivity spec is to be trusted?

And where I can find program and peak power ratings? Their specs are a little sparse on the site.


TIA
 
#29 ·
The BFM DR-200 has very high sensitivity and can play loud but it is DIY but their are builders for it. $600 for a builder and you get 104 dB sensitivity and 127 dB capability! They need to be crossed over high though. The DR-280 can have 110 dB sensitivity with 136 dB capability for $1050.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APjunior
#31 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron /forum/post/0


When you recommended it I checked out the site but didn't know where to beginning, and how to price it.


I'll take a look again and read your thread some more and probably have questions. Thanks!

Those are prices from my builder so it is not a DIY anymore but needs EQ(no crossover but I am sure they can be made). Don't forget the Klipsch KL-650 which is a better speaker than the KL-525 you have listed. The whole key to this is knowing what dB you need for your LP. I need 117 dB's peak at the speaker for reference levels.
 
#32 ·
Great idea!


Found an error...

The Klipsch Jubilee is rated at 108 dB sensitivity and the Klipschorn at 105 dB, yet they both list 13.7 W to reach 105 dB at 12 feet. The Jubilee needs half: 6.7 W


I guess you are not using formulas to calculate the number from sensitivity and power handling.
 
#33 ·
Let's not forget the JBL cinema speakers that are awesome. I still prefer the DR-200 with a dual 18 inch sealed bottom with a 150hz crossover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gradenko
#34 ·
I presume that when you are done you will sort/organize the spreadsheet in some form of logical fashion.....by brand perhaps... or by sensativity?


Since it seems to be primarily a sensativity database, that's probably how I'd do it. This way someone can find that column and quickly slide up/down to a point that might fit their needs. (disregarding all other criteria of course).
 
#35 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee /forum/post/0


I presume that when you are done you will sort/organize the spreadsheet in some form of logical fashion.....by brand perhaps... or by sensativity?


Since it seems to be primarily a sensativity database, that's probably how I'd do it. This way someone can find that column and quickly slide up/down to a point that might fit their needs. (disregarding all other criteria of course).

I agree, sensitivity and power handling to see how loud they can get. Of course some over rate and some are under rated.
 
#36 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater /forum/post/21495250


Those are prices from my builder so it is not a DIY anymore but needs EQ(no crossover but I am sure they can be made). Don't forget the Klipsch KL-650 which is a better speaker than the KL-525 you have listed. The whole key to this is knowing what dB you need for your LP. I need 117 dB's peak at the speaker for reference levels.

OK, that makes it easier, thanks, I'll treat it as a "purchaseable" product.


I'm not adverse to including DIY builds. I think I'd want to wait until I could find (or people tell me) what the specs and price are. And then I could add another column for whether it's a DIY, link to flat pack / plans, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn /forum/post/21496063


Great idea!


Found an error...

The Klipsch Jubilee is rated at 108 dB sensitivity and the Klipschorn at 105 dB, yet they both list 13.7 W to reach 105 dB at 12 feet. The Jubilee needs half: 6.7 W


I guess you are not using formulas to calculate the number from sensitivity and power handling.

Thanks for finding that.


Well, the more errors found, the closer I am to calculating sensitivity in the spreadsheet!
: I guess I've reached that point. And then I can treat distance as a variable. It will be that much closer to being a web app (although this list has moved rapidly in a couple days, and I can't see this becoming a database-driven web app until maybe the summer).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater /forum/post/21496119


Let's not forget the JBL cinema speakers that are awesome. I still prefer the DR-200 with a dual 18 inch sealed bottom with a 150hz crossover.

Yeah, I intended to add those at some point. Means a lot of reading through the JBL fans' posts. It seems to get a little complicated when there are several modules being stacked. Maybe in those cases I should treat them as one product, as an amalgamation of two or three models?


Can you make it easier on me and point me to the top three JBLs people would like to see (like a budget level for cheaper and smaller space, a mid-level, and overkill-but-not-IMAX)? If used are a common option, those are fine too (esp. since we have the discontinued Klipsch in there).

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee /forum/post/21496231


I presume that when you are done you will sort/organize the spreadsheet in some form of logical fashion.....by brand perhaps... or by sensativity?


Since it seems to be primarily a sensativity database, that's probably how I'd do it. This way someone can find that column and quickly slide up/down to a point that might fit their needs. (disregarding all other criteria of course).

Good point. I realized last night that the "link to spreadsheet" I was publishing wasn't really a spreadsheet, but rather the HTML output of the sheet when I clicked "Publish."
Today I'll link to the sheet as intended, and then (I imagine) everyone will be able to sort, etc.

Value Score

In my initial publications (prior to making the whole spreadsheet available), I have sorted alternatively by "Value Score," which takes several performance and subjective parameters into account, and by "SPL with 1/8 peak watts"

Performance Parameters (subjectively weighted)

100 watt decibels, peak power handling, sensitivity, % of peak to achieve 105db [always from listening distance], and db with 1/8 peak watts due to power compression. While these are objective numbers, the weighting one puts on them is very subjective. eg, a person who knows he'll only have a 100 watt receiver is very interested in what the speakers can do with 100 watts. Someone else who uses powerful amps is not as concerned with stratospheric sensitivity, and they do care about peak watts handling (which some of the pro speakers do well, even if their sensitivity is ho-hum).

Review/Sentiment, Price

Along with all the above, I included price ranking. I tried to weight the pricing so that it didn't matter as much if a speaker was $100 or $200, because at that low level the speaker is suspect anyway being so cheap. This is due to the economics even in an internet-direct model, where there are minimum baseline costs. ie, if a speaker is listed at $30 (and is supposedly high performance), there's probably something wrong.


However, price is something that is more important in the $200-$2,000 range. Above that, it'd less of an issue, and I didn't want to subtract massive points just because a fantastic speaker was $4,000, and to an even lesser extent if it's $16,000. Thus, the ratio of price increase versus points subtracted is not linear.


I also have a column for Review/Sentiment. Some speakers don't get reviewed that much, but there might be a powerful tide of fans. For instance, even if there was never a professional review of the JTR Triple 8, I'd still give that speaker a maximum rating for sentiment. I don't ever read anyone say, "Oh, yeah, JTR, that's okay if you want to get loud, but the imaging is sucky and its freq response is all over the place." Rather, it sounds like people rank it with the best of the best. Some speakers have a mixed following. Some have very little data. Some have negative.

More Granular Scoring

I realize now that lumping so much into a score might be satisfying in that it yields a magazine-like simple number. But the downfall is that it's either too general (weighting too many aspects equally) or too skewed.


I think the answer is to do what Ricci did with his data-bass: provide several types of scores (his "
If I tack on to the end of each row a few columns I can put the scoring there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater /forum/post/21496245


I agree, sensitivity and power handling to see how loud they can get. Of course some over rate and some are under rated.

Yes. I just have to unleash the sorting and it'll be more useful.


I also added a Directivity Index, but that data is available in the minority of the speakers. Hopefully people will be able to contribute other data to fill in the gaps.
 
#37 ·
The cheapest JBL cinema is the 3677, then I would say 3722. There are also the 3678 and 4722. The bigger ones are the 3732 and 4675!
 
#38 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn
Great idea!


Found an error...

The Klipsch Jubilee is rated at 108 dB sensitivity and the Klipschorn at 105 dB, yet they both list 13.7 W to reach 105 dB at 12 feet. The Jubilee needs half: 6.7 W


I guess you are not using formulas to calculate the number from sensitivity and power handling.
Now using formulas for calculating all SPLs. Bume! This has eliminated copy-paste type errors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee
I presume that when you are done you will sort/organize the spreadsheet in some form of logical fashion.....by brand perhaps... or by sensativity?


Since it seems to be primarily a sensativity database, that's probably how I'd do it. This way someone can find that column and quickly slide up/down to a point that might fit their needs. (disregarding all other criteria of course).
I'm now sharing the spreadsheet. However, people with read-only access also can't sort (annoying, I wish Google would make a distinction between data and data presentation!).


I read that List View does allow for sorting. And I changed the link to use List View, but when I browse to it not logged-in, I cannot sort.


It's getting there though!

Google spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...er=false&gid=0

 

Reference-Capable-Speakers-1_4.pdf 386.4306640625k . file
 

Attachments

#39 ·
I had to find formulas for:

Given a speaker's program or peak watts, and D distance and its sensitivity: calculate SPL.


How many watts, with D distance, and this speaker's sensitivity does it take to reach X SPL?


And then....I noticed that on the oft-linked SPL Calculator, he lets one download his spreadsheet as an Excel. That woulda helped!
 
#40 ·
"LaScalla II" -> "La Scala II"
 
#41 ·
The EX SX100 is nearly obsolete.


The larger members of the ZX series than the ZX-1 (ZX-3, ZX-4, and ZX-5) seem relevant.


AFAIK there is no EV ZX-2.


I've used ZX-5s in my living room and they are just fine. Smooth, clean, sized like larger bookshelf speakers, and with reasonable bass extension down to about 50 Hz.
 
#42 ·
Showing my ignornace here...


When you calculate for 105db @ 12' LP is the forumla basically:


Speaker location (in meters) less 6 db loss for each meter distance?


This is what you seem to be using.


However, I thought that when you have a stereo pair of speakers you ADD 3db to the total output as well as the db loss because of distance.


In other words, I thought (and I certainly can be wrong) that if you have a single speaker playing 105 db at 12 feet away and then add another speaker playing at the same loudness, you will actually be experiencing 108 db at the 12' distance.


Is this true?


If it is true then would that column in the spreadsheet be off by at least one doubling of amp power for each speaker?
 
#43 ·
Interesting list and project. A few flaws. For example, you are rating the Procella P8 (rather than the P815 or P860) and Seaton Catalyst along with "full range" speakers. Rather misleading and could lead a less experienced individual to making a poor selection.


Your rating criteria also assumes a lower sensitivity is bad, whilst a higher sensitivity is good. This is not necessarily the case.


So now, one can get a speaker that plays loud using an inexpensive (low output amp) without respect to speaker sound quality, polar response, FR, or appropriateness for the application at hand. (At a seating distance typical of a residential sized theater, many of the speakers listed will take your head off since the high frequency output has been designed for much greater seating distances.)


There are other "main line" speakers which have been ignored ... Triad and Genelec for example.
 
#45 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine /forum/post/21500013


Coytee...

You cannot take a manufacturer's rating (say 40Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB @ 1 watt/1 meter) and simply extrapolate to 12'. Frequency roll off is not linear over distance.

I'll be the first to say/admit that I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase it a bit.


I've read various comments before and the gist of what I recall is, if you have a speaker measuring "X" db's at 1 watt/meter, then as you walk backwards from that single speaker to a listening distance, you subtract (I think) 6db's for each meter or maybe it was each doubling of distance.


However.... that's a single speaker.


To change the comment a bit... if you have a speaker with "X" db/watt in the room and add a second speaker you will add 3db of gain as perceived loudness.


My first question is, in a broad sense, is the above correct?


Clearly you have some drop off with distance. Clearly you have some addiditve properties when you add more speakers.


If the above isn't correct, then what is? This was the only thing I was trying to bring up as it appears to me the spreadsheet might be taking distance into calcuations but, not the 2'nd speaker which (I think) would cut down the net watts for a perceived loudness at that given distance.


no?
 
#46 ·
Would you adjust the formula any to account for how a speaker presents the sound? SPL lost over distance might be different for a driver in one configuration vs. another. A driver mounted to a horn designed to "throw" sound might have less loss over distance than would the same driver with no horn? or, even different horns with different dispersions. I know when I moved to horns, the sound hit the back of my room differently, but there were many other variables that changed at the same time.
 
#47 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn /forum/post/21499868


"LaScalla II" -> "La Scala II"

Thanks! Fixed in the spreadsheet. Will show up in next published static versions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk /forum/post/21499928


The EX SX100 is nearly obsolete.


The larger members of the ZX series than the ZX-1 (ZX-3, ZX-4, and ZX-5) seem relevant.


AFAIK there is no EV ZX-2.


I've used ZX-5s in my living room and they are just fine. Smooth, clean, sized like larger bookshelf speakers, and with reasonable bass extension down to about 50 Hz.

I appreciate the input! The anecdotal information is critical when we're working in a relatively new realm of using pro speakers for home theater, and there is little to no internet "buzz" about a brand or model, or no reviews in the context of critical "medium-field" listening in a home.


Yeah, it struck me, too, that there was no ZX-2. Seems like a hole where there should be a 10" for $300.
 
#48 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee /forum/post/21499934


Showing my ignornace here...


When you calculate for 105db @ 12' LP is the forumla basically:


Speaker location (in meters) less 6 db loss for each meter distance?


This is what you seem to be using.

I used formulas here, some of which I needed to string together to combine distance and watts: http://www.live-audio.com/studyhall/dB_calculations.pdf

They involved logs. The numbers I got in the spreadsheet matched what I got here with this [rudimentary, in that it doesn't account for high freq roll-off with distance; see below] often-referenced calculator: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/s...l#anchor_13115 . For instance, here's the formula for SPL at 12' with 100 watts: =F5+(20*log(3.3/Calcs!$B$2))+(10*log(Calcs!$B$3/1)).

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee /forum/post/21499934


However, I thought that when you have a stereo pair of speakers you ADD 3db to the total output as well as the db loss because of distance.


In other words, I thought (and I certainly can be wrong) that if you have a single speaker playing 105 db at 12 feet away and then add another speaker playing at the same loudness, you will actually be experiencing 108 db at the 12' distance.


Is this true?


If it is true then would that column in the spreadsheet be off by at least one doubling of amp power for each speaker?

I'm so glad to get input on this and get feedback on assumptions, or mistakes I may have made, or the utility of the project or even specific numbers and calcs!


My understanding is that when one is aiming for "X" potential peak decibels capability at each of the 5/7 channels, one is not considering things like what the total dB will be when two, three, or five speakers are all playing at the same time.


For instance, going by your question of two speakers...why consider only two speakers? Wouldn't it be off by even more when you include the center? Or the right surround?


Besides, the speakers are often not playing sound that's correlated between channels. If there's a gunshot, it might be coming from hard right, and would be (at reference level) 100db front-right and 90db surround-right.


The specification is just per channel, so yeah, people will experience louder often than that. But I don't know that it matters here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coytee /forum/post/21500084


I'll be the first to say/admit that I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll try to rephrase it a bit.


I've read various comments before and the gist of what I recall is, if you have a speaker measuring "X" db's at 1 watt/meter, then as you walk backwards from that single speaker to a listening distance, you subtract (I think) 6db's for each meter or maybe it was each doubling of distance.


However.... that's a single speaker.


To change the comment a bit... if you have a speaker with "X" db/watt in the room and add a second speaker you will add 3db of gain as perceived loudness.


My first question is, in a broad sense, is the above correct?


Clearly you have some drop off with distance. Clearly you have some addiditve properties when you add more speakers.


If the above isn't correct, then what is? This was the only thing I was trying to bring up as it appears to me the spreadsheet might be taking distance into calcuations but, not the 2'nd speaker which (I think) would cut down the net watts for a perceived loudness at that given distance.


no?

Right, so we're not calculating for, say, hearing damage, or what one will read on an SPL meter when one, two, or five speakers are all playing at once.


This is more about, "Can this speaker do what I need it to do?"
 
#49 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine /forum/post/0


Interesting list and project. A few flaws. For example, you are rating the Procella P8 (rather than the P815 or P860) and Seaton Catalyst along with "full range" speakers. Rather misleading and could lead a less experienced individual to making a poor selection.


Your rating criteria also assumes a lower sensitivity is bad, whilst a higher sensitivity is good. This is not necessarily the case.


So now, one can get a speaker that plays loud using an inexpensive (low output amp) without respect to speaker sound quality, polar response, FR, or appropriateness for the application at hand. (At a seating distance typical of a residential sized theater, many of the speakers listed will take your head off since the high frequency output has been designed for much greater seating distances.)


There are other "main line" speakers which have been ignored ... Triad and Genelec for example.

Could you or someone else go a little further into detail on higher vs lower sensitivity? I think it would be beneficial for those with less knowledge, like myself, and currently in the research phase and planning to upgrade.


I believe I understand the general concepts of sensitivity and the ability of the speakers to play at reference. But find it difficult to understand why one would play at reference levels? Isn't this incredibly loud?


Granted I never experienced a properly setup system to play these levels but I would assume most people don't have the space needed to consider reference levels. For a little background on my listening levels when everyone is up maybe as low as -20db's at night when I'm the only one up and playing MW3 it's at -58db's which is fine.
 
#50 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.myers /forum/post/0



Could you or someone else go a little further into detail on higher vs lower sensitivity? I think it would be beneficial for those with less knowledge, like myself, and currently in the research phase and planning to upgrade.


I believe I understand the general concepts of sensitivity and the ability of the speakers to play at reference. But find it difficult to understand why one would play at reference levels? Isn't this incredibly loud?


Granted I never experienced a properly setup system to play these levels but I would assume most people don't have the space needed to consider reference levels. For a little background on my listening levels when everyone is up maybe as low as -20db's at night when I'm the only one up and playing MW3 it's at -58db's which is fine.

If one speaker is rated at 88db/1watt/1 meter than it can play 88db with 1 watt of power (1m away). A speaker that is rated at 91db instead can play 91db with the same amount of power.


Obviously the higher rated one can reach higher volumes of reference level easier than a lower one. Remember for every 3db change requires double the power. Id give some examples but instead id recommend playing around with the crown amp power calculator. Google that and plug in 88/91 for sensitivity and set the lp db at 90 and see the power requirement differences.



As for reference level some folks here have well treated rooms that allow them to reach reference levels and not have any hearing issues.crazy few
 
#51 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin /forum/post/0



If one speaker is rated at 88db/1watt/1 meter than it can play 88db with 1 watt of power (1m away). A speaker that is rated at 91db instead can play 91db with the same amount of power.


Obviously the higher rated one can reach higher volumes of reference level easier than a lower one. Remember for every 3db change requires double the power. Id give some examples but instead id recommend playing around with the crown amp power calculator. Google that and plug in 88/91 for sensitivity and set the lp db at 90 and see the power requirement differences.


As for reference level some folks here have well treated rooms that allow them to reach reference levels and not have any hearing issues.crazy few

That being said for those without a treated room and looking for an above avg HT setup would sensitivity and reference be as important? When I say above avg I'm assuming approx five thousand for entire setup tv, receiver and speakers.


Fir example how would say the Ascend sierra's rate with their lower sensitivity? People seem to like them very much. I would be more interested in great detail like hearing a pin drop rather then shatter my windows or have the nails pop out of the house framing lol.
 
Top