or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers - Page 15

post #421 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

As a rule of thumb, that would be obvious; but it cannot be applied to two random drivers as it is not universal (max power handling can vary considerably and is not tied to sensitivity).
On a given speaker, yes. You cannot compare two different speakers by "percent of max power used". THD cannot be computed solely from "percent of max power" without also knowing the speaker in question. Two different speakers will produce different THD at the same percent of max power.

I agree, every speaker will vary and why I test every one I build or buy.
post #422 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Your guess would be wrong. Is there a point?

the point is that both claims -
Quote:
In Northern Hemisphere, on average, there are more warm days during summer than during winter
and
Quote:
...on average, in order to reach the same output levels, lower sensitivity speakers are driven closer to max power handling levels than high sensitivity ones.
- should be equally reasonable to an unbiased observer.

to illustrate, in order for the latter claim to be false, assuming there is 10dB difference between "high sensitivity" and "low sensitivity" loudspeaker pools, the LS ones should have, again, on average, 10 times higher power handling specs than the HS ones.
Now, that may be an unreasonable expectation to have.
post #423 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

the point is that both claims -
and
- should be equally reasonable to an unbiased observer.

I have no idea what you mean by "reasonable"... and I cannot imagine while a "reasonable" belief would be assumed true.
Quote:
to illustrate, in order for the latter claim to be false, assuming there is 10dB difference between "high sensitivity" and "low sensitivity" loudspeaker pools, the LS ones should have, again, on average, 10 times higher power handling specs than the HS ones.
Now, that may be an unreasonable expectation to have.

It may be, or it may not.

Are we counting by number of models or number of units sold. All we would need is for the #1 selling speaker to be 91db and 200 watts while the #2 speaker was to be 92db and 100 watts (in a system where the top 2 models were dominating) and suddenly , on average, it would take a greater percentage of the average high senativity speaker's power to hit 92db (1%) than it would for the average low-senseativity (0.65% (about)).

Of course, how one "averages" a continuous range is another question entirely.

I think you are confusing "reasonable" and "intuitive"... though bluntly: both are often wrong.

But please: regale me with the data if you have it. What is the efficiency of the "average" speaker? What is the power handling of the "average" speaker? What is the cut-off point for "sensitive" vs "unsensative" for your comparison? Are you going by number of models, number of units, or something else? Are you covering all speakers ever produced or during a certain time-frame?

Or are you just making a bunch of assumptions that might be true and might be false?

I don't know that your statement regarding averages is wrong; but I have a reasonable belief that you don't know it's right either. I suspect neither one of us has the requisite data; and I'm certain being "reasonable" doesn't make something true.
Edited by JerryLove - 12/6/12 at 2:40pm
post #424 of 820
If those are the claims, they sound reasonable to me.BTW, I also get Jerry's point.
post #425 of 820
Thread Starter 

I think it's illustrative to look at the subwoofer world. 

While it's not completely obvious to all people that if they're playing at -10dB they need to be able to handle 105dB peaks at listening position from at least 20Hz to 100Hz, it's something I think we have more experience with than the main speakers in home audio.

 

I wonder why that is? Is it because we've more often heard a system lacking low bass?

No one debates with Ricci at data-bass.com, "No, my six inch 50w sub that's part of my computer speakers is more than enough bass for me! Fills the room with LFE."

 

At his site, we see graphs of THD, with the low-end being limited by the the driver, and the upper-end is limited by the amp.

 

Generally, we see high Xmax drivers (30-50mm?) offering lower extension but requiring more watts, with less sensitivity, and they're often lacking in the mid-bass.

We see high sensitivity drivers not able to reach to the lower frequencies with as much SPL, but they do better higher up. 9-20mm Xmax.

A longer voice coil will be used with greater Xmax, but that means more weight in the moving mass of the driver, thus decreasing sensitivity.

Here's a list of drivers he's tested: http://www.data-bass.com/drivers

 

Ricci talks about shorting rings to smooth the inductance at the Xmax extremes, lowering distortion (I imagine just on peaks). He talks about the different venting/cooling designs (which would affect long-term power handling, thermal compression).

 

Aren't a lot of these subwoofer concepts applicable to the 70hz to 500hz of our main 3-7 speakers?

 

Anecdotedly, I see a lot of speakers that dig deeper have less sensitivity. I imagine box size and money can compensate; for instance using more exotic materials for cones and coils that are lighter. I read a good article last night about speaker design tradeoffs: http://www.trueaudio.com/st_trade.htm .... Like with Hoffman's Iron Law, the author treats Size, SPL, and Bass as shares of a pie. You can increase one of those attributes, like Bass (extension), but you have to give up SPL, or you'll need a bigger enclosure. You can't have deep extension, a little cabinet, and high output.

post #426 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post

You can't have...high output.
High sensitivity. High output is possible, but it requires a longer excursion driver and the power to make use of it. And as longer excursion equals higher THD it's a fourth component to Hoffman's. If you want it low, loud and clean it also has to be big.
post #427 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I have no idea what you mean by "reasonable"... and I cannot imagine while a "reasonable" belief would be assumed true.
It may be, or it may not.
Are we counting by number of models or number of units sold. All we would need is for the #1 selling speaker to be 91db and 200 watts while the #2 speaker was to be 92db and 100 watts (in a system where the top 2 models were dominating) and suddenly , on average, it would take a greater percentage of the average high senativity speaker's power to hit 92db (1%) than it would for the average low-senseativity (0.65% (about)).
Of course, how one "averages" a continuous range is another question entirely.
I think you are confusing "reasonable" and "intuitive"... though bluntly: both are often wrong.
But please: regale me with the data if you have it. What is the efficiency of the "average" speaker? What is the power handling of the "average" speaker? What is the cut-off point for "sensitive" vs "unsensative" for your comparison? Are you going by number of models, number of units, or something else? Are you covering all speakers ever produced or during a certain time-frame?
Or are you just making a bunch of assumptions that might be true and might be false?
I don't know that your statement regarding averages is wrong; but I have a reasonable belief that you don't know it's right either. I suspect neither one of us has the requisite data; and I'm certain being "reasonable" doesn't make something true.

LS vs HS is of course relative.
That's why the only constraint I used in my example is the 10dB difference between the two.

To avoid any ambiguity let's agree that, as long as the respective sensitivity requirements are met, each pool can include either all speakers ever sold or all speakers ever designed. I do not expect this to matter. The point is each group will be large enough so that the average numbers would be statistically meaningful.

Now, using your example, we can start at LF pool of 80dB speakers and HF - of 90dB speakers, going upward in 1 dB increments all the way to the upper limit of 106dB-116dB or whatever the theoretical limit is.

During this exercise, the average maximum power handling number within the LS pool will never be 10 times higher than within the HS one. That is the claim.
Edited by zheka - 12/6/12 at 3:04pm
post #428 of 820
Thread Starter 

It's interesting that many speaker manufacturers only make speakers that extend low and have only middlin' sensitivity. These seem to be suited more to two-channel enthusiests, or those using a pair of speakers in a small system where they won't use a sub. 

 

But at the same time those companies try to sell subwoofers. Where are the speakers that are meant to be married to those subs? I don't get why they wouldn't make one line and say, "Intended to be use with a subwoofer, like our fantastic model XYZ. This high-output speaker exhibits low distortion up to 128dB from a meter away throughout its bandwidth (70Hz - 20kHz).

 

I guess the market feels that most people will not realize that they don't need 30Hz extension when using subs, or that they won't want to play them louder with their 100w amps?

post #429 of 820
Simple proof for low + loud + sensitive.

Take your favorite low + loud + not-sensitive sub.
Put another identical sub right next to it and run them together.

You've just raised sensitivity +3db and raised max volume +6db (by doubling power-handling) and reduced the THD at a given SPL.

Why does no one do this? Well, not no one; but I suspect it's less common because it adds cost and size.
post #430 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

LS vs HS is of course relative.
That's why the only constraint I used in my example is the 10dB difference between the two.
To avoid any ambiguity let's agree that, as long as the respective sensitivity requirements are met, each pool can include either all speakers ever sold or all speakers ever designed. I do not expect this to matter. The point is each group will be large enough so that the average numbers would be statistically meaningful.

It would depend on where you put your cut-off of course; but you've got an excellent chance. I suspect that the highest power-handling speakers will fall in your "high sensitivity" group: such as those used in concerts, sports arenas, prisons, theme parks, and movie theaters.

Pull those out and again I don't know. I lack sufficient data.

Not to try to come back to some semblance of a point but: does it matter?

It doesn't effect what I said about a hypothetical speaker and a given person will be looking at real instances, not averages, and should evaluate those real speakers on their values, not on the average for some arbitrary class.

Which has been my point from the beginning.
post #431 of 820
Jerry my point was that you seemed to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.
post #432 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post

Jerry my point was that you seemed to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.
And this relates to the topic at hand how? I don't understand the relevance of your point.
post #433 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

It would depend on where you put your cut-off of course; but you've got an excellent chance. I suspect that the highest power-handling speakers will fall in your "high sensitivity" group: such as those used in concerts, sports arenas, prisons, theme parks, and movie theaters.
Pull those out and again I don't know. I lack sufficient data.
Not to try to come back to some semblance of a point but: does it matter?
It doesn't effect what I said about a hypothetical speaker and a given person will be looking at real instances, not averages, and should evaluate those real speakers on their values, not on the average for some arbitrary class.
Which has been my point from the beginning.

well,i was right and you were wrong. it kind of matters to me.

but the important point is the same one made here on many occasions. In real life life, when it comes to high SPL low distortion playback, the sensitivity disadvantage is a serous handicap. Even when it's overcome with amplification, it is almost always done at the very limits of the power handling capabilities, which is never a good thing. I said "almost always" just to be on the safe side. I cannot personally think of a single exception.

The list Eyleron has compiled is a representative sample of speakers at least theoretically capable of reaching 105dB at 12 feet anechoic. There is a handful of entries with sensitivity under 90dB, and most of them would be at or above the stated max RMS at the levels.
post #434 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

well,i was right and you were wrong. it kind of matters to me.

What did I say that was wrong?

Also: you are equivocating the point. I asked how your original comment was relevant to real users. You have not answered that.
Quote:
but the important point is the same one made here on many occasions. In real life life, when it comes to high SPL low distortion playback, the sensitivity disadvantage is a serous handicap.

I don't see that this has been supported by any of your posts in a universal manner. You'd need to apply specific, arbitrary definitions of "high SPL" and 'sensitivity".
Indeed, there's an equivalent statement with the exact same support " In real life life, when it comes to high SPL low distortion playback, the power-handling disadvantage is a serous handicap."
What I can do is define the relationship between those two (low/high power handling and low/high sensitivity). 3db in sensitivity is equal to a doubling (or halving) of power handling. (which is basically what was asked in the question I answered in my first post on this thread)

At an extreme that's clearly true; but it's also a straw-man. No one has advocated an 80db sensitive 100W speaker for producing 120db SPL. No one would. It can't.

I suspect that the world's loudest speakers have a higher sensitivity than the average home-audio speaker.

Again. So what. How does it matter? When you look at your given needs, you can match speakers to those needs. We all know the formula for SPL, and THD varies by speaker and so should be looked at by speaker, not by arbitrary class.
Quote:
Even when it's overcome with amplification, it is almost always done at the very limits of the power handling capabilities, which is never a good thing. I said "almost always" just to be on the safe side. I cannot personally think of a single exception.

Any 91db 200w speaker compared to any 90db 100w speaker when matching SPL.

You keep posting comments in universal that are only specifically true, not universally true.

Either a given speaker gives you the volume you want at a THD you find acceptable or it does not. You can only determine that on a per-speaker basis... though I suppose you could also pre-apply limits based on available power-to-drive. If you've only got 1000w, you aren't going to look for a <80db sensitive speaker for a >120db need no matter how much power it can take nor how little distortion.
post #435 of 820
Quote:
Quote:
but the important point is the same one made here on many occasions. In real life life, when it comes to high SPL low distortion playback, the sensitivity disadvantage is a serous handicap.
I don't see that this has been supported by any of your posts in a universal manner. You'd need to apply specific, arbitrary definitions of "high SPL" and 'sensitivity".
Indeed, there's an equivalent statement with the exact same support " In real life life, when it comes to high SPL low distortion playback, the power-handling disadvantage is a serous handicap."
of course in real life, high SPL, HS speakers do not suffer from power-handling disadvantage ( on average) as was well demonstrated in my previous posts.
As to what I mean by "high SPL" and 'sensitivity', the name of the thread you are posting in may give you some context. I'd specifically refer you to the second post where Eyleron goes over the whats, the whys and the hows.
Edited by zheka - 12/6/12 at 7:37pm
post #436 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

of course in real life high SPL, HS speakers do not suffer from power-handling disadvantage ( on average) as was well demonstrated in my previous posts.
i think i had enough of this conversation. good night.

That would be the one where $50,000 professional theater speakers pushed all the numbers up?

The most power-willing speaker in my house takes 1500 watts (custom build).
The #2 in my house will take 1000 watts (B&W N801)

In real life, in your home, is the power-handling of your speakers similar.
Anyone on this thread have a HE non-sub that will take 1000w actually in their house?

They certainly exist; and if you need them you need them. In fact, I encounter 1000w+ HE speakers all the time in theaters and stadiums. I'm very fond of the sound of the best of them; but between cost, size, and the fact that I simply don't need what they bring to the table right now in terms of SPL; I have no plans to buy any.

Tomorrow I may run into a HE speaker that becomes my new favorite thing (I get the impression that for some posters on here: this is a religious issue). I don't care about the power-handling, nor the efficiency of a speaker until and unless it becomes a problem. Then I do.

Depending on where you draw the HE line... I may already be using some. Depending on the sensitivity of some of the speakers I like I don't know the sensitivity of: I may already like some. Do you imagine I have some opposition to sensitive speakers? I think you do. You are wrong.

good night to you too.
Edited by JerryLove - 12/6/12 at 7:38pm
post #437 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

That would be the one where $50,000 professional theater speakers pushed all the numbers up?
The most power-willing speaker in my house takes 1500 watts (custom build).
The #2 in my house will take 1000 watts (B&W N801)
In real life, in your home, is the power-handling of your speakers similar.
Anyone on this thread have a HE non-sub that will take 1000w actually in their house?
good night.

my speakers are rated for 600W AES continuous pink noise. I have no idea what the peak would be, but I would not be surprised if it can handle 1KW.

come to think of it, 6dB peak would mean 2400W
post #438 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

my speakers are rated for 600W AES continuous pink noise. I have no idea what the peak would be, but I would not be surprised if it can handle 1KW.
come to think of it, 6dB peak would mean 2400W

I wasn't discussing peaks. I was discussing RMS.

I'm assuming your speakers are HS. I'm assuming mine would not qualify. So in this real life example: these HS speakers do have a power disadvantage.

I suspect that, when discussing SPL, it's a disadvantage which is negated by higher sensitivity. You'd need less than 3db after-all, and I'm only 91db

So I max out at 121db at 1m. I sit in a room that's pretty live, and I sit <4m from the speakers; so I can sustain at least 115db (if out of one speaker, 121db if both) with peaks some unknown higher.
I don't think I run that loud at all. Don't think I've sat with a db meter either. I don't have numbers on the THD, but again I've not noticed an issue.

So I'm happy with my speaker. What is the problem with that? Why shouldn't I recommend it to someone who sounds like they are in the same position as me? How will some other speaker make me happier?
post #439 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

my speakers are rated for 600W AES continuous pink noise.
Thermal, yes. Driver manufacturers rate drivers by feeding them noise, increasing power until magic smoke appears (EIA 426A). But actual real world power handling is either the thermal rating or the displacement limit (where THD reaches 10%), whichever is less. It's not at all unusual for the displacement limited power to be half the thermal limit. But no one publishes the displacement limit. Most speaker manufacturers don't even know what it is.
post #440 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

. But no one publishes the displacement limit. Most speaker manufacturers don't even know what it is.

How did you learn this statistic? Is it based mostly on smaller manufacturers or is this something not known to the likes of Dr.Olive, Dr.Toole, and Roger Russell?

Dr.Olive posts here on AVS. Should you be teaching him about the existence of displacement limit? It's your chance to advance the state of the art.
post #441 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Thermal, yes. Driver manufacturers rate drivers by feeding them noise, increasing power until magic smoke appears (EIA 426A). But actual real world power handling is either the thermal rating or the displacement limit (where THD reaches 10%), whichever is less. It's not at all unusual for the displacement limited power to be half the thermal limit. But no one publishes the displacement limit. Most speaker manufacturers don't even know what it is.

good to know
post #442 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Thermal, yes. Driver manufacturers rate drivers by feeding them noise, increasing power until magic smoke appears (EIA 426A). But actual real world power handling is either the thermal rating or the displacement limit (where THD reaches 10%), whichever is less. It's not at all unusual for the displacement limited power to be half the thermal limit. But no one publishes the displacement limit. Most speaker manufacturers don't even know what it is.

mine are 2226H based speakers
the THD numbers they list are at -10dB or 60W at 1m.

2nd harmonic: ≤ 1.0%
3rd harmonic: ≤ 1.0%

is there a reliable way to extrapolate it to max RMS?

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2226.pdf
post #443 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

mine are 2226H based speakers
the THD numbers they list are at -10dB or 60W at 1m.
2nd harmonic: ≤ 1.0%
3rd harmonic: ≤ 1.0%
is there a reliable way to extrapolate it to max RMS?
You have to model the driver/cab combination. Most modeling software programs have maximum power charts, which consider both the thermal and displacement limits, whichever is lower, to calculate the power limit. They use xmax as the displacement limit, not THD, but the two are very close anyway. In an optimal 3 cu ft 40Hz box the 2226 is primarily thermal limited, at 600w, because it has a fairly long 7.6mm xmax (as far as pro-sound drivers are concerned), but it does drop to 520w at 65Hz, where there's an excursion peak.
Modeling gives a very good ballpark approximation, though the only way to know the actual 10% THD limit is to measure the finished cab. But modeling at least will tell you in advance of buying drivers and building a cab what you can reasonably expect to get out of it. Using the driver thermal rating alone tells you next to nothing.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 12/7/12 at 7:09am
post #444 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

How did you learn this statistic? Is it based mostly on smaller manufacturers or is this something not known to the likes of Dr.Olive, Dr.Toole, and Roger Russell?
Dr.Olive posts here on AVS. Should you be teaching him about the existence of displacement limit? It's your chance to advance the state of the art.

A bit confrontational, don't you think?

I think we all get that you have 1000W non-HS speakers and so object to a universal SPL, or THD at given SPL, advantage of HS speakers. You even object to a typical advantage in most cases without stats to back it up. I, on the other hand, don't think that 1000W speakers are so common (even in the absence of proof) that you would be right .
post #445 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove 
How did you learn this statistic? Is it based mostly on smaller manufacturers or is this something not known to the likes of Dr.Olive, Dr.Toole, and Roger Russell?
Dr.Olive posts here on AVS. Should you be teaching him about the existence of displacement limit? It's your chance to advance the state of the art.
A bit confrontational, don't you think?
I think we all get that you have 1000W non-HS speakers and so object to a universal SPL, or THD at given SPL, advantage of HS speakers. You even object to a typical advantage in most cases without stats to back it up. I, on the other hand, don't think that 1000W speakers are so common (even in the absence of proof) that you would be right .

I don't understand what you are referring to. I'm responding to Bill's claim "But no one publishes the displacement limit. Most speaker manufacturers don't even know what it is."

What does that have to do with my rig? What does that have to do with sensitivity? I'm unable to reconcile that topic with anything in your post?

Do *you* believe that Dr.Olive doesn't know what a displacement limit is? Harmon-Kardon is one of the largest speaker manufacturers in the world.
The larger companies have whole teams of engineers on given products. It's an amazing claim to say that they are unaware of what is being cited as the leading cause of bad sound. I'd really like to see the specifics to back that up.
Edited by JerryLove - 12/7/12 at 7:39am
post #446 of 820
So he has B&W 1000 wat speakers, did any think otherwise? I have heard B&W and I like their sound, I like their looks better. However, like that Paradigm, Magnepan, etc... I have measured, how do you know you can actually put that full 1000 watts thru your speaker and the response will maintain it's shape? You don't unless you measure it. Now does it matter to you? No, because you probably don't play them loud enough for their response to change(compress, THD go up). In my room I could not use them as they would compress and start to lose all their dynamics on certain movie scenes. So 121 dBs at 1m is max with 1000 watts, but I wonder just how loud they really could get without THD rising. Paradigm was 9 dBs off of their spec. You say High sensitivity speakers are at a power disadvantage but they don't need that much power to get louder in the first place. My speakers can take 500 watts RMS, do you think you have a 3 dB advantage with 1000 watts? You see your speaker would need 500 watts to reach reference in my room and assuming it will play cleanly with 500 watts. My speakers need 4 watts to reach the same levels. So do you think a 1000 watt speaker using 500 watts is cleaner than a 500 watt speaker using 4 watts. Another way to say it is do you think a 121 dBs speaker playing at 118 dBs will be cleaner than a 139 dBs speaker playing 118 dBs. I hope those cones just don't have exotic materials, I hope they have some magic dust from Tinker Bell. Now if I had to play your B&W's at 110 dBs rather than 118 dBs it would make me feel much more comfortable. See, I don't think any speaker can play at their rated max spl or watts so I would like headroom to make sure. Now if the High sensitivity speaker sounds like crap it won't matter how loud it can play but I would hope most people pick what sounds good to them. I would not mind having B&W's if I needed less spl's but like my Maggies, they just suffer too much lost of dynamics at reference levels in my theater. Again, in my theater. This is why their are many choices of speakers out there. I listen loud(reference levels) and want that IMAX experience.
post #447 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

You say High sensitivity speakers are at a power disadvantage but they don't need that much power to get louder in the first place. My speakers can take 500 watts RMS, do you think you have a 3 dB advantage with 1000 watts?

I think your response has lost context. I responded to a claim about sensitivity disadvantage with one about power disadvantage.

Let's go back to that post you are referencing:
"I don't care about the power-handling, nor the efficiency of a speaker until and unless it becomes a problem. Then I do." - Jerry Love #438

So do you think I brought this up because I care about power-handling?

"I suspect that, when discussing SPL, it's a disadvantage which is negated by higher sensitivity. You'd need less than 3db after-all" - Jerry Love #438

So do you think you are telling me something new when you claim that the power disadvantage is off-set by the sensitive advantage when SPL is the goal?

It just feels like you are responding to a caricature of my position rather than what I actually said. Do you see what I mean with the above posts? The response really feels like a religious one rather than a rational one. frown.gif

My speakers do what I want them to do and they do it as well or better than any speaker I had listened to. When I find something better still, and if I can afford it, it will be the next thing on the list. I don't care what the sensitivity or power handling is. I care only about how I like the sound in my real use. Is there something wrong with that criteria?
post #448 of 820
Jerrylove,
I am not explaining this to you but letting others know what heck we are discussing and why people like HS speakers. This is a HS speaker thread so it is relative to compare. I always say one has to determine what their goals are in the first place. How loud do they need because once you figure out how loud you want and need then you can narrow down the sound you want and looks. If the speaker looks and sounds great but can't play as loud as one wants it makes no difference how pretty they are. It also goes the other way, if one can play as loud as they want it and looks too ugly or sounds bad then that does not matter either. This whole THD thing is just something that goes along with not playing loud enough, my friend(who can afford any speaker on the planet) had Paradigms and did not know they could not play as loud as he wanted them to, the dealer said they will be great because he liked the look and sound. At his levels, they were distorting and he even wanted them louder so he turned it up and you can guess it, he kept blowing tweeters up and starting asking me questions. The dealer told him he needed more power and I told him he already has a 400 watt amp on them and they are rated for 200-250 watts, what the heck will more power do, just blow them up faster. I measured his room and he is THD was very high at his levels(105 dBs at the speaker and 95 dBs at his bar). I asked him first how loud he wants this to go and he said he wanted as loud as at the speaker but at the bar which meant 10 dBs louder. So for just an experiment I said let's try a speaker that can play 10 dBs louder with the same amp he had, he blew them up too! I told him he listens louder than just 10 dBs more. I asked him how much was he willing to spend on this and that is how I ended up getting a JTR based system for him, because it can play cleanly at his levels for the money and sound as good as his paradigms, not better, but the same and much louder. Guess what, he plays at 120 dBs at the speaker and 110 dBs at the bar, it sounds great but too loud for my tastes but now his limitations will be his ears which I warned him. If he wanted better looks and that loud I might be still searching.
post #449 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Your general tone in about a dozen posts. eek.gif
post #450 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Jerrylove,
I am not explaining this to you
Not much point in that, as he's proven that he doesn't want to learn, he only wants to argue. He's a clever troll, because initially his first post or two in a thread give the appearance of his wanting to learn, but then with each successive post his argumentative agenda becomes clear. I saw that pattern emerge and put him on my block list after seeing it repeated in a half dozen threads. Do so and you'll see the page count in this thread reduced by 30%, and the intent of the OP restored.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers