HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity?

What do you consider to be low sensitivity speakers?

Well I went from Klipsch RB5's, to ACI Essence V's. The Klipsch just hurt my ears, and lacked mid bass. The ACI's are better at everything, but I do find myself between 0 and -10 on the avr just to have satisfying volume.

I'm working on some custom 93db speakers right now.

Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity?

I haven't and never plan to, having designed the room around the speakers.

I did, kind of. I had all (7) Definitive Technology speakers which are moderate to high sensitivity. I moved my main l/r speakers to the real channels, sold the 2 that were there, and replaced them with Carver alIII's which are a mother to drive. I listen to a lot of music and really like the Carvers for 2 channel. They use 4' ribbons which I drive with a 250wpc Mcintosh. I have the lf drivers (which are moderately sensitive) connected to a 150wpc B&K amp so that helps. They are in a moderate sized basement and pley plenty loud enough for me. db's are great and all but to me there is a lot more to consider.

A horn loaded tweeter doesn't a high sensitivity speaker make. They may claim 96dB, but an SPL chart would reveal something quite different.

My guess is they have zero BSC. I dont do wall placement, so being out a couple feet into a room would leave a 6db shelf in the lower midrange/mid bass, which of course highlights the highs even more. Klipsch's claims for bass extension are also highly inflated.

I know someone who went from 98db sensitivity JTR Triple 8's LCR's to 89db Triad Gold Monitors. He wrote up a long subjective review and apparently was impressed with what he perceived as increased detail and soundstage with the Triads.

I have heard both speakers and at moderate volume would find it difficult to tell them apart. At high SPL, the differences (especially sensitivity) would be more noticeable.

Bottom line, it's fun to try new stuff ...

Can I ask why you think it really matters?

I wonder if you mean me cuz I just went from Sealed Triple 8s (98db) sensitivity to Triad Gold LCR 92db (not Gold Monitors). Here's a link to the subjective review. Keep in mind my room is small (under 1200cf) and both of these are probably overkill for this closet of a room.

No, but moving twice in the last two years, I've wished for something a little more portable and easier to tear down and set up.

I sometimes wonder how much I'd be giving up going to something like those QSC's.

I find low sensitivity is just fine for back ground music, even in a pretty big space. But when you want to turn it up -->

Stereophile measured them at 89.5dB.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/m...r-measurements

Spec'd or verified via measurement?


Hmm, that would be considered high amongst the speakers measured over the years by publications like Stereophile. Note, measured.
Not surprised you like the QSCs. Very nice speakers.


Did you per chance attend Axpona when it was in Jacksonville earlier this year?

cheers,

AJ

Most dealers of mid to high end speakers recognize that many peoples first passion is music. SPL isn't everything. Detail, dynamics, flat frequency response etc. rule, not SPL. Give me pair of salks at 88 db over any klipsh at 95 db, anyday.

I'll keep my 104 dB Klipschorns, thanks. They do music very well.

You mention the importance of dynamics and I agree with that, but how do you define dynamics? Dynamics is a product of sensitivity and power handling. It equates to a speaker maintaining a 1:1 ratio of input vs. output over a wide spl range. This happens to be where most high sensitivity speakers excel. It is one of their strongest suits. It cannot really be matched by speakers of low sensitivity as the average levels begin to rise.

At very low volume, the dynamics of virtually all speakers is the same.

You seem to be saying that because a speaker has lower sensitivity, that means that it will play louder.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

The way to determine how loud a speaker will play is to calculate it from its sensitivity and maximum power rating.

For example, if a speaker is rated for 90 db/watt, and its maximum power-handling rating is 100 watts, then it will put out 110 db SPL maximum. If it can handle 200 watts, it will give a 113 db SPL at 200 W.

If a speaker is rated for 85 db/watt (LOW sensitivity), and it is rated for 100 watts, it will put out 105 db SPL maximum. If it is rated to handle 200 watts, it will give 108 db SPL maximum at 200 W. 400W would give 111 db SPL, IF the speaker can handle that much power.

Lower sensitivity means less sound per watt.

To get a 125 db SPL from a speaker with a low (85 db per watt) sensitivity) you would need 10,000 watts of power (and the speaker would have to be designed to handle it...seen any like that lately?).

It is ridiculous to claim that you are getting 125 db SPL from low-efficiency speakers; that isn't possible.


The QSC speakers are theoretically rated to put out 131 db SPL, but that doesn't mean you have anywhere near the power it would take to do it; IF they have HIGH sensitivity (95 db/watt), you MIGHT be able to get a 121 dba SPL , which would take 400 watts. (131 db would take 4000 watts).

He is saying his QSC's are playing louder and better than his lower sensitive speakers.

How did you get the impression that the OP was saying that? He went to what look to be 98 dB sensitivity speakers and was impressed by the dynamics he is now getting.

The problem that I have with most high sensitivity/high output speakers is that most of them lack good quality sound characteristics, (ie smooth, detailed and revealing top end and mid range). At least that has been my experience with the ones that I have heard, such as the JTR's, Klipsch reference, Chase SHO-10's, ect... If you could combine the smooth and detailed top end and midrange from the Salk Songtower with the high output, very dynamic JTR's, then you would have one hell of a home theater speaker. Unfortunately, speakers such as those, like the Seaton's, are very expensive. There just are not any affordable options for those people who like both good sound quality and high output/spl.

People raved about the JTR's, but to me, they sounded not nearly as good as my Ascends or Salks, which I keep in my very small listening room. Now granted, if I were to move my Sierra's or ST's to a large room and ask them to compete with the JTR's in terms of output and spl, then they would get hammered. But if you took the JTR's into my small room and asked them to give me the detailed top end and smooth revealing midrange, then they would totally fall short.

I bought my Klipschorns (used) precisely because I had those qualities already with La Scala, as well as fantastic imaging, and wanted more. The midrange is better on the Klipschorns, as well as the low distorsion bass. So ability for high SPL and great dynamics doesn't have to exclude good sound.

Dynamics is the key word. While high sensitivity speakers can play louder than lower sensitivity speakers that's not their main attribute. Being able to play loud without either the speaker or amp breaking into a sweat is. The result is effortless dynamic range.

That's not because they're high sensitivity. One can find high sensitivity speakers that sound every bit as good, if not better, than low sensitivity, just as you can find low sensitivity speakers that should only be used as landfill.

You seem like an audiophile. Mind if I ask where and when you heard the JTR's (which model) as well as the Chase SHO-10's?

I did not even know this was going on earlier this year - I missed it

98% music/2% movies, here. I switched from SHO-10's to WAF-1's for about a month. Switched back to the SHO-10's two days ago, I much prefer the the increased dynamics for movie and music listening, I am able to crank my subs back up (had to dial them way back for the less efficient speakers) and the midrange is among the best I've heard. My amp doesn't have to work as hard, either.

I really enjoy both speakers, but am partial to high efficiency after having lived with it. I'm sure directivity has something to do with this, too.

Touche'

or, was that Viola?

I did. I was over all underwhelmed at the dynamics I was listening to however, the big room with the surround sound electrostatic type system sounded good for what it delivered.