HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity? - Page 17

450W is barely enough to get a 90dB speaker to 105dB at 12 ft.
If it is ran full range to 40Hz then 450W may even fall short.

Perhaps for you, but can you list a few reasonably priced high sensitivity speakers that are universally praised by the majority for both HT and music capabilities? Can you also list a few lower sensitivity speakers that appease the masses for both music and HT? I should specify: when I say "majority" and "masses" I mean the majority of folks from both the reference level watching HT crowd and the 2-channel music purist crowd.

Which calculator are you using? People don't listen to music and watch movies in an anechoic chamber, and they also listen to tunes with two or more speakers, so your calculations are off. For HT, even if you chose 1 speaker and not near a wall (which is hardly ever the case), you'll still hit 105dB. Truth is, though, you cannot ignore room gain, and most people have their speakers within 4 feet of a wall, so at that calculation you'd hit 108.3dB at 12 feet away. You're bending the results to suit your argument... It would take the normal listener 212 watts to hit 105dB from 12 feet away with a 90dB sensitive speaker.

This debate has been beaten to death, even though the choice is easy. If you watch movies at reference level use your smarts and get a high sensitive design; it's simple common sense. If you are a 2-channel purist and don't' watch at reference levels, try out some speakers and determine whether or not the high sensitive design sounds just as hi-fi as the non-HF stuff. Again, use your smarts and make the decision on your own, as only your opinion matters concerning your own HT and music system. What is foolish is to push your own opinion as fact, like has gone on a lot in this thread. I have my own opinions on the subject, but I don't need to skew #'s or push them around as facts. Each individual needs to research, experiment and listen on his own to determine what will meet his needs. End of story.
Edited by Nuance - 11/27/12 at 9:45am

Exactly. 450w will allow a single 90db sensitive speaker to achieve 105.3db without corner loading.

But the issue isn't 90db speakers, it's 85db speakers. And most of these can also only handle 200 - 250watts.

But 250w into an 85db speaker, at 12 feet, non corner loaded, but three of them gives 102.5 db.

Is that good enough? Probably.

But then the other discussion about power compression comes in. For these awesome low sensitivity drivers, at what percentage of their peak power handling does this start?

And if you are crossing over at 80hz, does that make a difference?

Damn this whole conversation gets confusing for a non-expert trying to really understand

It's not terribly confusing, but you make a good point. For me, I'd never consider a 85dB sensitive speaker worthy of hitting reference levels for HT, so I simply wouldn't try. A "low" sensitive speaker isn't meant to be used for reference level HT watching, simple as that. One 85dB sensitive speaker at 12 feet away would take 665 watts to hit 105dB if within 4 feet of a boundary, but again, it's likely not designed to hit those levels, so what's the point of using it as a part of the debate/conversation?

Again, if your primary concern is reference level HT watching, get a high sensitive design. Done and done. I'd hope everyone could agree on that, but this is AVS, so they'll be someone opposed to it. The real debate seems to be stemmed around high sensitive designs being equal to non-HS designs for critical music listening. In that case there's no right or wrong answer, only opinions.

I am not sure about the masses but for me Wayne Pharham's 4Pi's sound better than anything I have ever heard in my room. FWIW.
PI speakers are not marketed specifically for HT. They are successfully used as studio monitors, favored by some SET die-hearts who drive them with 3Wpc amps, used as PA tops in clubs and live venues, and of course - in movie theaters, both small and large.


Low sensitivity speakers cannot do movies well. IMHO, low sensitivity speakers cannot do music well either, but I do realize this is far from consensus opinion.
To quote Drew Eckhardt

I was going by Eyleron's calculations which did assume anechoic environment. So I guess your point is valid to a degree. The energy loss with distance in a well treated room would be less than in a true anechoic room though it would be significantly higher than in a typical living room.
On the other hand I'd keep in mind that sensitivity is not the same across the passband.
Again from Drew:
it is very unlikely that the B&W speakers are 90dB sensitive at 40Hz for example
Edited by zheka - 11/28/12 at 12:59pm

I agree with you.
It was not my intent to impose my opinions on anybody. I blame myself for not making it clear.

Oh, but it is confusing

But I am not concerned with reference level HT. I (and I suspect most people) am concerned with HT and music at the levels I like to listen to.

I have KEF iQ3 that claim to be 89db sensitive and a 135wpc amp that I have never had my volume control over 75% - and that is for listening to Dark Side of the Moon. Am I clipping? I don't know, but it sounds pretty good to my old ears.

My concern comes in considering an upgrade to higher quality, but 85 db sensitive speakers. To reach the same volume levels, how much power would i need to throw at them? Could the speakers handle it?

What about power compression? Theoretical discussions are great - but what does it really mean to someone trying to listen to an HT and music at their desired volume?

Still remains confusing to me...

As zheka points out, music has dynamic requirements that equal HT. So whether your preferred content is HT or music, your system needs to be able to deal with extreme dynamic peaks, and the sensitivity/power handling combination of your speakers had better match your personal SPL requirements.

So I question, when these peaks hit, if in order to reach them without clipping you need to send them briefly (for a few ms) more power than they are rated for. So what's worse, sending speakers a clipped signal for a few ms, or sending them more power than they are rated for?

As zheka also points out, sensitivity varies significantly over frequencies.

What frequencies tend to have the largest peaks? I have no idea...

What impact on stated speaker sensitivity does crossing to a sub at 80Hz have? I have no idea....


Respectfully, I remain confused

Floyd Toole may disagree. I've posted (in this thread I believe) a bit of text from his book in which he states otherwise. I'll see if I can search back in this thread and find the exact quote. Toole is an industry professional, while I'd wager none of us in this thread are (there may be a couple).

Regarding Eckhardt, I agree. Some musical pieces have large dynamic swings, but most doesn't have ULF content, and most of those swings are short and not sustained. I'd imagine most of the transient peaks in music that will cause a large spike in power consumption are in the nether regions (below the Schroeder Frequency). I could be completely wrong on that one, though, so do correct me if I'm off base. Also, if listening to music that means two channels, so you'd need to factor that into the calculation.

I wasn't trying to call you out, by the way. I just meant people in general, not you. Sorry about that.

Exactly. Some like reference, while others do not; it was found through Floyd Toole's research to be too loud for most. As you stated, the important factor is to make your determination based on the loudest you'll ever listen, while also factoring in transient response during dynamic swings, and also your system configuration. Each person's will be a little different.

Not everyone knows what clipping sounds like, and still some may hear something but not understand or realize what it is. It can be learned, though.

A lot, and maybe not. It depends on a number of variables, including listening distance, room size, etc. Everyone's mileage may vary. I'd never push a 85dB sensitive speaker to reference levels, though. As I stated before, it likely wasn't designed for that.

Power compression is something to take vary seriously, which is why matching system components with your speakers is key. Again, though, it'll vary from system to system. There is no one be all solution/answer.

Absolutely.

Both are no good, and I am no speaker or amp designer, but I'd guess more power than they can handle is worse. Clipping sounds terrible but I've heard it on many systems in which the speakers weren't damaged. I can't say the same for over-driving a speaker, though. A friend of mine, who will go unnamed but is a forum member, has destroyed many speaker drivers and even a handful of subwoofer drivers (including some popular TC Sounds stuff).

The lowest?

It helps because it sends those LF transient peaks to the subwoofer instead, which is designed to handle and output them.

Did you guys read my reference to Tomlinson Holman?

To the ear...reference in a theater is not the same to reference in the home.

Subtract 4dB for the home.

A solution for all, consider some good line-source speakers. I just scooped a set of the av123 LS6's which are 90db sens, but have half as much spl loss at doubling of distance. So far, the few movie clips I have watched have been outstanding, but the music pure 2 channel style is absolutely the best I have ever heard. I had never had a chance to hear anything like these, and it is just amazing what they can do. I will still say the Higher sens designs can have an edge in movie viewing, but these are the best darn compromise I have found as of yet...

The line sources I have heard did sound very good. Of the ones that I have heard, for me, what they lacked was great imaging.

Agreed, though I've never heard a modern line array (Keele CBT).

That said, imaging isn't important for home theater, because the images are helpfully provided on a large, flat expanse. The tougher thing about line arrays for HT is fitting one in the middle.

I heard two different setups of the Keele CBT earlier this year. Great stuff, but same thing with the imaging. I loved the way they looked though, and for certain situations, I can see them look very nice in livingrooms.

Good point about the center channel, and in a HT, it helps with the imaging.

Sorry, did not mean to step into a religious debate. There are so many generalizations and opinions stated as fact that there is little sense continuing, so I shan't. I'll stick with my low-efficiency Maggies which provide great imaging in my well-treated room and sound great on movies and music to everyone who has heard them. Which clearly does not include most of the folk on this thread saying there is no way they can do any of that...

I assume you do realize that is 105 db peaks, not constant?

I hate to start another war but what the hey ...

Actually Beast, These are the best compromise you have never heard ... http://jtrspeakers.com/home-audio/noesis-212ht/

I appreciate very high efficiency speakers. In fact, some of the best speakers I have ever heard were Western Electric Horns. Sad to say that Grandpa knew better sound then we did. A full blown Western Electric System with all tube crossovers, field coil drivers, and triode amplifiers made a believer out of me. No wonder the Japanese buy all the old Western Electric stuff up! But, I must say, lots of the high efficiency stuff I hear today is pure ****, if not close to it. Of course, I have not heard all of it.
And, to think, that old Western Electric stuff was designed by ear! Grandpa did not have the engineering tools we have today.
Many, if not most of you, have not, nor will you ever hear a full blown Western Electric Horn System. But I can tell you this. It was a life changing experience for me, as an audiophile. I wonder why we can't make stuff like this today ?

Lordie, I certainly hope so!

While I have not heard the Western Electric Horn System, I have heard a few different setups by Edgar Horn:
http://www.edgarhorn.com

But Edgar is cognizant of the science which was largely unknown back in the day. BTW, my late father was fond of recounting that the best meal he ever ate was in 1933 and that my mother made a great fried chicken in 1955. Nostalgia?

* There's more to high sensitivity speakers than just volume output at certain wattage inputs:


~ If your a true audiophile then you should understand that running a 192khz signal into your speakers will only be better audibly presented according to how sensitive your speakers are at reproducing those higher freq's (ambient presence and staging/seperation etc) through the driver.

- Low sensitivity drivers will not reproduce those high bitrate freq's as accurately, because they are not physically capable of passing those Delicate high res signals due the drivers somewhat firm suspension.
- But a high sensitivity driver will pass those more finer freq's better, thus providing you with a truer high resolution audio signal.

The choice can come down to this: are you concerned with hi bitrate audio above 44khz> if not... then just purchase an amplifier that has enough RMS power to drive the low sens speakers.

If your concerned on how well the speaker can articulate high bit rate audio above 96khz-192khz 24bit then IMO look for drivers with high sens.

I went from low sensitivity drivers to a higher sens drivers with the same amplifier power, theorizing that the high sens drivers will sound louder with the same wattage and work the amp less> in a certain case yes it is easier for the amp to power the speakers, is it perseivably louder? not really> if it was even a 20% improvement it would NOT be worth the money to spend.

Right now I'm looking to get a high power amp to power my high sens drivers (paradigm monitor 11 v7) And expect results that will far improve my DAC's 24bit 382khz analog signal audible output, that should establish a better more immersive 3D soundstage, with more immersive 3 dimensional presence staging and audible separation of sound.

^ LOL. Have any proof to back up those claims?

Some of the posts on this thread are just epic facepalm. Guys who haven't even heard a good sounding High sensitivity speaker (or any at all) telling everyone how it is. I think they are forgetting that almost all us guys who have HS speakers, have/had low sensitivity ones before that. There are good/bad things about every design, why is that a hard thing to grasp? HS or not DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL all that matters is that it's a well designed speaker. There is going to be garbage from every side of the fence, you have to weed though it to find the ones for you.

There's so much intrinsically wrong information in your post that one should just write it off entirely. Laddie, you've been had, not by the real audiophiles who know how audio works, but by the oddiophools who will literally believe anything.

* Really... the post was based on my personal opinion, which unforunatley has started a flame war> non the less my view on the subject is from actual testing, where there is not a huge audible benefit from using high sens drivers with low power amps> my test> which is why I purchased high sens drivers was to see if...perceived loudness / attack and timbre where greatly improved> they somewhat have been improved at possibly louder volumes> but IMO not worth it at all.

* I'm just gonna stick with my theory that sound will improve consistently for High bit rate 192khz audio playback> and let the drivers do what they're physically meant and capable of.

Some manufactuers take low S drivers and make them sound well> using other tweaks> other manufaturers find it simpler to make drivers sound well with High sens specs> so there is no right or wrong.

it must be a joke.

I am not sure this is the take-away message from what he said

Here is the way I read it.

•  
• the 4 db offset is introduced by the AC-3 decoder automatically, no need to change calibration or manually reduce the volume.
   
• Dolby is doing this because of the ATSC requirements
   
• the offset is format specific thing, DTS tracks are not affected.
• it works well for small rooms because acoustics are different from large movie theaters. 

Holman did not explain what exactly made small rooms "louder". I'd speculate it is the reflections and room modes that maker them unusable for ref. level playback. well treated dedicated HT rooms do not suffer from this problem. This said, I personally almost never watch movies at ref. level. Yet to me,  the difference between HS and LS speakers is as clear at -10dBFS as it is at 0dBFS.
Edited by zheka - 11/27/12 at 6:01pm

Lol...

Its ridiculous that you can predict my setup will 'fall short' without probably never having heard either speakers or amps.

1. For the measurement lovers here are the Stereophile measurements (purple line) http://www.hometheater.com/content/bampw-802-diamond-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures
2. The Mcintosh amp doubles to 800wpc at 4ohms and further doubles to 1600 wpcs at 2ohm. and those are the famous conservative ratings. in reality the amp is good for 600/1200/2400w per channel.
3. in my use, i have never seen the power needle go above 60-70 wpc at the loudest level i could possible listen in my apartment.

be happy with your stats. i am very very happy with my setup

I understand you want to dismiss what he says, but the last paragraph pretty much says it, IMO. It is not specific to DTS or Dolby...just mixing in general.

4dB is a lot, and changes requirements significantly.

Another interesting thread on the subject:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/post-production-forum/229741-standard-mixing-levels-movie-theater-dvd-broadcast-tv-commercials-etc.html

IMO...the term "reference level" is getting used so that people can justify that they like it loud. I have no problem with people liking it loud.
Edited by cschang - 11/27/12 at 8:21pm