[guf]

Looking to add a new amp to my system and realizing that I'm going to have to spend extra money to get an amp that will power my 87db speakers the way i want to. If i had more sensitive speakers, like 93 db i could probably get away with an amp about half the price.  So my question is why are all speakers not made with higher sensitive drivers. I understand that a larger cabinet is often needed but is there other obvious reasons? 

[RDavidson]

Sorry for not being able to really articulate why not all speakers are made to have higher sensitivity. That's a somewhat complex question that involves the history of amplifier and speaker design over that past 5-6 decades or so. Someone more knowledgeable will surely chime in and give you the run down.

But, 87db speakers aren't necessarily a tough load. You have to keep in mind the size of your listening room and how loud you prefer to listen. I listen to my KEF LS50's which are like 84db or 85db with a 30 watts (8 ohms) / 60 watts (4 ohms) class A amp and feel ZERO need for more power or control.

What amp(s) are you looking at?

[guf]

What amp(s) are you looking at?

I have a pair of salk SS8's and thinking about a Pass labs something. The used class A options, at the lower wattage, seem more "affordable".

thanks for your input

[Letitroll98]

It's physics.  There's no free lunch, as you've been told before.  Designers use smaller box sizes and achieve lower bass extension at the expense of efficiency.  Since higher wattage in the amp is relatively cheap these days, it's a good tradeoff.  In the 60's and earlier when low wattage amps were all that was available, we had big boxes and more efficient speakers.  But today the cabinetry is way more expensive (and the internal bracing needed for the bigger box) than amp power.  Now the fleawatt triode movement has made a specialized market for higher efficiency, single driver speakers.  Thus 4" Fostex drivers in huge horn loaded boxes.  But that doesn't fly for most guys with WAF considerations or smaller listening rooms.

[JLM]

No free lunch, no perfect speaker either.

With cheap watts (class A/B, D, T, etc. solid state designs) speaker manufacturers can (on paper at least) afford to reduce efficiency.  Note that more complex crossovers, wider range of impedance, and market push for deeper bass have all lead to more difficult amplifier loadings regardless of the stated efficiency ratings while skimpy power supplies cut deeply into real world performance.  Frankly I find that high efficiency drivers (above 95 dB/w/m) tend to have 'colorations' for a variety of reasons (honky/forward midrange being a common issue) as other qualities are traded off.  OTOH low efficiency drivers tend to exhibit less than life-like dynamics.  So for me 90 - 93 dB/w/m efficiency into 8 ohms is close to ideal.

Regardless you'll want sufficient power so that the amp has a commanding grip on the speaker (to improve detail/imaging and more importantly avoid clipping the amp and thereby possibly damaging the drivers).  What sufficient power is can be subjective but as an old fart I shoot for minimum 105 dB peaks at my listening position in my listening room (110 dB would be better).  Anything less produces a subdued presentation with less resolution.  But keep in mind that some speakers can't reach those peaks (87 dB/w/m speakers would require over 200 watts in a typical listening environment to reach 110 dB).

You have nice speakers, feed them well.

[Freo-1]

Yep.  ATC speakers are not made with higher sensitivity, but provide outstanding sound reproduction, and can play loud cleanly. 


http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review

[newzooreview]

Looking to add a new amp to my system and realizing that I'm going to have to spend extra money to get an amp that will power my 87db speakers the way i want to. If i had more sensitive speakers, like 93 db i could probably get away with an amp about half the price.  So my question is why are all speakers not made with higher sensitive drivers. I understand that a larger cabinet is often needed but is there other obvious reasons?

There are a number of options in excellent sounding amplification that should serve your needs well and that will be in keeping with the cost of the speakers (and the Lampizator, if your system profile is current). I used to own the Wyred4Sound SX1000 monoblocks amps that your system profile lists. I actually used them with some 87 dB efficient Salk HT1-TL speakers.

If wattage were the whole story, those Wyred4Sound monoblocks should have had my Salks giving me the best possible bass performance and dynamics. However, I had an AVA FetValve for a couple of weeks, and even at lower wattage it very easily improved on the control and detail and speed in the bass and the overall dynamics of the presentation. To my ear it had some glare in the mid-range that didn't suite my tastes (and it could have been my room, cables, etc. interacting).

I returned the FetValve, but it was clear to me that what I had previously read about the importance of current and damping in an amp is more important than wattage to actual sound quality. You can easily damage your hearing running a 150-200 watt amp on 87 dB efficiency speakers. To improve the sound of the system you need a good circuit design, good quality parts, plenty of current (usually a good toroid and largish capacitors), and good damping (the ability to stop and start the delivery of that current). Finally, the amp has to be able to operate into speaker loads that vary with frequency (sometimes dipping to 1 or 2 ohms). Impedance is typically specified by speaker manufacturers at one frequency (1 kHz) but actually can vary by up to a tenfold across the frequency range (more typically by a factor of two).

I would strongly suggest that you look into the Odyssey Audio monoblocks. I heard them at an audio show this year, and they deliver and nimbly control more than enough current to produce terrific music on your SoundScapes. Klaus at Odyssey could easily build you a pair with larger toroids to give you more wattage if you want to shake the dishes off of your shelves. And the cost would be in line with your Lampizator (I estimate).

Another option is to look into the current AVA amps. They have updated the design a couple of times since I tried them. When I visited Dennis Murphy's house when he was designing the original SoundScape 12, he was using an AVA solid state amp exclusively. It was no more than 200 watts but had more than enough current and control to drive the SoundScape 12s to concert levels and make great music. Dennis plays in a symphony in addition to designing crossovers for Salk, so if he's using AVA amps they must be very good.

In my direct experience the Odyssey amps I heard this year are better than the AVA amp that I tried with my Salks, but your mileage may vary.

I hope that helps with your amp search.

[Rick Craig]

As noted above it's all about tradeoffs. That's one reason I like line arrays is because I can have greater sensitivity and output capability without the shortcomings of horns and pro drivers that have light / thin cones with colorations. I would disagree though that you have to pay a large amount to get an amp with higher power that sounds good.

[RDavidson]

I have a pair of salk SS8's and thinking about a Pass labs something. The used class A options, at the lower wattage, seem more "affordable".

thanks for your input

I'm using an XA 30.5 and couldn't be happier. Huge upgrade in sound and power compared to the First Watt M2 it replaced, though on paper their wattage ratings (in class A) are fairly close. Try the lower wattage Pass amp. I think you'll be surprised by how gutsy they are despite their rated power. I think we've been lead to believe that we "need" all this power, but the fact of the matter is most of us with "modest" systems and listening spaces don't. If you have a large listening room and large multi-driver speakers, then I can understand the "need."

[Freo-1]

I'm using an XA 30.5 and couldn't be happier. Huge upgrade in sound and power compared to the First Watt M2 it replaced, though on paper their wattage ratings (in class A) are fairly close. Try the lower wattage Pass amp. I think you'll be surprised by how gutsy they are despite their rated power. I think we've been lead to believe that we "need" all this power, but the fact of the matter is most of us with "modest" systems and listening spaces don't. If you have a large listening room and large speakers, then I can understand the "need."

+1

The Pass Lab amps have outstanding power supplies, hence their ability to drive speakers rather nicely. 

[WireNut]

Good question. I've been wondering about this for a long time. Seems like pro drivers always have higher efficiency but don't go as low as home audio drivers.

I've been running two woofers per side in a push-pull set-up lately. Goes lower and has more efficiency than a single driver.
Mounting the same two drivers both facing forward and wired in parallel gets me even more efficiency but it doesn't go as low as the push-pull set-up. At least that's what I've experienced,YMMV.
It's a trade off.

If you have two woofers in a single box, as an experiment take one driver, flip it around, re-wire if needed to simulate a push-pull set-up and give it a listen. Doesn't cost anything to try it except for maybe voiding a warranty unless yours are DIY.

 
 

[JLM]

A better question would be, why do nearly all audiophiles still use passive (crossovers downstream of power amplifiers) speaker designs?


Do audiophiles somehow feel that they can match amplifiers to drivers better than the manufacturer?

Do audiophiles make buying decisions based on cool (expensive) cabinets/designs?

Do audiophiles distrust/dismiss the concept (because active studio monitors are biased towards dry/highly accurate versus entertaining sound)?

Are manufacturers so segregated into speaker guy/amp guy camps that they can't/won't collaborate?


Note that passives use crude crossovers that waste tons of power and mask the load that the amp is trying to react to while actives (one channel of amplification per driver) offer an overall less expensive solution with greatly improved dynamics, flatter frequency response, and unbelievably full/deep bass in relatively small cabinets.

With computer audio and wireless technologies becoming so popular its easy to see how an active speaker could be the ideal solution for distributing sound throughout the home.

[PRELUDE]

A better question would be, why do nearly all audiophiles still use passive (crossovers downstream of power amplifiers) speaker designs?


Do audiophiles somehow feel that they can match amplifiers to drivers better than the manufacturer?

Do audiophiles make buying decisions based on cool (expensive) cabinets/designs?

Do audiophiles distrust/dismiss the concept (because active studio monitors are biased towards dry/highly accurate versus entertaining sound)?

Are manufacturers so segregated into speaker guy/amp guy camps that they can't/won't collaborate?


Note that passives use crude crossovers that waste tons of power and mask the load that the amp is trying to react to while actives (one channel of amplification per driver) offer an overall less expensive solution with greatly improved dynamics, flatter frequency response, and unbelievably full/deep bass in relatively small cabinets.

With computer audio and wireless technologies becoming so popular its easy to see how an active speaker could be the ideal solution for distributing sound throughout the home.

So far the best and correct answer to the OP.
 

[Letitroll98]

So far the best and correct answer to the OP.

And you were appointed by who exactly?  (Lol, just kidding, sorry, it was just too easy)

[Big Red Machine]

Do audiophiles somehow feel that they can match amplifiers to drivers better than the manufacturer?  no, but speaker designers and amp designers are not thinking about the same issues in their independent efforts and we have to do our best to find gear that mates well.  just the nature of the beast (reality)

Do audiophiles make buying decisions based on cool (expensive) cabinets/designs?  Of course.


Are manufacturers so segregated into speaker guy/amp guy camps that they can't/won't collaborate?  They have enough work to do to make their product perform at a price point w/o the added delay of working with just one manufacturer with who-knows-what design philosophy/approach.

[/quot

[Big Red Machine]

I have a pair of salk SS8's and thinking about a Pass labs something. The used class A options, at the lower wattage, seem more "affordable".

thanks for your input

If you can audition one somewhere I recommend that before putting a 150 lb amp into your room.  I found the X350.5 to be beautifully built and gentle in operation, but decidely benign in sound.  At that period of time I felt the Wyreds were much more impactful and obviously much less expensive and heavy.  This was with HT3's.  The 8's are easier to drive so maybe there is a match.  It is awful exasperating to have to unload, locate, and move, and pack a 150 lb. amp that may turn out to be less than satisfying. 

In the end, the 8's are a dream to power and the HT3's were a bear.  They would take anything and everything I threw at them and want more.  I know Jim wants to make every speaker pair as easy as possible to drive, but driver selections, layouts, costs, pricing, and synergy of drivers all come into play.  It's not as easy as one would assume.  The devil is in the details.

[AJinFLA]

So my question is why are all speakers not made with higher sensitive drivers. I understand that a larger cabinet is often needed but is there other obvious reasons?

Hoffmans Iron Law. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/bas/0808/

Do audiophiles somehow feel that they can match amplifiers to drivers better than the manufacturer?

Yes.
Read boatloads of anecdotes. Throw dart at board. By about the 3rd try, you hit that "synergy" thing. And how do you know yet another toss won't yield even greater synergyness? Well....

Do audiophiles make buying decisions based on cool (expensive) cabinets/designs?

Heck yes. We're all guilty of wanting good looking stuff, in some form!

Do audiophiles distrust/dismiss the concept (because active studio monitors are biased towards dry/highly accurate versus entertaining sound)?

Most likely. But others might just not want to divorce that beloved amp. Especially stuff that glows.

Are manufacturers so segregated into speaker guy/amp guy camps that they can't/won't collaborate?

I think it's more the stark reality of the marketplace.

cheers,

AJ

[*Scotty*]

I think it's as simple as market forces. People don't want large boxes in their living space. It's a wonder sub-woofers have as much traction as they do, we can probably thank the demand for Home Theater for this. The other thing we can blame for poor sensitivity is the incorporation of baffle step compensation into many modern loudspeaker designs. A bigger baffle and a bigger woofer might go a long way towards eliminating the need for baffle step compensation.
Scotty

[Austin08]

..... It is awful exasperating to have to unload, locate, and move, and pack a 150 lb. amp that may turn out to be less than satisfying.....

I agree. I used to love and own several monster amps from Krell, BAT, ML....they are cool looking but when it was about time I need to move them, it was no fun. (Think about once they need service or packing for resale)

[catastrofe]

I have a pair of salk SS8's and thinking about a Pass labs something. The used class A options, at the lower wattage, seem more "affordable".

thanks for your input

I ran a Sanders Magtech on my Salk SS10s and had more than enough clean, musical power.  Sanders offers a 30 day money back guarantee, and pays shipping both ways, so you might consider this as an option.