[lcrim]

Dejan:
I posted the article because it addresses the issue with some metrics rather than opinion.  (BTW, rock concert levels are stated as 116 dB peak and 110 dB average but yes he doesn't say which row.)  
When I first saw the piece, what leaped out at me, was the huge advantage that more efficient speakers offered.  Given that my resources are finite, this is a valuable fact to keep in mind when looking at equipment.  
I have a low powered (1.8 Watts/channel) SET amp system that utililizes more efficient speakers and another system built around the same 30 watt per channel digital wonder that Mark discussed above.  Cranking the gain on either system will vibrate the windows.
At one point, the same speakers that are dramatically well controlled by  the 30 watt wonder were less efficiently driven by a manufacturer rated 150 watt per channel receiver.
Not all watts are created equal.

[nickspicks]

jet engines have to be louder than 114db, at least up close they are.  there's no way I'll buy that.

As a hack engineer who tapes a lot of things, I bring the trusty db meeter w/me a lot to concerts and also bust it out in the living room to measure safe volume levels so that I know i'm not hurting my kids ears or anything.

Some practical experience ....
At stage lip at a medium sized show, I was clipping my Soundfield ST-250 (at 118db) to the point of having to use the -20db pad.  This mic, being more sensitive and accurate than most measurement tools, tells me the abosolutes in terms of SPL.

Concerts are mixed and measured a distance from the PA, and are usualy kept  at around 100db with the occastional 110-115db peaks (which is loud).  Pretty much all PA cabinets max out at 135db 12" from the cone.

I've measured 127db peaks at the stage lip of a jazz band once.  That was very loud.  Earplugs were a must.

So, with this in mind, and also w/my goal being to preproduce live events in my living room, I need SHITLOADS of power.  I have 150wpc of digital amplification, and it needs to be more like 250 to keep me happy.
SS, I've been fine with 200wpc
Tube, I need at least 100wpc.
My room is setup the long way, 24' x 17' with 7' ceilings.  Lots of air to presurize in order to get that "you're there" affect.

I found this link, which has some typical SPL measurements of various things:  http://www.rcaanews.org/noiselev.htm

[Dan Banquer]

I have a suggestion  that I think might help here.
  One of the things that I have done in the past is to attach an oscilloscope to the speaker inputs and look at the peak voltage and the average voltage across the speakers. If you know the nominal impedance of the speakers one can easily get a good approximation of the peak and average power and also the peak and average current used with some very simple algebra.
   Hope his helps:
              d.b.

[Scott F.]

I must take issue with the table provided.

Many years ago, I read a paper, and in my stupidity, failed to scan it and save it, from a group from Berkley, who quoted:

* that a jet engine, going at full blast, will provide about 111 dB SPL at 3 metres. I'd call that rather loud, wouldn't you?

* that 112-114 dB SPL was the limit at which most of us will instinctively cover our ears, and

* that at about 124 dB SPL, our eardrums will probably burst, but if not, we stand an outstanding chance of going deaf or heavily impaired.

I am also baffled by some of the figures. 126 dB SPL at a rock concert - let's assume this is correct. Question - where? Where is this SPL delivered to? Assuming that SPL decreases by 3 dB/metre, on a stadium which is at least 50 m wide, delivering that kind of SPL, even in brief peaks, would require incredible power amplification....

Hiya Dej,

Here are a few excepts from the Quiet Solutions website (link below to the pdf file).

- 90dB - Power drill, shop tools, Busy urban street, diesel truck, food blender
- 95dB - Subway train at 200 feet
- 100dB - Jet takeoff 1000 feet, Outboard motor, farm tractor, garbage truck, Very heavy Traffic
- 108dB - Home Theater (loud peaks)
- 115dB - Jackhammer
- Pain threshold - 120dB - Loud thunderclap, typical live rock music
- 130dB - Jet takeoff (300 feet), Noise level during a stock car race.
- 132dB - Very loud rock concert, 50 feet in front of speakers
- 140dB - Gun muzzle blast
- 140dB - Prop aircraft on takeoff, gun muzzle blast, aircraft carrier deck, jet engine at 100 feet
- Eardrum rupture - 150dB - Jet takeoff 75 feet
- 155dB - Shot from a handgun (.38 or .44) at 1 foot
- 160dB - Jet aircraft on Takeoff at 30 feet
- Immediate death of tissue 180dB - Jet engine at 1 foot
- 194dB - Loudest sound in air, air particle distortion (sonic boom)
[/list:u]
OSHA's Approach to Noise Exposure in Construction

http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0500/d000573/d000573.html

US Army - Noise Levels of Common Army Equipment
http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/hcp/NoiseLevels.aspx

Canadian Hearing Society page on Sound Levels and Human Response
http://www.chs.ca/info/noise/levels.html

Canadian Hearing Society page on Recreational Noise
http://www.chs.ca/info/noise/book3.html

Quiet Solutions website
http://www.quietsolution.com/Noise_Levels.pdf

When you do a search of the web for variations on 'noise levels', you come up with all kinds of hits. Some independant publications seem to be accurate (like the Quiet Sound website) and others aren't. What I use to gage acceptable noise exposure limts and sound levels to common noises are the government publications but these vary depending on which one you reference.

I find it curious nobody can seem to agree on how loud a particular sound is. I guess it really comes back to the point you brought up regarding 'how far away was it?'.  

It sure would be nice if they (the Audiologists) would have listed the control conditions in which these mesurements were taken so that everybody has a point of reference. I guess the Audiology profession isn't concerned with doing controlled, repeatable studies.

[DVV]

Dejan:
I posted the article because it addresses the issue with some metrics rather than opinion.  (BTW, rock concert levels are stated as 116 dB peak and 110 dB average but yes he doesn't say which row.)  
When I first saw the piece, what leaped out at me, was the huge advantage that more efficient speakers offered.  Given that my resources are finite, this is a valuable fact to keep in mind when looking at equipment.  
I have a low powered (1.8 Watts/channel) SET amp system that utililizes more effici ...

Fine - we agree then. My thesis was that sheer power oputput and speaker control are two different things.

Hence, it's possible to have a low power amp which controls the speakers magnificently, and a high power amp which does not, so even if it's actually (measurably) louder, its sound will be worse, less clear and satisfying than that of the smaller amp.

As for speaker efficiency, I was, am and probably will be a proponent of more efficient speakers (though not at any cost). This quite despite the fact that I could make some very high power amps myself.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

Hiya Dej,

Here are a few excepts from the Quiet Solutions website (link below to the pdf file).

- 90dB - Power drill, shop tools, Busy urban street, diesel truck, food blender
- 95dB - Subway train at 200 feet
- 100dB - Jet takeoff 1000 feet, Outboard motor, farm tractor, garbage truck, Very heavy Traffic
- 108dB - Home Theater (loud peaks)
- 115dB - Jackhammer
- Pain threshold - 120dB - Loud thunderclap, typical live rock music
- 130dB - Jet takeoff (300 feet), Noise level during a stock  ...

Scotty, you old war horse!

I stand corrected, Scotty.

Cheers,
DVV

[Scott F.]

Hiya (again),

Getting back to the original question How Many Watts, I don't know that you can say for sure.

For me, I've gone deeeeep off the reservation with single ended gear. My bi-amped rig puts out all of 10.5 watts. That said I can easily hit 105-110dB peaks in a 40 foot room (measured 9 feet from the speakers).

So much of that relies on high efficiency speakers. Unfortuantely the vast majority of speakers on the market are <89dB. When you start moving to the 92+ region, there are only a handfull. Narrow that down even further taking out line arrays (and MTM's in some cases), and your choices are even fewer. As you well know, very few raw driver manufacturers are producing high(er) efficiency drivers like we had back in the 50's, 60's and even the 70's.

In turn we are still living with the backlash (that may not be the best word) of the onset of high power solid state gear. In turn more and more audiophiles are turning to tubes for amplification. Trouble is they now have to stack tube after tube to get enough power to drive these low efficiency speakers.

Loads of tubes is not the optimum setup for an amplifier. You'll attest to the 'simpler is better' philosophy, hence your 30 watt amp question. You are probably using a single 30 watt Sanken or Toshiba Mosfet, maybe even no feedback (assuming the circuit is stable and doesn't runaway). That circuit will sound clean as can be. Start stacking transistors (like tubes), things complicate in a hurry. More parts in the signal path = less and less pure sound.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. Just more ramblings I guess. Ultimately, 30 watts should be just fine if you either A) listen at moderate levels or B) have speakers 90dB or greater (maybe more depending on the room size).

[DVV]

Hiya (again),

Getting back to the original question How Many Watts, I don't know that you can say for sure.

For me, I've gone deeeeep off the reservation with single ended gear. My bi-amped rig puts out all of 10.5 watts. That said I can easily hit 105-110dB peaks in a 40 foot room (measured 9 feet from the speakers).

So much of that relies on high efficiency speakers. Unfortuantely the vast majority of speakers on the market are <89dB. When you start moving to the 92+ region, there are only a  ...

Actually, speaker control depends on many factors, too many to even give a decent listing with a brief explanation. So, very briefly, to obtain good speaker control, an amp should:

1. Have a good open loop response (i.e. response without any NFB);
2. Have moderate levels of NFB applied (thus using it to iron out the wrinkles, not solve design problems and shortfalls);
3. Use two pairs of output devices for a naturally low output impedance;
4. Dispense with the output series inductor (which will not be possible without tha above three) and be as directly coupled with the speaker as possible, and
5. Have a high quality, high calibre power supply, with a strong preference for fully electronically regulated (if possible, because it does add to the price quite significantly).

Common sense tells you this is all easier to achieve with lower power than with very high power amps. Also, the price rises in geometric progression, not a linear one.

There's nothing to stop you from building a say 2x50W amp using two pairs of output devices per channel (or three, or four, but let's not overdo it). Krell for example used to do it with their KSA50. Dan Banquer here made his 80W amp using two pairs of 250W devices; he drew just 80W from an output stage capable of 1.000W, and added insult to injury by having the whole thing fully electronically regulated. Consequently, he had the first next thing after absolute speaker control.

That's how come an amp can sound much more powerful than it really is. That's how come 80W can be more than enough under normal listening conditions from one source, and 150W from another source may leave you wonderng what possessed you to pay so much for it.

Amps were never born equal.

Cheers,
DVV

[TIC]

You need 3.5 watts/channel, max. Anything more than that you either have the wrong speakers or you are listening to the wrong kind of music in the wrong room.......

There, that settles it!  

Enjoy,

TIC

[DVV]

You need 3.5 watts/channel, max. Anything more than that you either have the wrong speakers or you are listening to the wrong kind of music in the wrong room.......

There, that settles it!  

Enjoy,

TIC

Hardly.

With that attitude, you are BOUND to go for extraordinarily efficient speakers.

Now, while speaker efficiency is a good thing, it is that only up to the point where the drive towards more efficiency starts to be paid dearly for elsewhere - in precision and focus, for example.

I for one will not be forced into buying only a certain type of speakers. What if I don't like the sound of them? What if I find less effcicent speakers much more to my taste? Dump everything and buy anew?

For some, that may even be desirable; for me, that's unacceptable.

Cheers,
DVV

[jselectro]

The matter of “how much power you really need” is far from settled. Many of you seem to be dealing with a number of misconceptions regarding audio power and speaker efficiency. No one has discussed how the ear responds to sound.

Some years ago, I read a quote in (I believe) Audio magazine by a noted musician and audiophile. He stated that to reproduce the sound and dynamics of a piano (grand?) in a typical room-the same room that houses the piano- with an average efficiency loudspeaker (mono) would require a minimum of 800 watts.

These same figures were arrived at when I took a graduate course in “Sensation and Perception” You have to know something about Psychoacoustics. The scientific measurement of 1db happens to correlate with the Psychoacoustic definition of a “JND” or just noticeable difference. (The jnd varies with the frequency range, rate of change of frequency and the influence of other senses such as vision, etc. and is not worth getting into here as it just complicates things.) A 3db difference corresponds to a sound that is twice as loud.

The problem with hearing and amplifier power is that hearing is not linear, hearing response is logarithmic. So in order to produce a sound that is twice as loud (3db) as the softest sound you system can put out, you would need twice the power! [Homework project—why is that 3db figure so prevalent in audio measurements?]

Now lets take the efficiency of speakers: xxdb at 1 watt at 1 meter. Remember, this is a figure arrived at in an anechoic chamber, not your typical listening environment. It is also arrived at using pink noise. Pink noise is a generated sound that has equal energy in all octave bands, not your typical music, is it?

Now lets move those speakers to 2 meters and you are faced with the inverse square law. Your sound level has just been reduces by 6db! The speaker needs 8 times the power to reach that same tested db level (with pink noise in an anechoic chamber). Move it to 4 meters and you’re another 6db down. So to achieve that same loudness at 4 meters you need 32 times that initial 1-watt power to your speaker. And this assumes your speakers respond in a linear fashion to a linear increase in power. So much for needing only 3.5 watts (or even 35) per channel! And no, having stereo speakers producing the same signal as the other speaker, rather than just one running at the same volume only changes the figures by 3db regardless of level.

As a mathematical example (in mono) your amp and speaker combination requires 2 watts to play quietly ( certainly not farfetched in the real world). Let us say the measured level is 75 db. To increase to 78 db you would require 4 watts, 81 db you now need 8 watts and so on. Power requirements increase rather quickly
See http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109459.html  “Soft to Loud: The nature of Power and Dynamic Headroom” for a real world example of power requirements with a very efficient loudspeaker. All of these power requirements and we haven’t even discussed amplifying those harmonics that give the life to music.

Lastly, regarding the db figures of various real world noise levels given in previous posts. A lot of these are continuous levels (such as a jet engine). Music does not contain continuous sound levels. Frequency, as well as the volume of each instrument is constantly varying. If peak db levels were the only criteria for hearing damage, we would all be deaf after hearing a single firecracker go off. It is continuous exposure to sustained high levels that damage hearing.

In parting, I have over half a kilowatt per channel running to each of my VMPS tower speakers (Brian Cheney would argue that these are not the wrong kind of speaker) and I use plenty of that power. Unlike going to a rock concert where my ears ring afterwards even though I use earplugs, this never happens at home. But I can reproduce the sound of my wife’s piano accurately. As far as the wrong room—probably guilty as charged, but I have yet to find the perfect listening room. Maybe one day….

I do not intend to belittle anyone with this post, only to educate. Thanks.

Other references:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109138.html “Secrets of Amplifier and Speaker Power Requirements Revealed”

http://www1.electusdistribution.com.au/images_uploaded/decibels.pdf “Understanding Decibels”

[Ulas]

jselectro, Thanks for educating us dummies. Next time you should read your references before you begin your lecture. 3dB denotes a power ratio of 2:1. If 2 watts gives 75 dB, then you need only 4 watts to get 78 dB, not 20 watts.

[Chris_B]

A year ago, I was using a decent 45 watt tube integrated from Conrad Johnson.  When I switch to a good pair of Odyssey solid state amps, I immediately noticed a few things.  Drum hits sounded more real and pianos sounded bigger.  Overall, they sounded more life like.  Bottom line, the tube amp could not drive my average efficiency speakers (88 dB/4 ohm) very well and reproduce the dynamics of some music.  For what it is worth, the CJ tube amp could play very loud when I turned the volume up but was still lacking in dynamics with the speakers I was using.

[dwk]

jselectro, Thanks for educating us dummies. Next time you should read your references before you begin your lecture. 3dB denotes a power ratio of 2:1. If 2 watts gives 75 dB, then you need only 4 watts to get 78 dB, not 20 watts.

Taking this further, this is actually how a dB is *defined* - 10dB is the loudness increase for a 10x increase in power - this has nothing whatsoever to do with perception.

jselectro, you may well enjoy your kW+ power levels, but your mathematical justification as to why you 'need' it is completely faulty.   As I pointed out in the other thread you posted in, your fundamental mistake is confusing the measure of twice the power (3dB) with the  percpetion of a signal that is subjectively 'twice as loud' (not an exact number, but typically taken to be ~10dB).  

So, if you're cruising along at 90dB levels and you want to crank it up 'twice as loud' you will have to push it to 100dB, which will require 10x the power.

[TIC]

Guys,

For those of you unable to recognize humor, "I WAS JOKING"!

Enjoy,

TIC

[Dan Banquer]

I guess some folks happen to like "live" sound pressure levels in their listening rooms.  There are many of us who find  that in small rooms, like the one's we find ourselves listening to music in, that when you attempt those sound pressure levels the room itself gets pressurized and becomes extremely non linear.  If you find that to your taste: so be it.
There are many of us who don't  and some of us have come to the conclusion that we don't need massive amounts of power, but need quiet and reasonably well damped rooms with speakers that have some decent low level linearity and low noise electronics.  If this is allowed to happen you can get some very decent dynamics, near as much as the recording studio allows to some extent, and not go deaf at the same time.  
To sum it up, ther are two ways of approaching dynamic range, raise the ceiling ( playback at  really loud volumes) or lower the noise floor. It's your ears.
               d.b.

[jselectro]

Hey guys, thanks for correcting me. I never called anyone a "dummy", and I  am open to any correction and education. I am not infallible, and I was relying on things I had learned years ago and my memory is obviously faulty. Forgive an old f**t.

I don't believe I defined a db in my post, other than to stated that it corresponds with the jnd in psychoacoustics. That is factual.

I also thank all of you for this lively discussion. That is what this forum is for, is it not? Sorry TIC for not getting your joke, but some tube lovers believe just what you posted.

[Scott F.]

I realize I'm the minority hear but I'm going to stand up and speak my piece.

DVV - Now, while speaker efficiency is a good thing, it is that only up to the point where the drive towards more efficiency starts to be paid dearly for elsewhere - in precision and focus, for example.

Oh horse hockey. Why exactly do you think all of these 'single enders' exist? It's because focus and precision are far better on hi-e speakers (especially single driver speakers). Thats exactly why I'm there too.

I question, like you do, why do we have so few hi-e drivers/speakers to choose from. Reason.....solid state. It's easy to produce buttloads of power for not much money. It has nothing to do with the fact that Alnico is more expensive, it's to do with the fact that the mass market doesn't realize that tubes and hi-e speakers (when done right) just sound better (jeez, I'll get flamed over that one).

One of these days my old friend, I'm going to buy you ticket to St Louis so you can hear first hand what I'm talking about. Then you'll finally understand what I've been rambling about for the past few years.

jselectro, you may well enjoy your kW+ power levels, but your mathematical justification as to why you 'need' it is completely faulty. As I pointed out in the other thread you posted in, your fundamental mistake is confusing the measure of twice the power (3dB) with the percpetion of a signal that is subjectively 'twice as loud' (not an exact number, but typically taken to be ~10dB).

I couldn't agree more.

Taking it a step further, on the matter of psychoacoustics of hearing, why is it that I find my low wattage/hi-e speaker system more lifelike than my high power/low-e system? If you don't believe me, just take a poll of the guys down at the GAS Circle, they've all heard both many, many times.

I used to be a multi-kw system guy. I had a tri-amped system. I built my own enclosures. On the top was a pair of 30" Carver ribbons (1.5 ohms), below them was a Focal 5K4211 midbass driver (6 ohms), then doing the dirty work was a pair of 12" Shiva subs (4 ohms) in 9 cubic foot enclosures. The amplification was a 100 modified Spectro Acoustics for the Carvers, a 130 wpc Rotel 981 for the mids and a 250wpc Spectro Acoustic amp for the subs (all wattages rated at 8ohm). The crossover was active (between the preamp and the amps, no crossover compnents in the speakers). Doing the usual math, halving the driver ohms doubles the wattage (which is the case with all of these amps), I was putting out just over 1100wpc. This doesn't even take into account the effective wattage I gained because of the dramitically increased headroom due to the active crossover.

This thing was pretty cool. Loads of dynamics and clarity. Then I happened upon a 2.5 watt SET amp. I paired it to an average sounding pair of dual concentric speakers (103dB) and my musical life changed. These weren't the do all end all for clarity but I knew I was onto something. Then came the Lowthers and backloaded horns (101dB). Again, not the do all end all (mainly because of bass or the lack thereof), then I combined the two with an active crossover and it was all over (for me anyway). I found musical Nirvana.

I'm here to tell you, very very few low-e speakers, regardless of wattage pushing them, can meet the sheer speed, dynamics, clarity and realism of this system. I drive the Lowthers with a 2a3 (on the Lowthers) and ASL Wave 8's (8wpc) on the vintage 15" Goodmans (dual concentrics).

Just to put this in prespective, in town (currently) we have a dealer that drive the Dynaudio Evidence Master Reference speakers with Krell and T+A gear, and another that has the big Nautilus 802D's driven by AR gear. I've listened to some other damned expensive speakers and setups and none can compare to what many of the single ended guys listen to. Here is just a short list of killer hi-e speakers that blow away the megabuck low-e speakers.

JBL Hartfields
Altec Voice of the Theaters
Bozak Concert Grands
Klipshorns
Edgarhorns
Avante Guarde Duo's and Trios
Lowthers (done my way)

Any of these speakers listed (and I no doubt missed quite a few others that should have been on the list) can be driven with puny watts to paint peeling sound pressure levels. Each and every one is clean, articulate, has phenominal focus and soundstage like crazy (when properly setup). Shove solid state in front of them and expect your ears to start bleeding.

and yes, I've heard them all on numerous occasions.

Are there too few choices when it comes to hi-e speakers. Damn right there is. In fact it pisses me off that I have so few choices. But since I'm never going back to solid state, I'll live with the limitations.





Sorry for the mini rant guys but it's kinda strange, after living with SETs and hi-e speakers for so long, I now find low-e speakers extremely colored. Not that they aren't fun to listen to cuz they are. I've got a second system with low-e that I enjoy emmensly, but it just isn't as real, dynamic or articulate as my SET rig.

I just wish more of you guys out there could experience SETs done right.  If you had, you'd be right here next to me thumbing your nose at solid state and low-e speakers.

oh well

[DVV]

"Loudness" as such is in my view as yet not a fully understood phenomenon. Obviously, it has much to do with real power, but equally obviously it has as muc - if not more - to do our perception of loudness, which is a product of the amp and speakers working together in our own environment.

If we live in a noisy place, our power requirements will rise because we have to compensate for the noise levels.

What has been called amp control is, in my view, a critical part of the whole story. I have heard several times a Naim amp, rated at 35 wpc, sound bigger, more alive and subjectively more powerful than other amps rated at 100 wpc. Yet, on the test bench, both fulfill and surpass their specifications without fail. Obviously, how we percieve loudness is also a function of factors not specified in data sheets. And I've been building amps for over 20 years now.

Of course, I have my own theories why this is so, as does Dan, but that's another topic. I will go a long way, though not agree completely with Scott F. and his SET example; done right, it's amazing how loud and big a very modest SET can sound, though it does have its limitations. One of them in Scott F.'s example is that he has modified his basement for listening only, with full acounstic treatment. Hence, his ambient noise levels, undesirable for listening, are low to extremely low. I live on the 8th floor right above the noisest corner in the city since 1975, and my power requirements are consequently far higher than his before I even press the "Power" button.

But, it's not only the amp, it's the speakers as well (I'll assume everybody has a decent gaguge speaker cable, whichever it may be, so long as it can pass the required currents). They are all but linear devices right out, and worse, as they heat up their electrical properties start to slide. How much, and in which manner is impossible to foretell. But it could leave the amp gasping for air despite its possibly generous power rating. And this would change the power level requirements at least insofar that an amp with better speaker control is called for, if not actually more power at the output.

This is why efficient speakers tend to fare better - their efficiency covers up for a lot of other deficiencies in electrical terms. And this is another very significant reason why the power question cannot be answered easily at all.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

I realize I'm the minority hear but I'm going to stand up and speak my piece.

Quote:
DVV - Now, while speaker efficiency is a good thing, it is that only up to the point where the drive towards more efficiency starts to be paid dearly for elsewhere - in precision and focus, for example.  

Oh horse hockey. Why exactly do you think all of these 'single enders' exist? It's because focus and precision are far better on hi-e speakers (especially single driver speakers). Thats exactly why I'm there too. ...

Not so, Scotty.

Please be aware I am not talking about theory, but everyday life. If the trend towards more efficiency catches on, you'll see everybody and their dog going for it. But their relative prices cannot change much, so what's going to happen? You'll see a lot of hocus-pocus, a lot of drivers with more comlinat suspensions, because most (though of course not all) will rush to get out into the market, never mind the quality, just look at the price. Consequently, many unwanted comprimises will be made - heck, ARE made.

An example. Some years ago, Anthony Michaelson of Musical Fidelity gets the bright idea that efficient speakers are needed. He invents and markets Kelly speakers. Smaller model was rated at 95 dB/1W/1m, larger at 96 dB/1W/1m. Connect them, and sure enough, half a second later you know these are effcient speakers. But two hours later, you realize they are not only efficient, but also deficient, their balance is not what it should be, they tend to shout at you, etc. And their price was not too gentle at all.

Comparing them to the likes of Klipsch Heresy, the Klipsch wins hands down. I am deeply convinced the key reason to this that they have always had efficient speakers, and hence have developed drivers over time which do not make unwanted sacrifices for the sake of effciency. I am not saying they are perfect, all I'm saying is that they are honest, they do what they can and don;t even try for what thye can't.

Producing a more efficient bass driver is no particular technological miracle, literally anybody making drivers could do it - if they wanted to. But to be done right, you need large, high quality magnets, in the mould of Alnico and such like, and these cost money. You need light yet stiff cones, and this costs money. Ultimately, more efficient drivers tend to be more expensive than standard fare, which is in part also a function of the series, standard drivers aremade in much largere series, hence lower unit cost. But if effcient drivers were made in the same series, they would still cost more than the flimsy standard fare around these days. What can you expact from a bass driver of 10" weighing in at 6 pounds? Not much, believe me - but it's cheap.

And the price of SETs hasn't helped any, either. So, as a potential buyer, you face more expensive speakers and more expensive amplification, on top of which uyou face much snake oil peddling with tubes; you yourself stressed "SET done right".

This is why I said "until they start making unwanted compromises". And they will.

Cheers,
DVV