Small High Efficiency Speakers

[planet10]

A10p goes lower, it goes higher and is less than a dB less sensitive. For me it would be a strong choice over the A12p just for its extra DDR/detail over the larger driver.

 

dave

Edited April 11, 2016 by planet10

[GeoffRoberts]

 

In order to make more realistic recommendations, we need more information about:

 

 

How loud do you listen?   What do you call not very loud? .....   as you probably appreciate there is a world of difference between 60dB, 80dB and 100dB peak SPL .... when every 3dB increase of SPL needs a doubling of power applied.       If you can measure your existing peak SPL output ..... then this will put an end to my "not very loud" .... needing 16 times as much power as your "not very loud".

 

What do you call a "small cabinet"? .... what is your "absolute max" that you could tolerate? .....   is a box 40cm wide, 50cm deep and 80cm high, "big" ?

 

Will you consider a (low power) speaker + a separately powered subwoofer? ......  if you refer back to the "laws - choose 2 of 3" ....    taking away 'bass extension' mean you can get (closer to) a 'high sensitivity small box'.

 

I have no idea how many dB I play at, but not too loud. Perhaps slightly louder than you could have a comfortable conversation. 

 

I would say that a box 40cm x 50cm deep and 80cm high probably is too big. 40cm wide may be ok if it's not too deep, and vice versa. Anything that dominates our small living room is unlikely to be well accepted. 

 

I have not been looking at sub woofers, I'd prefer not to use one. Given they're generally not as sensitive to placement, that could be an advantage for me if I could drop it in the corner somewhere. I'd prefer not to use one unless I absolutely had to. 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I have no idea how many dB I play at, but not too loud. Perhaps slightly louder than you could have a comfortable conversation. 

 

I would say that a box 40cm x 50cm deep and 80cm high probably is too big. 40cm wide may be ok if it's not too deep, and vice versa. Anything that dominates our small living room is unlikely to be well accepted. 

 

I have not been looking at sub woofers, I'd prefer not to use one. Given they're generally not as sensitive to placement, that could be an advantage for me if I could drop it in the corner somewhere. I'd prefer not to use one unless I absolutely had to.

OK. Here is how you need to approach things:

Step 1: Forget about amplifiers. Worry about them later.

Step 2: Audition a wide variety of speakers (every speaker is very different). Choose the speaker system which works best for you, IN YOUR ROOM.

Step 3: AFTER you have chosen your speakers, then and only then, worry about amplification. Listen to a range of amplifiers, in your price range, on your speakers and preferably in your listening room. Do not be concerned about valve or SS. Choose the amplifier based on what you hear, NOT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE tell you.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[pulinap]

OK. Here is how you need to approach things:

Step 1: Forget about amplifiers. Worry about them later.

Step 2: Audition a wide variety of speakers (every speaker is very different). Choose the speaker system which works best for you, IN YOUR ROOM.

Step 3: AFTER you have chosen your speakers, then and only then, worry about amplification. Listen to a range of amplifiers, in your price range, on your speakers and preferably in your listening room. Do not be concerned about valve or SS. Choose the amplifier based on what you hear, NOT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE tell you.

 

Call me stupid....but there is an inherent logical mismatch  in that process...IMHO

 

How do you test Step 2 without amplification? and you choose the speakers based on whatever the amplification you use for audition in Step 2

 

And if Step 2 is satisfactory why need step 3 (i.e. chose another amplification)...?

[Gee Emm]

Hi stupid

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Call me stupid....but there is an inherent logical mismatch  in that process...IMHO

 

How do you test Step 2 without amplification? and you choose the speakers based on whatever the amplification you use for audition in Step 2

The usual method of testing a loudspeaker is to visit a retailer and request an audition. Frequently, those retailers stock a wide variety of amplification as well.

And if Step 2 is satisfactory why need step 3 (i.e. chose another amplification)...?

See my response.

[pulinap]

The usual method of testing a loudspeaker is to visit a retailer and request an audition. Frequently, those retailers stock a wide variety of amplification as well.

See my response.

 

Fair enough...

 

However, according to your original post the loudspeaker should be tested in your ROOM, given room is the most important aspect of the whole set-up.

 

Auditioning loudspeaker at a retailer defeats this purpose.

 

Choosing a speaker on an audition at a retailer will be based on retailer's room and whatever the amplification available at the retail shop......

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Fair enough...

 

However, according to your original post the loudspeaker should be tested in your ROOM, given room is the most important aspect of the whole set-up.

 

Auditioning loudspeaker at a retailer defeats this purpose.

 

Choosing a speaker on an audition at a retailer will be based on retailer's room and whatever the amplification available at the retail shop......

Which is why choosing a good retailer is also important. A good retailer will ensure that the customer chooses correctly. Fundamentally, choosing the amplifier first is dumb. Speakers first. Amplifier second. Always.

[GeoffRoberts]

The constant rotation of nice gear in the classifieds section confirms tha finding the right set up is not easy, whether you prefer to work forwards or backwards. I have no problem with trying something, and then selling if it doesn't work for me. I have found with musical instruments and cameras it does take a few to find what works, and it can take a few years. You learn something each time, and then move to something closer to what you like.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

The constant rotation of nice gear in the classifieds section confirms tha finding the right set up is not easy, whether you prefer to work forwards or backwards. I have no problem with trying something, and then selling if it doesn't work for me. I have found with musical instruments and cameras it does take a few to find what works, and it can take a few years. You learn something each time, and then move to something closer to what you like.

Not necessarily. The constant rotation of nice gear often suggests that some people may be seeking something which does not exist. Or it may be related to latching onto the 'next big thing'. Or a bunch of other things.

FWIW: I know many people who have made many changes to their system, only to end up with their first choice years later.

Fundamentally, however, speakers are the biggest influence on the sound of a system (including the room, of course). Therefore, it makes sense to choose the speakers first. Buying a 2 (or 5) Watt amplifier restricts one's choice of speakers dramatically.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[legend]

Note also there are fundamental laws of physics (formalised on the famous Thiel-Small equations devised at Sydney Uni) that mean you can't have all three of small size, high efficiency and good bass - at least one has to be compromised in the speaker's design.

[andyr]

Note also there are fundamental laws of physics (formalised on the famous Thiel-Small equations devised at Sydney Uni) that mean you can't have all three of small size, high efficiency and good bass - at least one has to be compromised in the speaker's design.

 

Sure, Rod, but shirley anyone who needs to buy small speakers will understand that they need a sub with them, to get good bass?

 

So, putting good bass aside ... does it follow that a smaller speaker will be less efficient than a larger speaker?  I'm thinking of Linn Kans here - which, IIIRC, were tiny and very inefficient!

 

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

[pulinap]

Which is why choosing a good retailer is also important. A good retailer will ensure that the customer chooses correctly. Fundamentally, choosing the amplifier first is dumb. Speakers first. Amplifier second. Always.

 

I didn't say anything you said was stupid or dumb....merely questioned the logistics which still remain problematic at best....... ..specially if I may quote your famous mantra "Room, Room, Room, Speakers and everything else...." (are we talking about Retailer's room....?)

 

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about loudspeakers, electronics or rooms..... )

[Guest atilsley]

Stop squabbling and buy a pair of my small horns...!

[GeoffRoberts]

Those little horns sure do look nice, and the size would be fine in my room.

For me music is mostly in the mid range, sweet mids and an airy top end is my main concern. I prefer a natural sounding bass, it's there, but not too heavy. I find bass that 'slams' is not what music sounds like, it's a factor of reproduction. Sure it's impressive, but for me it's distracting and not what an instrument sounds like.

[legend]

Those little horns sure do look nice, and the size would be fine in my room.

For me music is mostly in the mid range, sweet mids and an airy top end is my main concern. I prefer a natural sounding bass, it's there, but not too heavy. I find bass that 'slams' is not what music sounds like, it's a factor of reproduction. Sure it's impressive, but for me it's distracting and not what an instrument sounds like.

 

I once went down to Kef in Maidstone with Ivor Tiefenbrun while at Linn and Richard Small who was still there as head of R&D demonstrated a pair of their speakers that could change the depth of bass from 50 Hz to 20 Hz (I think electronically) - to me at least it improved the 'realism' of the reproduction considerably.

 

Regarding horns, yes they can improve efficiency by improving the coupling (impedance) between diaphram and air but the horn mouth needs to be of the order of half the diameter of the wavelength - which is approximately 1 m at 300 Hz, 3 m at 100 Hz, 10m at 30 Hz so you need a pretty large horn and why Magico's $500k+ one fills half the room - and it also needs DSP (DEQX) to ameleorate the other problems of horns (frequency & phase).

Edited April 18, 2016 by legend

[legend]

Sure, Rod, but shirley anyone who needs to buy small speakers will understand that they need a sub with them, to get good bass?

 

So, putting good bass aside ... does it follow that a smaller speaker will be less efficient than a larger speaker?  I'm thinking of Linn Kans here - which, IIIRC, were tiny and very inefficient!

 

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

 

Hopefully 'yes' they will understand Andy!  But adding a sub successfully to a small speaker is not as easy as it may seem, particularly for music!

 

But 'no' if you ignore bass then a speaker can be made as efficient as the driving force and mass of the diaphram allow.  For electrosatics the driving force is very low and so despite the lowish mass of the diaphram (not all that low over its considerable area) their efficiency is quite low - and has maximum SPLs before arcing.  With 'dynamic' drivers the driving force is caused by coils of wire (voice coil) in a magnetic field and so is dependent on how large you can make these - and the mass depends on the size and materials of the cone (as well as the attached voice coil) with lower being better for efficiency.  There are obviously physical limits to these factors that tend to limit a dynamic driver's efficiency - and cost considerations as in the case of the Linn Kann.  Also efficiency has be balanced (compromised against) other considerations such as linear and non-linear distortions eg do you 'underhang' the voice coil to reduce non-linear distortions at the expense of efficiency - and if you make the cone/dome lighter it will 'breakup' earlier increasing significantly very nasty linear distortions.

Edited April 18, 2016 by legend

[planet10]

 Fundamentally, choosing the amplifier first is dumb. 

 

I disagree. Speaker & amp are a system, they should be chosen to compliment one another, and if you have an idea of the amp you want that is as good a starting point as any. If the OP wants a SE amp he should choose speakers that suit.

 

Choosing an SE 45 amp & wanting a small speaker is not a combo that really goes together. 45s are very low power, and speakers efficient enuff are quite big (if they have bass --hoffman's iron law). If you were nearfield you could get away with it, but in a regular room, likely not so much. How well the amplifier recovers from clipping is also very important, because with an amp this small you are bound to get into clipping.

 

Bumping up the power -- even to something like a 2A3 -- gives quite a bit more versatility. I have been using the Pass ACA amp recently, 6w SS SE but clips very nicely, a quite excellent amp in absolute terms and a spectacular amp when you consider the price.

 

a box 40cm x 50cm deep and 80cm high probably is too big

 

​I would not call that a small box… when someone says small i think 15x25x20 cm or smaller.

 

Usually when i think of a box for a small amp, it needs to be efficient, but probably not as efficient as you think you need if the amp has a benign impedance response (ie usually a speaker without cross-overs). Being a Frugal-phileâ„¢ this usually means a full-range speaker that you build yourself (or have someone build for you). Thinking about the speakers i am familiar with and given the size you want, the Fostex FF165wk (i'd use the tweaked FF165wKeN) can be fitted into 13-20 litre reflex box with reasonable efficiency (a real 92-93 dB) and some bass response. The larger FF225wk fits into a box about 2x that size but needs a tweeter (XO can be simple and fairly benign), but i think the smaller drivers sound better.

 

To get 95dB you usually need to go with a low Q 8" driver that needs a horn to do any bass. The FE206En is an example, 95-96dB, but the small box for it is 32x122x45cm, and the ideal box hits 6' tall.

 

Beware specified efficiency, they are often exaggerated. For instance the 95 dB Visaton B200 measures closer to 89 dB and Audio Note speakers are specced 4-6 dB higher than reality. With anything that has an XO (ie 2-way or 3-way with a large direct radiator bass & horns above) the impedance curve is as important or more important than the rated efficiency.

 

If it was me choosing i'd pick the 2A3 and a set of Alpair 10p (which can be fitted in 13-20L).

 

Of course all this depends on how loud you want to listen, what you listen to, how big your room is, and how close you are to the speakers.

 

dave

[planet10]

Stop squabbling and buy a pair of my small horns...!

 

Andrew, those are not horns, they are undamped TLs (if they are the ones that you have shown the insides of -- a poorly designed one), and probably too small to do a decent job of that even. The FE108e∑ are about 89-90 dB and really need a much larger horn to do any bass.

 

dave

Edited April 18, 2016 by planet10

[planet10]

their efficiency is quite low

 

Mostly due to the fact they look like a capacitor. Power = Voltage X Current X cos(phase angle). Given that with a capacitor that last term is zero, what you have is that typical power amps rated into a resistor put out MUCH less power than rated into an ESL.

 

dave

[Guest atilsley]

Yes Dave, poorly designed and no decent sound...until I played them and the client was amazed.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I disagree.

And you are entitled to do just that.

 

Speaker & amp are a system, they should be chosen to compliment one another

Indeed. And AFTER one has decided on the best speaker to work in the room and with the listener's preferences, one can choose an appropriate amplifier to suit.

 

, and if you have an idea of the amp you want that is as good a starting point as any.

No, it is not. Since loudspeakers, overwhelmingly, determine how a system sounds, choosing an amplifier first is just dumb. Choosing an amplifier rated at (say) 2 ~ 5 Watts restricts one's choice of loudspeakers dramatically. Much smarter to choose speakers first.

 

If the OP wants a SE amp he should choose speakers that suit.

'Want' and common sense may be mutually exclusive. Again, after the speakers have been selected, then a small amp may be suitable. Or not.

 

Choosing an SE 45 amp & wanting a small speaker is not a combo that really goes together. 45s are very low power, and speakers efficient enuff are quite big (if they have bass --hoffman's iron law). If you were nearfield you could get away with it, but in a regular room, likely not so much. How well the amplifier recovers from clipping is also very important, because with an amp this small you are bound to get into clipping.

 

Bumping up the power -- even to something like a 2A3 -- gives quite a bit more versatility. I have been using the Pass ACA amp recently, 6w SS SE but clips very nicely, a quite excellent amp in absolute terms and a spectacular amp when you consider the price.

Bumping up to 6 Watts is hardly a bump. 3dB is hardly worth it.

a box 40cm x 50cm deep and 80cm high probably is too big

 

​I would not call that a small box… when someone says small i think 15x25x20 cm or smaller.

 

Usually when i think of a box for a small amp, it needs to be efficient, but probably not as efficient as you think you need if the amp has a benign impedance response (ie usually a speaker without cross-overs). Being a Frugal-phileâ„¢ this usually means a full-range speaker that you build yourself (or have someone build for you). Thinking about the speakers i am familiar with and given the size you want, the Fostex FF165wk (i'd use the tweaked FF165wKeN) can be fitted into 13-20 litre reflex box with reasonable efficiency (a real 92-93 dB) and some bass response. The larger FF225wk fits into a box about 2x that size but needs a tweeter (XO can be simple and fairly benign), but i think the smaller drivers sound better.

 

To get 95dB you usually need to go with a low Q 8" driver that needs a horn to do any bass. The FE206En is an example, 95-96dB, but the small box for it is 32x122x45cm, and the ideal box hits 6' tall.

 

Beware specified efficiency, they are often exaggerated. For instance the 95 dB Visaton B200 measures closer to 89 dB and Audio Note speakers are specced 4-6 dB higher than reality. With anything that has an XO (ie 2-way or 3-way with a large direct radiator bass & horns above) the impedance curve is as important or more important than the rated efficiency.

 

If it was me choosing i'd pick the 2A3 and a set of Alpair 10p (which can be fitted in 13-20L).

 

Of course all this depends on how loud you want to listen, what you listen to, how big your room is, and how close you are to the speakers.

 

dave

And the sane way to approach it is to choose the speakers first. THEN select the amplifier which is appropriate.

It would be like selecting a set of tyres, then finding a car to fit them.

[davewantsmoore]

Sure, Rod, but shirley anyone who needs to buy small speakers will understand that they need a sub with them, to get good bass?

 

So, putting good bass aside ... does it follow that a smaller speaker will be less efficient than a larger speaker?  I'm thinking of Linn Kans here - which, IIIRC, were tiny and very inefficient!

 

 

In general yes.

 

The law is that you have a zero sum game, between

• Efficiency
• Enclosure size
• Bass extension

Obviously, if you hold the amount of bass extension constant .... then reducing the size will also reduce the efficiency.

 

 

 

I once went down to Kef in Maidstone with Ivor Tiefenbrun while at Linn and Richard Small who was still there as head of R&D demonstrated a pair of their speakers that could change the depth of bass from 50 Hz to 20 Hz (I think electronically) - to me at least it improved the 'realism' of the reproduction considerably.

 

Indeed.

 

If you pass a signal which is flat from DC to high frequencies into a speaker .....  and to comes out not containing frequencies below X.   This is a form of distortion.     The high pass response (and associated phase shift) has moved.      As you noted, output to 20hz is "less distortion", than output down to 50Hz.

 

 

Of course, that says nothing about the quality of the output.    Sometimes it might be better to have no output below a certain level, if that output was distorted (like a lot of bass reproduction is) ...... so like Geoff is saying, sometimes it's down to the compromise we prefer.

 

I strongly believe that if Geoff heard (low) bass which was high performance. he wouldn't describe it the way he did (boomy, artificail, etc.)

 

 

 

 

[planet10]

You have to work hard to make FE108e∑ sound bad, but there are way better boxes to put them in. Yours will have limited bass (extension to maybe 100 Hz) and some ripple in the bass. A millSize reflex box will outdo that "horn". The best box we have heard them in is Aiko (16x130x33cm). F10 ~60 Hz.

 

dave

 

dave

Edited April 18, 2016 by planet10

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I strongly believe that if Geoff heard (low) bass which was high performance. he wouldn't describe it the way he did (boomy, artificail, etc.)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Absolutely 100% on the money.