Only Klipsch is good???

[moodie]

http://www.klipsch.com/customerservice/faqs.aspx?id=282#amp

I hardly see any other speaker comes with sensitivity above 92dB. so, according to the chart.. klipsch speakers need much less power than other???

"The above charts show that the typical speaker with a sensitivity of 88 dB requires 1024 watts just to get to 118 dB! A more efficient speaker (example here is our KLF-30, 102dB @ 1watt/1meter ) requires just 64 watts to hit those levels of live music and Home Theatre."

why other speaker maker never produce high sensitivity speaker?

only klipsch is good?? What is the actual fact???

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Amazing chart, isn't it? Don't confuse decible ratings with quality though. This topic is about efficiency. It is true Klipsch need less power to achieve the same sound pressure levels (spl) as other less efficient speakers. What they aren't telling you is why. Sometimes a well built speaker uses very large magnets that take a bit of power to get them moving. Take woofers for example. You can have a very efficient 12" woofer with a very small 24 oz magnet. It will get loud quickly with little power. Now take a 12" woofer with a massive 80 oz magnet. It will take a lot more power to get that woofer to move, but it will also take a lot more heat, thus it will not melt the coil when played at extreme levels over a long period of time. The larger the speaker, the more power it consumes - and more than likely, the less efficient it is. This is not always the case, but an example of why some speakers are more efficient than others. Another reason for low spl levels is to protect the speaker from damage. Manufacturers who give out warranties can't afford to be replacing drivers all the time. Klipsch are known to blow out more than most speakers, because they are so efficient. I was at a party last year, and witnesses two Klipsch towers blow powered by a Yamaha 1400 receiver. They blew because they were being played for hours and probably with too much distortion. So take the good with the bad. If your receiver is underpowered, go with higher efficiency speakes - but always compare brands because most of the time we aren't listening to our speakers at extremely loud volumes.

 

[Rob Babcock]

There's lots of speakers with a 92 dB/W/m sensitivity, but that spec is certainly not the be-all, end-all statistic. Cerwin Vega and the Infinity SM lines both boast sensitivity specs of well over 100 dB/W/m, but they sound pretty bad compared to your better hi end models.

That said, there are some good reasons for choosing models with high sensitivity; if you have a "flea amp" that you love going the hi output route is pretty much the only way to get satifying volume levels. Many SET fans choose horns for just this reason. The Horne Shoppe makes some, and the Zu Druid is somewhere around 101 dB/W/m, too. I'm sure there's several others I'm overlooking.

BTW, you may also want to look at line arrays. The sound much "louder" than their specs would suggest due to the fact that their output doesn't drop with distance as precipitously as other designs.

 

[zumbo]

It is my experience that a speaker with a high sensitivity sounds good at normal levels. But, cranked up to jamming levels, they loose their detail. But, they are loud. My Cerwins will blow your head off. I liked them in my teenage years. You could run them off just about anything, and they would jam.

But, today I prefer sound quality. I have some of the most inefficient demanding speakers now. They are 4ohm with a sensitivity of 87dB. They are among the highest sound quality speakers I have heard. But, don't try them on a low to mid-fi receiver. You may have to use it for a skillet!

 

[sts9fan]

please explain

Can some one explain what 92 dB/W/m means? what are the implications of a higher or lower db/W/m?

Thanks
Newb

 

[zumbo]

Click on the link in the first thread.

 

[markw]

Great chart about half way down the page...

Click on the link in the first thread.

... but that guy at the top looks like he's got his mind on something other than audio.

 

[zumbo]

I think of Klipsch like this. Think of a person addressing a crowd using just his voice. Not very loud on his on. Now, think of that person with a megaphone. Pretty darn loud. But, his voice no longer sounds normal. It sounds like $*!t.

See the "megaphone" in this pic?

And in this one.

 

[jaxvon]

Now, Zumbo, just because Klipsch uses a horn-loaded design does not mean they'll sound like crap. The reason a megaphone sounds horrible is because the microphone, the amplifier, and the transducer are all garbage. It isn't because of the horn design.

 

[zumbo]

Well, what about a unpowered megaphone.(bullhorn?) Not sure if that is what you call it, but it still changes the dynamic of the sound. Make one with your hands. Changes the sound of your voice. But, makes it louder. Gives it kind of a nasal sound.

 

[jaxvon]

That is true. Point taken. On that note, I really wonder how good an Avante Garde system would actually sound, being all horn-loaded the way it is.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

And the 92Db efficiency of that particular speaker is only good for a 1KHz tone. If you want, for example, to play a 25Hz tone at 92Dbs, you'll need alot more than 1 watt.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Well, what about a unpowered megaphone.(bullhorn?) Not sure if that is what you call it, but it still changes the dynamic of the sound. Make one with your hands. Changes the sound of your voice. But, makes it louder. Gives it kind of a nasal sound.

OK, now remove your vocal cords and replace thm with a 1" silk dome tweeter, sounds different yet again, doesn't it? Of course I jest, but the researchers at Klipsch have been hearing the megaphone/horn complaints for about a century now, if they couldn't make it work they wouldnt sell any speakers at all, or would be using a more typical dome tweeter.

 

[zumbo]

Horn loaded speakers sound different. Some people like that. I don't think they have problems selling, they just have problems selling to me. I was only trying to explain what I hear when I listen to Klipsch or Cerwin Vega. I have owned Cerwins since '85, and I am over that now. Horns are loud, but loud is not what I am after at this stage in my life. They just don't sound natural to me.

 

[Rotarhead69]

I'll chime in hear b/c I own Klipsch - but I use them for my HT system only. I also have Vandersteens running on Conrad Johnson amp for my 2ch setup for comparsion. It all comes down to a total system approach really. You cant just pick a speaker system without it being tied to a particular amp.

I agree that horn loaded system can sound bad (a bull horn is not geometrically the same animal as a speaker horn by the way, the speakers horn continually "slopes" away, a bullhorn doesn't, big acoustical difference) but concider this. I own a Denon 2805 receiver. When I hooked it up the the Klipsch (the reference system - there is a differnce from their other stuff) up they sounded ok. After I ran the auto setup which reequalized the speakers to the room - HUGE diffence - they now sound quite natrual with no sense or "horn" at all - and I DO know what "horn" sounds like.

The reason I got the Klipsch was that the large soundfield made my feel like I was more "in the action" verses watching it. But that is just how I see it.

But it is not correct to say that all "horn" speakers sound like horns. You have to look at the whole system, including room acoustics.

just my 2 cents

 

[zumbo]

I'll chime in hear b/c I own Klipsch - but I use them for my HT system only. I also have Vandersteens running on Conrad Johnson amp for my 2ch setup for comparsion. It all comes down to a total system approach really. You cant just pick a speaker system without it being tied to a particular amp.

I agree that horn loaded system can sound bad (a bull horn is not geometrically the same animal as a speaker horn by the way, the speakers horn continually "slopes" away, a bullhorn doesn't, big acoustical difference) but concider this. I own a Denon 2805 receiver. When I hooked it up the the Klipsch (the reference system - there is a differnce from their other stuff) up they sounded ok. After I ran the auto setup which reequalized the speakers to the room - HUGE diffence - they now sound quite natrual with no sense or "horn" at all - and I DO know what "horn" sounds like.

The reason I got the Klipsch was that the large soundfield made my feel like I was more "in the action" verses watching it. But that is just how I see it.

But it is not correct to say that all "horn" speakers sound like horns. You have to look at the whole system, including room acoustics.

just my 2 cents

Agreed!

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

What if you're listening to brass instruments? Would a horn sound natural then?

 

[Rob Babcock]

Can some one explain what means? what are the implications of a higher or lower db/W/m?

Thanks
Newb

92 dB/W/m would mean a SPL of 92 decibels with one Watt of power measured at a point 1 meter from the speaker. The higher the number the louder the speaker will play with the same amount of power. This is called the sensitivity of a speaker.

Note: this is not to be confused with the efficiency of a speaker. That term is a measure of the amount of input power converted to sound as opposed to heat. People often use one when they really mean the other. In practical terms it's so misused as to almost be irrelevant, but when reading a technically oriented review (like on at AH) you'll generally find the terms used correctly.

 

[zumbo]

What if you're listening to brass instruments? Would a horn sound natural then?

Probably. But I don't do brass. Metal cones might even be better for this.

 

[Rotarhead69]

What if you're listening to brass instruments? Would a horn sound natural then?

no more natural or unatural than a silk dome, titanium, aluminm or any other speaker that moves in a linear in and out fashion to produce sound. A brass insturment does not move in and out to produce its sound. So what is true for a horn is true for any other speakers (for the most part)