Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Jessie, your post catches me thinking about multi-channel driver matching, as well.  I am not familiar with the Fanes, but I wonder if simply throwing more power at them would make them nothing more than louder, so they would then "match" the rest of the system, irrespective of their "native efficiency".  I guess it's a matter of how much difference we're talking, here, but I've noticed over the years that drivers with differing efficiencies typically sound different, in terms of character, if nothing else.  Let's use LF as an obvious example.  One way or another, LF usually requires more power to "match up" in terms of SPL.  And I think that, if we are honest, where we actually find LF, then "servo bass" winds up more or less "attached" to the rest of the spectrum rather than a "natural" continuation.  Conversly, the "best LF" in terms of character generally seems to be the bass that best matches up with the rest of the sytem.  Don't get me wrong; I have heard some truly astounding "bass" coming from "pro" installations burning crazy amounts of power. At the same time, this has never been anything I'd want in my home.

Sorry to put this mostly in terms of LF.  LF is just an extreme - and obvious -  example of what I'm talking about.  The question is actually about level matching and final balancing in a multi-channel system.  It's hard to argue with DSET, for any number of reasons.  But I wonder how far the idea will stretch to cover channel-to-channel efficiency "mis-matches".

My own mental "modeling" these days - spurred by JLH's posts on the "tapped horns" - is tending to use multiple drivers for each frequency range of each channel.  This seems - potentially - to offer the multiple "benefits" of "oops loading" and added efficiency.

Anyway, lots of self-reflective words to ask generally about efficiency versus character in multi-driver HE speakers.

Best regards,
Paul S

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site