It is pointless to talk about the advantages of high sensitivity in loudspeakers. Everyone understands it and still it is mostly a terra incognito area in audio. There are very few more or less properly performing high sensitivity loudspeakers or drivers, there are very few people who might understand the demands of high sensitivity installations and there are very few solutions in electronic that might be suitable for the demands of high sensitivity...

Anyhow, since I kind of contemplating a sabbatical low sensitively project:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?postID=2500

I keep wondering what makes the low sensitively speaker to sound as higher sensitively.

If for a second forget the loading impedance and inductance curves then still I have witnessed how some low sensitively speakers subjectively sound more dynamic and some sound like a dynamic dead end, regardless this actual numbers of sensitivity.

For instance yesterday I visited a guy who has a quite reasonable installation terminated by contemporary 3-way loudspeakers of near $100.000 price tag. The loudspeakers from my perspective a fraud, a pure invention of audio industry propaganda, have cost of sub $5K, and perform worst then a table radio audio-wise and criminally-horrible musically-wise (I am not kidding).  However, what was remarkable about them that they played with much much much much lower dynamic range then would be expected from their 90dB sensitively. From different perspective what I listen the Big Wilson *** then the remarkable thing happens. The Big Wilsons, despite their 94dB sensitively sound perfectly fine dydmanicly, up to the point when I, with my 110dB sensitivity demands, never experience any dynamic problems with the Big Wilson. Apparently, as least in the dynamic department Wilson does something very correct in their larger models (look below).

So, what is it? I would presume that it is driver but what characteristics of the drivers it important in cone drivers in order be able subjectively miss-present own sensitivity, making it subjectively higher? The force of the flux? The length of the gap relative to the length of the coil? The material of the cone? The Electric characteristic? The mechanical characteristic? Speaker Amplifier interface? The enclosures?... I do not know. Do you?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

*** Big Wilson – is a very specific term that applies ONLY to Wilson Grand Slam, Wilson Alexandria and presumably to the Wilson WAMM (which I did not hear). Under no circumstance should be implied that the above mentioned “dynamic trick” might be performed by the smaller model of the Wilsons. The smaller Wilson s(starting from MAXXes and down) are very poor loudspeakers. In fact, there is a strong tendency of the industry reviewers to mislead public and spread the virtues of the Big Wilsons to the Wilson’s smaller models.  I personally feel that all those Jerry Collianos, Marc Mickelsons, Wes Phillips, Mike Silvertos, Michael Fremes and the rest audio-goodalists are either ignorant and deaf Morons or they participate in a criminal, intentional disinformation of public.

More about the Wilson at:  http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=1509

Rgs,
Romy the Cat