the big one: how do you choose speakers? By what features, data?

@grislybutter wrote:

I am curious how the experts choose speakers when upgrading? What are the priorities, what would make you stretch your budget?

Based on e.g....

• brand/company’s reputation
• price
• sensitivity
• crossover frequency
• compatibility with existing amp, etc.?

Hardly speaking as an "expert," but of the above options only sensitivity has some bearing in my considerations. I don’t have the financial means to go "all out," nor would I want to and I don’t believe it’s necessary either. Using one’s ears, an open mind and some common sense there are true bargains to be had in audio equipment, certainly found 2nd hand, and not least looking in segments of gear not typically associated with "hifi."

I place little value in finding that very particular speaker that makes it all come together; to me it’s about the physics of things, horn profiles and their size, a range of known compression drivers, midbass and (sub-)bass horns, their size/principle and fitting drivers. Getting those parameters right can be made across a range of options and is more or less about the pure physics and acoustics of things and, again, size, rather than any brand or über price range.

What really makes it come together is the implementation of these "ingredients" in the specific listening space and with the chosen gear, and going by an active approach here makes this endeavor all the more meaningful and configurable. Having a pair of pre-configured speakers, which all passive (but not necessarily all active) speakers are to my mind defeats the purpose, and this is where "the one and only" speaker is sought for that matches a given acoustic space and its size, not to mention individual taste. Actively and being able to set filter values by yourself this all changes, and even very large horn-loaded speakers can be made to sum and sound excellently at the listening position in small to moderately sized rooms.

I don’t get hung up on brands, price and segment any longer, and over time have come to loath the notion of a secret/elusive/esoteric "sauce" that some manufacturers love to flaunt to make themselves more desirable as a brand. It’s about physics, acoustics, design and implementation - preferably actively configured - and there are different as well as affordable ways to get there. 

@ditusa wrote:

No expert here. The most significant speaker criteria for me would be dynamics, dynamic contrast, and low distortion. As a HiFi enthusiast the speaker specifications I look at are:

1) power linearity:

2) efficiency:

3) dispersion:

4) directivity:

5) nominal impedance and minimum impedance:

6) low frequency response:

7) sensitivity:

Mike

I can certainly relate to most of what you mention here as parameters very much important to me as well. I’d further: ample headroom over the entire frequency range is vital, even through the full SPL envelope one can imagine to ever require. If, say, ~105dB’s peak is the upper limit for typical SPL levels during playback, then add a bunch of dB’s on top of that for what one’s setup should be capable of achieving, at the listening position, to actually have those levels reproduced effortlessly and with low distortion. This is not trivial nor overkill; it’s knowing what it means to the perceived sonics, and appreciating the difference it makes compared to systems that can’t muster the same, if any headroom to speak of at max SPL’s required.

And this brings me to one of the elephants in the room, so to speak: size. Larger size of speakers is an inescapable necessity to achieve prodigious headroom with all that entails - certainly over most of the audible frequency spectrum. What many fail to realize as a rationale behind high sensitivity and large size is the fact that it’s very often, but not always, about headroom and ease of reproduction. It’s convenient, if not downright misleading to simply label large size and high eff. as a means to blast one’s ears off and thereby being an act of crudeness, but in my case (and many others) it’s about how it sounds at levels not dissimilar to what audiophiles generally expose themselves to, and the uninhibited nature of transient and dynamic response this also leads to.

Larger horns, i.e.: making them fittingly larger can also be about having them perform the best over their entire frequency range in maintaining directivity control, achieving the highest efficiency and smoothest frequency response. Some merely believe it’s bonkers, too much, exaggerated, etc., but as is said, and not without merit: the larger the horn the less it usually sounds like a horn. Those who have heard it knows what it means.

Question then is whether some of these larger behemoths given their sheer size are really unfit for smaller to moderately sized listening spaces, and they definitely can be in some respects, but mostly it comes down to lack of implementation and/or elevated SPL’s that saturates the (likely too lively and uneven) acoustic environment. Sonically I’d much rather have a properly sized horn setup in a moderately sized listening room than a horn ditto of smaller and restricted stature to accommodate domestic requirements.

@grislybutter --

Oh, I just scribble this and that ;)