We should reject hard-to-drive speakers more often

Good topic, Erik.

A difficult speaker load is created foremost by its passive crossover, more so really than (a purer load) low impedance and low sensitivity as a function of the drivers sans passive XO. Combining higher sensitivity, higher driver impedance (i.e.: 8 ohms minimum, as pointed out by @atmasphere ) with an active approach would be ideal in making the most of both amps and cables, and in effect the sound coming from the speakers with the better, direct amp-driver coupling.

What I don’t get is seeing these complex passive filters in many a high-end segment speaker that really only nurtures the forced existence of crazy expensive amps, and which comes down to the need for them to be more or less impervious to load in the face of steep phase angles and the occasional ultra-low impedance dips in the lower frequencies. All the more reason to go active and start throwing those mega amps under the bus, because actively they wouldn’t be needed any longer.

If indeed there’s merit to the claim of people consciously looking for speakers that are known to be a difficult passive load, for reasons apparently that it’s somehow deemed a desirable trait in a speaker, it would seem a fool’s errand; to my ears difficult-to-drive speakers usually can’t shake off an inherent sensation of them actually sounding like a difficult load, irrespective mostly of any beast of an amp thrown at them, so why bother with such speakers in the first place?

I always wonder that too. I think the original reasons were that the loudspeakers were cheaper and so were the higher powered solid-state amplifiers. But that’s not really true anymore.

Also for cone speakers (generally) just shrink the voice coil and widen the gap and “bingo” you’ve got a much flatter frequency response (and usually less expensive manufacturing cost)

I have tried multiples of pairs of rather low sensitivity loudspeakers.

Dozens of them…not 100’s though (likely BS on anyone having tried 1000’s of pairs lol)

They always leave me dry, but many of friends and family seem to enjoy them so again it’s all subjective.

I’ve got  both types of systems now (one in the basement another in outer building)

For the low sensitivity system I’ll get compliments on how “smooth” or “nice” they sound.
To me I’ve come to take these adjectives as code words for “flat”, un-exciting or “not dynamic”

But it’s the never ending story, and taste can’t be argued.

I just returned a pair of zu audio dirty weekend speakers. Very sensitive speakers.  Tried a pair used Bowers and Wilkins 705s. The original version. Much less sensitive. To my ears, more natural and clear. I don't think sensitivity is an issue at all. Just whether I like the sound.

@brev I get that this was your experience which I don't argue. But the sensitivity of the speaker does matter. FWIW, if you have the standmount version of the 702, its a pretty easy speaker to drive despite being a little less sensitive.

If this were the case about Loudspeakers not the most efficient like  Truly Great speakers like the MBL 111. Omni directional speakers would be ignored , or the Excellent Apogee ribbon speakers from our great audio past , or Maggi Magnetic 🧲 planer speakers .if you have the extra watts  they like and a bit of extra room , they provide very life like reproduction 

of music ,their longevity in Audio is a testament to their popularity with other Audiophiles, myself also  owns Dynaudio speakers That are 86 db efficient ,they sound very good but they too like a few watts to. Bring  them front and center 

we are talking literally a few extra watts to bring out all the low level details , to me a small sacrifice .why don’t Erik state what exactly his Audio system is made up of 

so maybe he can point out what we maybe missing  !!