You’re referring to a boutique element of high efficiency drivers that aren’t representative of this segment. Low eff. drivers have their expensive iterations as well, and when you count in the typically larger size of high eff. drivers, bigger voice coils and more magnet material, not least from the more widely accessible pro sector, their pricing compared to low eff. "hi-fi" dittos is actually very fair. Most of these very expensive high eff. drivers are vintage designs of limited production, btw., and it’s not that the production tolerances here are somehow magically "tighter" to reflect and account for the higher pricing.
Tidbit: just going by specs the EV woofers of my main speakers share the 97dB and 22Hz Fs TAD numbers of yours (Fs 21Hz, "broken in"), and I’m guessing they’d have retailed for about 1/10 of $4,000.
@phusis I think the power handling might also be part of the difference in price. My speakers also use a set of field coil powered 15" units, hand made by Classic Audio Loudspeakers that seem well north of the $4k of the 1602s.
Being few of these designs are vintage, or so I suspect, it hardly reflects a strict need for a particular driver-amp type adherence. My guess is many like for horn-based designs to be "toned down" a bit (tubes generally would seem to do just that) so to likely please a former habitual exposition to less dynamically/transiently capable direct radiating and lower efficiency designs.
Horns were used in the old days because tube amplifier power has always been expensive so you had to get the most out of the power you had. The use of controls on these older speakers clearly places them in the Power Paradigm.
I merely implied that context is paramount, and moreover suggested that what you advocate design-wise could as well end up being refuted (i.e.: the ears being the most important and last "judge" of things), not necessarily to say some people wouldn’t like the sound of your amps, but that they may prefer a speaker-amp combo that goes contrary to what you recommend :)
FWIW I'm one of the few that see a direct line between what we measure and what we hear. I'm of the opinion that the implications of what the measurements are telling us are not well understood so people still trot out the old saw of our ears being able to hear things we can't measure. So I'm of the same camp as Daniel vonRecklinghausen.