Low level listening

electrostats are low sensitivity (quads are exceptions) and has superb low resolution.

I have power to spare with my Thor's (Tyler's mid line qualifies in this benifit as well), even though my room is large I listen at low/mid volume. Speaker designs that use Seas drivers are rated as low efficient, like 87, but still a little 40 watt tube amp drives them with full rich sound, vol control between quarter/half power. Its like Star says on the Thiel topic, "nothing that dominates the room both sonically and physically". ...lets see I've got Debussy's La Mer on (a work that has recently been voted by some members over at Gramophone as a bit "over-rated", IOW, "out-dated"...????, I guess they suggest I listen to a Brahms' sym instead..??)...anyway the vol is at 10 oclock...now at 11 oclock. Its at this vol the KT90's show some weakness. A bit of stress shows up, steely sounding , which is why I keep it at 10 oclock, the sound is pure and clean. Also I might add La Mer has very soft passages and great cressendos, these climaxes can resonate through the house in which a cry will follow, "turn down the stereo!!!"...., so 10 oclock serves well. If the KT88's arrived and show up the KT90's in terms of crisper mids, , then I'm gonna wonder why Jadis even stuck the 90's in the JOR in the first place.
Hope I answered some of your question. There is no connection between low sensitivity / low volume being at odds. Also it should be said that the old myth that tubes can not deliver in bass and slam, is just that a myth, and not to be believed. As my little 40 watt Jadis blew out the water my Rotel 100 watts per channel ss amp.

In my experience electrostats and high efficiency speakers do the best job of giving you good clarity and detail at low volume levels.

In my opinion a fullrange electrostat is probably the optimum, but also a fairly expensive approach. A high quality single-driver speaker would probably be a more cost-effective approach.

Multidriver speakers have multiple challenges. Different drivers often have different power compression characteristics, such that the tonal balance of a multidriver speaker can vary with volume level. With low and medium efficiency speakers this level-dependent tonal balance shift is often significant within the volume range encountered in a home system. You may have heard speakers that sound dull at low volume levels, just right at medium to perhaps medium-high volume levels, and bright or even harsh at high volume levels. That's level-dependent tonal balance shift. If you'd like I can explain one of the primary mechanisms behind it. High efficiency multi-driver speakers can have it too, but it generally sets in at higher volume levels than are likely in a home setting.

Personally I place a high priority on low-level articulation even if the speaker is going to be played at high volume levels, because there will still be lots of low-level detail going on. And in my experience a speaker that still sounds good at very low volume levels is less likely to become fatiguing over a long listening session, so I encourage listening at very low volume levels as part of a thorough audition when you're speaker shopping.

Duke

FWIW, I agree with Bartokfan that there is no contradition between successful low level and low sensitivity speakers. Being able to listen at low volume levels has always been a priority for me since I listen late at night after the rest of the family has gone to bed, and all the speakers I've ever owned have fallen into the low sensitivity category.

In my experience, the critical factors to success in low level listening have been resolution, consistency of tonal balance across the frequency range, and ability to resolve microdynamics. Speakers that have worked well for me for late night, low level listening have included: Celestion SL700s, Vandersteen 2Cs, Eidolons. None of these are high efficiency speakers, but all meet the three criteria I mentioned. I've also found that tube electronics help me in low level listening because of their greater resolving capability.
.

I agree with what Duke said. I still say that speakers that have light diaphragms and powerful motors will provide the most detail and will perform better at low levels. Although some electrostatic speakers do not have high efficiency they do have a very light diaphragms and proportionately powerful electro-magnetic force to control the diaphragm.

Then on the other hand, in the area of psychoacoustics, systems that are compressed in their dynamic range would also tend to sound good at low listening levels because the intensity of the loudest sounds is closer to the intensity of the lower level sounds.

I remember that years ago I used to use a dbx compresser/expander to compress my system's dynamic range for lower-level listening. Come to think of it I do that now in my Home Theater system. It is so dynamic that if you leave it at a decent level for dialogue the loud passages will blow you off the sofa. So I normally use moderate compression on my HT receiver, which tames the power peaks a bit and also boosts the low-level sounds so that they are more intelligible. And my family appreciates it too. :)