I think Johnk missed one of my main points. Perhaps I can restate it as follows.
Speaker design, like all engineering projects, is a complex series of decisions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the various choices available. This can emphasize certain sonic traits at the expense of others, or involve cost or size issues, or limit the suitability of the speaker in terms of placement or the associated equipment required.
Ribbon tweeters, for example, typically have poor vertical dispersion, historically can present distortion issues relative to other designs, and can be challenging to coherently integrate into a system.
All of that said, there are some fine systems with ribbon tweeters that many people think are great. What you have in that situation is a design where the advocates enjoy the strengths of such a system without being sensitive to (or at least bothered by) the weaknesses.
Same thing with higher efficiency designs. Once again we are back to engineering compromises. If the strong points of a design line up with a person's listening preferences, then all is good with the world. However, someone else may value characteristics not available in a high efficiency design (say low bass from a small cabinet where loud volume is not an issue) and will find a different speaker design is a better choice for them.
In summary, one often sees a pattern in audio discussions. There is the presumption that the writer's choices and perceptions are the only credible ones. Anyone who hears differently and prefers other equipment it thought to either lack proper training and education or is just wrong. It is more likely that they simply appreciate strong points of their system that are less relevant to the other person.
Speaker design, like all engineering projects, is a complex series of decisions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the various choices available. This can emphasize certain sonic traits at the expense of others, or involve cost or size issues, or limit the suitability of the speaker in terms of placement or the associated equipment required.
Ribbon tweeters, for example, typically have poor vertical dispersion, historically can present distortion issues relative to other designs, and can be challenging to coherently integrate into a system.
All of that said, there are some fine systems with ribbon tweeters that many people think are great. What you have in that situation is a design where the advocates enjoy the strengths of such a system without being sensitive to (or at least bothered by) the weaknesses.
Same thing with higher efficiency designs. Once again we are back to engineering compromises. If the strong points of a design line up with a person's listening preferences, then all is good with the world. However, someone else may value characteristics not available in a high efficiency design (say low bass from a small cabinet where loud volume is not an issue) and will find a different speaker design is a better choice for them.
In summary, one often sees a pattern in audio discussions. There is the presumption that the writer's choices and perceptions are the only credible ones. Anyone who hears differently and prefers other equipment it thought to either lack proper training and education or is just wrong. It is more likely that they simply appreciate strong points of their system that are less relevant to the other person.