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

@grislybutter,

Thank you for the kind words!

Mike

You have to know exactly what you like, something you learn after a lot of experience which usually means you are entitled to a few missteps. I like line source dipoles which limits the search dramatically. Add to that a penchant for ESLs and I am down to just a few choices. 

If you are limited to smaller point source speakers the number of choices can be daunting. If you are looking for speakers that "disappear" you will be more likely to achieve that effect with mini monitors on stands adding subwoofers. The most difficult part of any speaker is the enclosure. It is very difficult to keep any box from becoming a musical instrument, but is much easier keeping a small enclosure from doing same. Just because they are small does not mean they are not capable of prodigious output especially when equipped with subwoofers and a proper 2 way crossover. Everyone should hear Roger's LS3 5As with subwoofers, a jaw dropping experience. 

@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 ;)

I am curious about horns, but I always thought I need space for it, not my 12'x12' room