The closest approach: what amplification?

I would like to go back to Stanwal's point, which is an interesting one. Stanwal says that there are actual sound waves, but each of us HEARS different things. In my opinion, the personal experience of what we hear should be irrelevant to the discussion of what makes for a good audio system. The closer I get to capturing actual sound waves, the closer I get to the real experience. Then each of us can focus on different things in the listening experience. In other words, take Mahler fifth symphony. Out of the whole symphony there might be two minutes in which the deep vibrations of low frequencies are dominant. I know some people who love the symphony precisely for these two minutes. That's what they want to hear. Does it mean that for these people a good audio system is one that exacerbates low frequencies? I don't think so.

When I go to the symphony I am acutely aware that where I sit in the hall dramatically affects the experience. Under the balcony the bass is emphasized. Seats far away homogenize the sound. Up close the orchestra really does "image" with the violins on the left etc. At all points, however, the dynamics and the texture of the sound make all reproduced sound seem...well..simplified, flat and lacking in a host of important qualities. I think all of us agree on that. As Peter Walker said, like listening through a window. And a smudged window at that. So, what to do? For years I was in the "straight wire with gain" camp. Often that led to highly detailed sound that nonetheless still managed to get on my nerves! I have slowly migrated to the "are we having fun yet" group. A truly accurate map of the earth would have to be...well....the earth. So since we are of necessity in the simplifying and simulation business, I strive to recreate not the most mathematically complete model, but rather use a bit of trickery to recreate a bit of the emotional experience that draws me to music in the first place.

I hope the OP will forgive for going a bit off topic.
Duke, with re: to "...the answer is to design speakers with as smooth an impedance curve as is practical." Would that be easier to do by lowering the impedance or by increasing the impedance?

Samujohn, I misinterpreted your original post. Excellent points...thanks for clarifying.

Unsound, an across-the-board raising of the impedance curve (a la Speltz autoformer) will usually make a speaker more high-output-impedance-amp friendly, if needed. Redesigning the crossover to smooth out the impedance curve is seldom practical, but in some cases the addition of an external filter to tame an impedance peak (often present in the crossover region) can be beneficial. I would estimate that taking the impedance curve into account in the crossover design phase can more than double the workload, as the designer is trying to simultaneously optimize both impedance and frequency response, and often that which helps one hinders the other.

I like Samujohn's comment:

"I strive to recreate not the most mathematically complete model, but rather use a bit of trickery to recreate a bit of the emotional experience that draws me to music in the first place."

In my opinion the goal is to recreate the perception of the original (or fabricated) event, and focusing on perception is different from focusing on recreating the waveforms. For example, very low percentages of high, odd-order distortion are both audible and objectionable, while very high percentages of second harmonic distortion are inaudible or barely audible, and are not objectionable. I've seen data that indicates 30% second harmonic distortion is statistially inaudible, but it looks bad on paper if the yardstick we're measuring with is THD. A perception-based yardstick has been proposed, but has not found acceptance unfortunately.