Dynamics at lower volumes?

Peter Walker's unorthodox opinions are well worth studying. He did not believe in flat speaker response (try his roll off formula by using, say, Audacity to burn an equalized CD). He designed his speakers not to image in the listening room, but to approximate the sound of music coming through an open window.
My favorite was his comment when asked how far our hobby had come towards the actual sound of music. He snapped "about 15%"!

Horn speakers have a greater dynamic range than any other type, not only on the loud end, but also the soft end. Elizabeth's suggestion of the electrostats is the next best choice for soft dynamics.

If you are talking dynamic range - it just can't happen at low volumes. In valid question.

6550c - finally - adherence to a definition - correct. My guess is that what the earlier commenters meant was either (1) that the lowest level of the recorded sound (i.e. the first few seconds of Verdi's Requiem for example) was audible - thereby being able to hear all of the music; or (2) it "sounded" loud (rich, lush, exciting, 'dynamic' or some other subjective term) at low volumes. The first is limited by the acuity of one's hearing. The second was once accomplished by a "loudness button" in consumer recievers (never to be even considered by an audiophile lest consignment to the dungeon). The loudness effect is now accomplished by speakers designed with a non-flat frequency response - so you have the dreaded "loudness button" in all of the time.

Horn based systems deliver clarity, and dynamics at low volume. Some single driver systems are also quite good at low volume. The same can also be said of lower powered triode tube gear, when such gear is also running nowhere near full output. Put the two together and you have the best combination for low volume listening.

I also like electrostatic speakers for low volume listening because of their clarity and ability to clearly convey small volume changes, though they cannot fully benefit from low-powered tube gear.