Low-sensitivity speakers — What's special about them?


I'm building a system for a smaller room (need smaller bookshelves), and I did a bunch of research and some listening. I am attracted both to the Dynaudio Evoke 10's (heard locally) and the Salk Wow1 speakers (ordered and I'm waiting on them for a trial). I have a Rel 328 sub.

Here's the thing — both of those speakers are 84db sensitivity. Several people on this forum and my local dealer have remarked, "You should get a speaker that's easier to drive so you have a wider choice of power and can spend less, too."

That advice — get a more efficient speaker — makes sense to me, but before I just twist with every opinion I come across (I'm a newbie, so I'm pathetically suggestible), I'd like to hear the other side. Viz.,

QUESTION: What is the value in low sensitivity speakers? What do they do for your system or listening experience which make them worth the cost and effort to drive them? Has anyone run the gamut from high to low and wound up with low for a reason?

Your answers to this can help me decide if I should divorce my earlier predilections to low-sensitivity speakers (in other words, throw the Salks and Dyns overboard) and move to a more reasonable partner for a larger variety of amps. Thanks.
8700e65e 845e 4b1b 91cc df27687f9454hilde45
All transistor amplifiers (except class A) have thermal distortions (similar to low sensitivity box speakers). The transistors parameters change with changing of temperature.  
This distortions have inertia. As result you can't fix these distortions by feedback.
Our brain is very sensitive to these kind of distortions. These distortions cause tiresome and decrease enjoyment from listening music.
So, if you use combination of low sensitive  sensitivity box speakers with powerful  transistor amplifiers you get thermal distortions in a square.
As a result, you have a tiring, depressed, suffocating, annoying sound.
I think this combination is the worst delusion of audio industry.
Sadly, most of audiophiles don't understand it. 

@hilde45 .. I should have been more specific. I have a pair of Mark & Daniel Ruby speakers which the manufacturer specs at 82.5 - rather inefficient. The Rubys are a small monitor (2-way design with an AMT tweeter) which puts out a tremendous amount of bass - love them. I’ve run these with numerous amps including a 100 wpc class d and a 110 wpc class a/b. Both amps could drive them to ear-bleeding levels in my room but for late night and early morning listening the drivers simply needed to be played louder than wanted to come alive. I had the same experience with other inefficient speakers as well. Perhaps spending more cash on a bigger/badder (at least 200 wpc) amp would have worked but, ultimately, I chose a different path.

Thanks. I'll try to watch the video. Extended auditions are in order. 
@tomic601 , Happy Valentines Day to you too, sir ! LOL. We all have a story, so I hope my story is interesting, and not too long, so, I apologize. I have stated in many posts, that personal taste, is what this hobby is all about. The arguments between SQ differences folks have, have been ridiculous, as far as I am concerned. The earlier someone finds their cup of tea, the easier it will be to build a system around that, tweak it, get it closer to their ideal. During my childhood ( before 10 ), my dad had a Fisher 500C, Dual 1229 with Shure cartridge, feeding AR3a speakers ( all of which I had acquired after his passing, and just recently sold, very reasonably, to a listener who would enjoy them much more then I ). My dad, wanted to move away from the Fisher, with the onslaught on these ss Japanese receivers, and replaced it with a Sansui 881 Deluxe. At that same time, I had just received my pair of Klipsch Cornwall Verticals from my singing coach / music teacher ( he upgraded to Khorns ), and I used the Fisher, along with an AR table. That was the time, when my ears became " tuned " to the horn sound. I found the AR3’s amazing, do not get me wrong. I became a tweaker, sold and managed at a few audio stores, became a rep for a short time, and then became an independent audio consultant, helping people spend their money on systems. Not everyone liked Klipsch, Altecs, JBL’s, etc, as much as I. I understood the varied differences between all of the speaker designs, and at the same time, I understood the weaknesses. I owned multiple systems, having owned Vandies, Maggies, MLs, DQ10s, Gale 401s ( a wonderfully musical, yet very inefficient speaker ), and so many others, and heard a plethora of others during my travels. Same with the front end gear. Before, and during the intro of digital, I was enamored with open reel tape, which was fabulous, in every sense of the word. I also realized and understood, at an early age, that recorded music, will never sound like real, unamplified music. Once the instrument, or voice, reaches the microphone, it is a done deal. Those listeners who keep changing equipment, like I, underwear, fall under several categories. ( 1 ) Have not found their flavor, ( 2 ) Are looking for a " sound that does not exist ", meaning, very high expectations, ( 3 ) Does not have the auditory expertise in system matching and development, ( 4 ) Have not spent enough money on the equipment, ( 5 ) Have spent too much money on equipment, to the point, they are hearing every weakness of the recordings, which are many, and is why, what they listen to, are only the best mastered, and not necessarily, the most musical, ( 6 ) Does not have a " reference " of music reproduction, to guide them, ( 7 ) Have a serious, neurotic personality, ( 7 ), Can simply, never find happiness in a system / room........There are more, and of course, a combination, of many above. I am not trying to sound like, or appear to be, a know it all ( although to some extent, I do know a few things, lol ). Again, I apologize to all. Enjoy ! MrD.
I would go with the SALK speakers.  When you talk to Jim Salk tell him Larry Edwards from Denver sent you,  His speakers are just incredible.  You will love Jim.