We should reject hard-to-drive speakers more often

I also see this problem kind of hidden in reviews.  Something like this:

Speaker xxx was clearly able to discern the difference between amp A and amp b so it must be very resolving.

It wasn't at all very resolving, or discerning.  It was demanding.

I don't know what percentage of high-end speakers are considered 'hard-to-drive' but I think it's a shame one would want to exclude them simply for watts. You might be missing 'your speaker', disqualifying it needlessly.

These days (like computer memory) good sounding watts don't have to break the bank. There are very good A/B and D amps out there for speakers wanting watts.

Like many (most?) others my system is designed around loudspeakers. To me, they are the single most important component in any musical reproduction system, and the most different sounding, when compared to electronics, especially. (I guess you could design a system around a CD transport if you wanted to take it there.)

But if you did buy hard-to-drive, lean-sounding speakers, huge tube amps might break the bank if that's your only out...  And personally, most all of the extremely high-efficient designs sound a bit too analytical for me. Warming up the sound with a high distortion little tube amp is humorous (and I've owned tubes as well).

I am pretty happy with Dynaudio. I find them OK with 50 Watts.  

Measurements from a reputable source always help. Most makers do not overdo the specifications for fear of either confusing people or scaring them off. It’s just the way it is.

Again it’s a different ballgame these days for those willing to use Class D amps. Freedom of choice rules. That and reliable measurements. The more the merrier. I’ve read of some supposedly easy to drive speakers that turned out not to be. A good rule is the smaller and more bass extended the less easy they are likely to be. Fritz speakers are the ones I know of that go to great extremes to provide an easy load but they are not very “efficient”.

In the literature for his Eminent Technology LFT-8 loudspeaker, designer Bruce Thigpen states he can make his LFT driver any impedance he wants, and chose 11 ohms (when implemented in his LFT-8 loudspeaker, the complete speaker---with dynamic woofer---becomes an 8 ohm load). That’s why the LFT-8 is a better choice for tube amp lovers than Maggies (at least in terms of the issue of impedance). Maggies are a 3-4 ohm loudspeaker, not good for most tube amps (the Music Reference RM-200 being a notable exception). I cite Maggies and the LFT-8 together as both are planar-magnetic loudspeakers.

However, both the ET LFT-8 and Maggies are very low in sensitivity. The older Maggies (.6 series) could be bi-amped, a good way to address low sensitivity: use a brute force amp on the woofer, a refined one on the midrange and high frequency drivers. .7-series Maggies can not be bi-amp, at least not without internal surgery (the crossovers are series, unlike the parallel used in the .6-series). The LFT-8 can easily be bi-amped (it comes fitted with separate woofer and LFT panel binding posts).