I've noticed that Wilson speakers, as an example, which have high efficiency specifications, are typically paired with LOTS of power via Levinson or Krell or equivalent. I'm sure you can drive them with small amps, but people seem to want big power anyway.
Coincident Super Eclipse and amp power
The Super Eclipse is marketed as a low-powered, tube-amp friendly design. This is, no doubt, very much true compared to many speakers.
Using the Super Eclipses, I tried the 18/36-watt Manley 300B Retros (in their interim version--after original issue and before the Neo) and the 47 Labs Gaincard-S (50 watt version with double power supplies) and found them both to be under-powered-- especially for large, orchestral music. My room is 16 x 25 feet with large vent-offs at the back, skylights, and heavy, wall-to-wall carpeting.
I am sure the kind of music one listens to influences a lot of this , but I have a sneaky suspicion that the 'Super E's' really like a lot more power than some of the rhetoric surrounding them (and their 92 dB, 14 Ohm rating) would suggest. Am I the only one who thinks that the "Supers E's,' really sound much better with about 95, strong, push-pull, tubed watts (transformer) or about 150, OTL, triode watts?
Using the Super Eclipses, I tried the 18/36-watt Manley 300B Retros (in their interim version--after original issue and before the Neo) and the 47 Labs Gaincard-S (50 watt version with double power supplies) and found them both to be under-powered-- especially for large, orchestral music. My room is 16 x 25 feet with large vent-offs at the back, skylights, and heavy, wall-to-wall carpeting.
I am sure the kind of music one listens to influences a lot of this , but I have a sneaky suspicion that the 'Super E's' really like a lot more power than some of the rhetoric surrounding them (and their 92 dB, 14 Ohm rating) would suggest. Am I the only one who thinks that the "Supers E's,' really sound much better with about 95, strong, push-pull, tubed watts (transformer) or about 150, OTL, triode watts?