Have you moved away from full range to standmount speakers + subs?

The idea that smaller speakers yield a better soundstage is a misnomer. It’s also a sales line for manufacturers and dealers. If people really knew that the small speaker yields a compromised soundstage and dynamics, they may not buy them. It is possible to get better imaging, however, with bookshelf speakers, but that entirely depends upon which tower speaker is being compared. Better big tower speakers make nearly all bookshelf/monitor speakers sound wanting, especially if they do not have a subwoofer(s) associated. One of the most telling characteristics of larger speakers is their ability to create a sense of scale that smaller speakers cannot.

martin-anderson, your speakers did not magically change their character, that is in relation to other speakers. All speakers can be changed as dramatically as yours. Audiophiles think they have done something particularly wonderful by pairing a more suitable amp. You can do that with any speaker. The precise same degree of change is available to any speaker. It’s not unique to your current one.

You have demonstrated the fact that everyone who argues that speakers are "easy to drive", thus a lower powered amp is sufficient, is literally directing you to achieve poorer performance in several parameters of sound quality. It’s a good thing you didn’t listen to them and tried a more powerful amp. My guess is that you also don’t sense more distortion, but less. Your speakers were being driven weakly, so the bass was insipid, the soundstage not great, and the tonality poorer. Now, you have a more balanced sounding speaker.

I use the Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra Amplifier following the review at Dagogo.com on all speakers, even the very efficient PureAudioProject Quintet15 Horn (reviewed). You bet I put 600wpc on that speaker because it seems like a completely different experience than some pissy 100W tube amp. I have zero interest in such pathetic amplification, which is also noisier than the Legacy amp. Want a downgraded experience? Feel free to go that route. Lower power tube lovers think they’re genius, but they are hearing insipid sound. Whatever.

In regards to pairing your tube amp with easy to drive speaker and subs, you’ll have that same huge spectrum of performance available. There is no assurance that with any given speaker you will love the result. You very likely would have to make a bunch of changes to that rig to optimize it. That’s the way it goes in system building, but it’s fun and worth the effort when you find ideal combinations of gear.

Bottom line: Your desire to use smaller speakers with subs very likely would cause you to lose attributes of larger speaker systems that you would not be able to recreate, and the amp matching would not bring them to you. Feel free to message me to continue discussion, as I currently have the Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 set up with Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs (all reviewed) in a comparison to the King Sound King III electrostatic speaker. When switching between them the attributes of each system are striking.

Keep trying things. You will begin to have your eyes opened to the vastness of the performance spectrum - for any speaker.

phusis, good points! Yes, I concur that when one reaches the far end of the speaker efficiency spectrum that extreme amp power is not necessary. I was thinking of speakers more in the range of 4-8 Ohm and 80 to mid 90's sensitivity. Nice clarification, thank you! 

Over the past week I used three different speaker systems:
1. Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 with Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs
2. King Sound King III electrostatic with same subs at same settings
3. Ohm Walsh Model F with same subs, same settings

All systems used same source, Small Green Computer sonicTransporter with SONORE Signature Rendu with systemOptique; same USB, Clarity Cable Supernatural 1m; same DAC, Exogal Comet with PLUS Power Supply, same amps, Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra, and same cables, Iconoclast Cables and BAV Power Cords. 

Ideally the sub would be dialed in for each, obviously, but my latest interest is hearing each for the imaging and soundstage characteristics pursuant to this discussion. If you wish to argue with me about the method employed, I'm not interested. Build your own systems and do your own direct comparisons to derive your conclusions.   :) 

Wharfedale setup: Quite lovely with the expected density of center image due to dynamic and 3" mid. Even with a very generously appointed midrange and bass driver, it becomes evident that bookshelf speakers are limited by their small cabinets. The driver selection is constrained and the performance level dragged toward the perhaps upper middle of the performance spectrum of HiFi versus the practically limitless drivers and designs of larger towers. There are very good reasons why most manufacturers do not opt for bookshelf systems as their ultimate expression of speaker building. 

King III: Instantly obvious grandiose soundstage which makes the bookshelf's sound stage seem diminished, and with much superior spatial location of performers. The depth of soundstage, the vastness of venue, becomes quite evident. Center image is stretched, obviously, due to the driver type and configuration, however more finesse, fine detail is heard in the center image. Far more consistency across the acoustic plane from L/C/R, versus the hot spot of bookshelf imaging.

Ohm Walsh Model F: It can be surprising to hear how muddled this driver is in comparison to the others. The promotion of these older drivers as having exquisite resolution in comparison to newer technology is simply wrong. Quite a muted mid relative to the others. It becomes obvious that this older driver has serious constraints. The upper end is clean, light, but the midrange on down is hindered, even when carefully double wiring it, as with the others. Here is an interesting point; the vaunted omni sound stage with this speaker is not all that; the King III throws a significantly larger, more voluminous sound stage and with much better cleanness top to bottom. The ohm character is the antithesis of the Wharfedale's immediacy, and the King III masters them both. I would not choose the Model F as a reference speaker. It's just a fun play around speaker for me. The King Sound King Tower omni has superior openness and cleanness. 

One outcome such comparisons is that the audiophile should not think to recreate the performance of a tower by swapping in bookshelf and sub even with a larger bookshelf speaker. Not going to happen unless the largely unproductive goal of recreating the precise set of drivers and crossovers of a tower speaker in two cabinets is pursued. At that point you have largely failed at advancing the system by splintering it. Genre of speaker is crucial to outcome and imo should color the discussion of tower vs. bookhself/sub as much as anything.   

There has been a fair bit of conversation about subs with tower speakers. Big towers do not necessarily need subs, but in terms of macrodynamics they almost always are a boon. However, you will pay a price for slapping additional big drivers into the rig. Coherence will suffer with subs added (No, I do not care about the opinion of those who flog the topic of distributed arrays; they have their own idiosyncrasies, and I am not interested in debating my discussion. BTW, I like Duke Lejune and his idea, and have heard the DBA prior, but see pro/con in all sub setups), so it's a trade off between presence and precision. Imo, not possible to get perfection on both spectrums simultaneously, and trust me, I've tried dozens of times with systems. 

I offer this as an example of what might be expected in direct comparisons between different genres of speaker systems, especially in terms of center image and sound stage. Obviously, particular characteristics will change based on selection of genres of speakers, but I would not expect the framework of the outcome to change.