Is my Amp OK?

Sonic differences between well designed amplifiers are minimal at most. All relevant measurements of good amplifiers show imperfections that are well below human hearing acuity. The only remaining things that matter are the potential for gain mismatch on the input (not infrequent) which can lead to clipping and a harsh (some say lively) sound, clipping of the output because of insufficient power (not an issue in your case) and load sensitivity (not likely with this combination). In short, relax.
The only potential sonic issue is room acoustics  and it will be many many orders of magnitude larger than any minute differences between this and another good amplifier. Of course, if you compare it with an other amplifier you may hear differences, but that will be because many audiophile amplifiers are far worse, even if more expensive.

See my earlier post. Additionally I just checked the output level of your DAC and there is no chance that the DAC's output will clip the Rotel's input. You are absolutely fine with this much clean power.

Of course not.

No speaker is ever better than a decent amplifier. Frequency response of even the best speakers is at best within +/- 2dB for the central part of the spectrum. Good amplifiers stay within 0.2 dB, or even far less. Distortion figures are a similar story.
The explanation is very simple: speakers have mass that can resonate, is slow, behaves in a non linear way etc. Good amplifiers have been sonically perfect for decades, and cannot be distinguished from each other in a double blind test.
See here for the classic and legendary test: http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/Wireless-World-1978/Valves%20versus%20Transistor...
And here for a hilarious one: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
If you google you will find quite a few more.
I personally attended a private demonstration by Quad's designer Peter Walker. He had this set up where you could listen blind to his three famous amplifier designs (using studio master tapes). I thought I could hear a difference, but he just grinned: I had been no better than random. That was a lesson learned.
There are a few proviso's and I have listed those in my earlier post. If those apply, there will be sonic differences because one of the amplifiers does not meet the criterium of 'properly designed and used within its specification'. This is why many tube amplifiers fail the test.
If that is not the case, the perceived sonic differences are the product of level differences (the brain interprets louder as better). For a listening test levels should be kept within 0.2 dB, and that is such a small difference that you can only achieve this with a decent Volt meter (and not with an SPL meter, let alone with a smartphone app). Did you ever see a dealer equalizing levels in the demo room using a Volt meter?

Well, I am a scientist and I cannot accept uncontrolled sighted experiments. There are rules to distinguish fantasy from fact, and in my book alternative facts are just fantasies. So why do people put more faith in their owned flawed experiences than in properly controlled experiments?
As for my own listening experiments, I can refer you to my participaption in Peter Walker's test. For me, that and the many similar experiments that you can read have clinched the argument. I am not an audio hypochondriac.
For years since the 1970's my own gear has consisted of Quad ELS 57 speakers driven by the Quad 33/303 amplifier (periodically refurbished). Some years ago I replaced the ELS57's with the (less efficient) Quad 2805's. Since we had also moved to a larger house with a far larger listening room, the 2x45 watts of the 303 were no longer enough, so I replaced it with a refurbished 2x140 watt Quad 606-2. Interestingly, and predictably, there was no audible difference at lower volumes, but the sound was/is now cleaner at higher volumes - I had been driving the 303 outside its comfort zone. More recently I added a B&W PV1d subwoofer, with Antimode 8033 room equalization. In short, the speaker system is revealing enough to show up any weaknesses earlier in the chain.
My desktop system used to have LS3/5a speakers driven by a variety of smallish amplifiers. Some time ago I replaced the LS3/5as with the far better Harbeth P3ESR mini monitors, and I acquired a completely refurbished 2x100 watt Quad 405-2 power amplifier to drive them (having learned the importance of power). Sufficient power is indeed important, and as I wrote earlier, does make a sonic difference, so I am pondering 2x260 watt Quad QMP monoblocks.
Very recently I bought my son a 2x250 watt Yamaha P2500S for his birthday (he is saving for a pair of Harbeth M30.1s, and currently uses my LS3/5as). Again, as was to be expected, the sound is absolutely fine, and indistinguishable from the Quad 303 that he had borrowed from me before. And for now the power limits of the LS3/5a do not allow him to experience what big power does.
So all in all, a lot of happy listening is going on.

Ah cleeds raises his head again. Do you have experimental data?

Its the method that counts, and what makes science science. Do you have data?

Data are only data rather than factoids if arrived at by proper method. That is not easy, but imperative. What would be your method?
By the way,  I did my classes on the philosophy of science, and I did my 10 hours a week of Latin at school, so no need to impress me.

As for the effect on the high end market, that requires a rather different analysis. The economic theory behind that analysis is that of monopolistic competition, first developed by the late Joan Robinson in her 1933 The Economics of Imperfect Competition. Profits in a full competition market of homogeous goods are quite restricted, and only possible for the most efficient producers who can benefit most from economies of scale. As a result small cottage producers could only survive by persuading their clientele that their products were in fact different. Hence, if you can indeed persuade customers that a particular product is not a homogeneous good but has some unique properties, you have created a monopoly, and increased your profitabilty accordingly. You are no longer competing on price, and your higher manufacturing costs no longer matter that much. All that this requires is a powerful strategy of persuasion, usually attained by large brand advertising budgets, but increasingly also by a blurring of the distinction between editorial and advertising pages in the media (the audio press is a very good example). The internet has magnified the impact of such strategies significantly.
In short, the growth of the small scale high end industry is the product of precisely the fact that the electronic link of the audio chain had become a homogeneous good sold in a very competitive market, with facilties, power etc the only real differences.

Don't wory about cables and power cords. Properly designed electronics do not need any of these snake oil products. Benchmark supply excellent pro audio cables for a modest price, and so do other pro audio companies. Fancy power cords are even more voodo stuff.

It is well respected, measurements here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-eone-ref600m-power-amplifier-measurements
The question is: will you hear a difference (and is that difference an improvement)? My guess is that if you compare them under controlled conditions, you will not hear any difference, and that is how it should be: straight wires with gain.

There is no gain mismatch between the DAC and the power amp (both red book standard).