Is there any truth to this question?

This question frequently relates to what is often known as the 'first watt'. Many amplifiers have a minimum amount of distortion that occurs at more than zero watts- depending on the amp, it might be a couple of watts and then below that distortion increases.

The most common offenders are push pull transformer coupled tube amps that combine single-ended and push pull circuits, and most transistor amps.

There are certain exceptions- Nelson Pass has his First Watt lineup wherein the distortion continues to zero as power is decreased. SETs and certain OTLs share this property. As an example this is how SETs have attained their reputation for great 'inner detail'.

However the larger you make an SET the less musical it becomes due to loss of bandwidth. This is why the 45-based amps have ruled the roost in the SET world in the last few years. Of course, you need a speaker efficient enough to show that off.

So that leaves OTLs and unique transistor designs that can be scaled up without increasing distortion at low power. IME this is borne out in practice, and certainly flies in the face of traditional wisdom (that smaller amps sound better).

Of course, if you are only listening at higher power levels this may not be a concern...YMMV

The Vandersteens are an easy load for most amps (including OTLs); IMO going with a more powerful amplifier is likely not the best move- it will be more likely that the 'first watt' issues will be exacerbated.

If you play the system as loud as you can, does the amp clip? Does it get harsh? might be the better question. If no I would be wondering if its worth worrying about.

This is not to say that you can't make improvements, but maybe that a bigger amp may be a step backwards in your situation.

I have 4 ohm speakers being driven by a 150wpc into 4 ohm amp. Say I never go louder than 3 watts. I should have enough power for all peaks and dynamic events.
Say I then replace that 150wpc @ 4 ohm amp with one rated at 300wpc into 4 ohms. I still listen at 3 watts. Will I have gained anything?

That is sort of the gist of this thread. The answer might best be put in terms of a percentage: that being that your chances are about 90% that you will be going backwards unless there is something exceptional about the amp.

Digital in particular is very challenging for an amp to deliver peaks and transients. I am of the opinion that this has always been a major reason why digital does not sound good to many, ie their amp cannot deliver the peaks and transients accurately to the speakers.

Mapman, I suspect you have a misconception about how digital recording works. Here it is in a nutshell: one of the processes of mastering a CD or other digital file type is something called 'normalization'. The problem is that digital media sounds its best when it uses all the available bits; if the record level was set low during the recording process (which it *has* to be- you cannot exceed 0 VU during recording else the recording is ruined) what we want to do is reset the level so that the highest peak in the recording is set to 0VU.

So there is a certain maximum that all CDs exhibit (this allows you to go from CD to CD without having to change the volume; if you experience otherwise the CD at the lower volume level may not have been normalized). The idea that there are somehow 'peaks' in the recording that go any higher is simply incorrect. In fact an **analog** recording can to that- analog peaks can exist that are quite a bit in excess of the 0VU recording level!

So there is a very different reason why some amps sound bad with digital- it certainly has nothing to do with the level of the recording.

Back On Topic, its obvious that Digepix does not need more power. Sounds like the thing to be doing might be to look for more finesse since power is not so much an issue.

It has more to do with the transients in digital recordings compared to most vinyl. PLaying a record is a physical process involving mass and inertia that inhibits the ability to deliver transients. The fact is historically most vinyl rigs/record players do not handle this very well, although many more modern, high tech and expensive rigs probably do better.

Often or typically the result is a natural and perhaps even pleasant filtering of transients that makes the signal easier for an amp to deliver. The more this occurs, the easier for the amp, often with pleasant sounding results nonetheless.

DIgital involves no physics of mass and inertia.

Another way to describe what you are talking about is raw bandwidth. If you have bandwidth, you also have risetime- the two are related. Most analog has more bandwidth (remember CD4 from the 1970s?) than most digital, in addition most amps have more bandwidth than either analog or digital.

So the transient theory can't explain your observations.

I agree that dynamic range is often a problem- and that clipping on transients is more common that we care to admit. In that regard (IMO) it is the clipping character of the amp that often part of the amplifier's reputation.

My speakers are 98 db/1 watt, and I like to have 140 watt amps to drive them. The amps I am using have more nuance than their smaller brothers so I get away with this, as quite often the meters on the amps indicate that they are making far less than even 1 watt. But it is at the same time nice to not be able to come anywhere near clipping the amps regardless of the source or the volume setting. Certain LPs, like the Soria Verdi Requiem, demand this ability!