Is there any truth to this question?

I have never heard a high powered amp of any sort that was capable of delivering great dynamic contrast at low volumes, detail without an artificial edge, and a truly enveloping soundstage like a very low powered SET amp (10, 45, 2a3 and 300b). But, these kinds of amps have quite limited applications. Where a little more power is needed (anything well over 10 watts) I would look next to an OTL. These amps can deliver most of what a SET can deliver, and in a very critical area (dynamics, liveliness) they are pretty much unmatched. There are some matching issues as well with OTLs, so I cannot say whether any particular one would work well with your Vandersteens. I would certainly give something like the 30 watt Atmasphere a trial.

This is a rough generalization, but, for me, the least appealing kind of amp is a high-powered tube amp with oodles of pentode or tetrode tubes in pushpull operation. A lot of these sound hard and artificially edgy.

I find that many of the better, high powered solid state amps no longer sound particularly grainy, and while none have quite the natural attack (leading edge of the note) of a SET, they are not nearly as edgy as they once were. What I find is that they sound somehow dull, flat and uninvolving unless the volume is cranked up a bit. I've heard some systems (not my own) with certain high-powered solid state amps that sounded reasonably good, but these amps were extremely expensive (Soulution, MBL, and D'Agostino).

I have heard, and liked, some lower powered solid state amps. I think the lower powered Ayre amps sound reasonably good. I particularly liked the First Watt J2 that I had in my system for a week (borrowed from a friend). This 25 watt amp was quite natural sounding once it warmed up. I would not trade in my SET amp for the J2, but, then again, the J2 costs less than one tenth of my SET amp. I would bet that its 25 watts would be enough for the Vandersteens at anything but extremely high volume.

If you want to test whether an amp can deliver enough juice for demanding situations, my suggestion is to find large scale choral works. For some reason, systems will distort (voices become muddled and fuzzy) at what subjectively does not seem to be that extreme a volume level with such works (look for something like Rachmaninov's "Vespers").

All this talk about power, when there is so much more to great sound. Power/headroom is nice for the .001% of the time that the music hits a demanding peak. If one has to make sacrifices in other areas of performance for such ability, is it really worth it?

I think a lot of people vastly overestimate the amount of power they really need because power is the one dimension of performance that can easily be measured and understood.

I like the sound of all of the Vandersteen speakers I've heard. At each price point, they represent great value--well rounded performance, no glaring problems or weaknesses, and a nice musical presentation. For my personal taste and priorities, if there is one area where I would most like an improvement in this line of speakers, it would be in terms of immediacy and "jump" (liveliness and microdynamics--the kind of thing high efficiency speakers tend to be better at delivering). I don't think this is something that is delivered by more power (I want to hear this at lower volumes than at high volume), and the more lively a system sounds, the more one tends to listen at a lower average volume. I have not heard Vandersteens with OTLs, but, I would certainly given them a try because nothing perks up the sound of dynamically polite speakers like OTLs. Atmasphere stated that the Vandersteens were easy to drive so I would expect that his OTL models would be a potential match.

Digepix,

I hardly think that success with the RM 10 goes against common wisdom, at least with respect to the tube crowd. Thirty-five watts is plenty of power for the majority of speakers on the market, as long as one is not playing the speakers at extremely high volume in a very large room. There are also those that think that deep, tight bass is the be-all-and-end-all of musical reproduction and those people, too, might find anything less than 200 watts to be inadequate. The rest of the crowd really don't need that much power.

I am not surprised that you like the sound of the RM 10. A good El 84 amp will have the kind of clarity and punchy sound that would complement something like Vandersteen 2s and 3s. Many of the best bargain tube amps use that tube.

You should ignore "common wisdom" of the high-powered crowd and go with your own experience-- you seem to have clear preferences that are certainly NOT inconsistent with what a lot of others hear. By acknowledging that low-power gear CAN work with your Vandersteens, you expand the possible choices that could deliver satisfaction, at perhaps a substantial savings.

Just a handful of suggestions: Atmasphere's 30 watt OTL, tube amps from Audiospace (Hong Kong), tube amps from Synthesis (Italy), tube amps from DeHavilland, solid state First Watt J2 (25 watts).

I cannot think of any speaker that is so inefficient that one would be listening to it at an average output of 30 watts so that a 10 db peak would require 300 watts.

Yes, with inefficient speakers something more than 30 watts may be needed where one listens at very high average levels as a safe margin to avoid clipping. But, that does not appear to be the practice of the original poster. If that margin came for "free" then of course go with higher power. But, nothing is free--one has to compromise other aspects of performance. Yes, it is possible that a whole new technology may come along and erase most, if not all, of the compromises need to deliver high power, but I've not heard it yet.

It certainly is not, in my experience, Class D switching amps. It is too early to predict where further improvements in that technology will take performance of that technology, so there is hope there, but right now, the amps I heard fall short of the best conventional solid state gear.

It is a matter of personal preference and priority. For me, good performance at low volume levels is a high priority and the ability to deliver satisfying detail, weight, and dynamic contrasts at low volume is more important than high volume performance because I very rarely want to listen at head banging levels.

I know people often do calculations of power needs based on supposed real life concert levels. Those calculations don't reflect practical use of a system. Classical music has a massive dynamic range, so, in theory, a lot of headroom is needed. But, in reality, recordings NEVER deliver the dynamic range of a real concert (probably most listeners would not like a realistic range because the music would be too soft in quiet passages). If one set the volume level at peaks to match concert level peaks, the average level would be unrealistically loud. As for rock music, I hardly need my system to play at concert level to get the juices jumping. If my system did not sound WAY better than any live rock concert and if it needed to be played at anywhere near live concert level to sound good, I would junk it.

I have found that, as my system has improved over the years, I want to listen to it at lower, not higher, volume levels.