Is there any truth to this question?

Amen:)

I have concluded that lower power versions of the same circuit sound better than those iterations with higher power if the power is sufficient to play at a volume you are satisfied with in the room you are using. If we know the watts, the speaker sensitivity, the impedance profile of the speaker, the room size, and the average dbs you listen to in your listening position we can probably guess if the amp is powerful enough - though that does not replace actually listing to it in your room, but a guideline at least. I know that for my speakers, 30-40 tube watts are more than sufficient under almost any circumstances in my 18x12 room - more power would require more amp complexity, and that just never makes sense to me when less power does the job. I've had tube amps from 27 watts to 162 watts, and for my listening it seems power was simply not relevant above 27 watts - and lucky since that lets me listing to EL84 tubes.

listing = listening:)

Digepix, you are not the first person to tell me that the best they ever heard the Vandersteens was being driven by the tiny RM10 - I kid you not. In fact, I think Roger designed the amp when he owned a pair of the 2Ces, it seems he thought 35 watts was enough power!

Sounds like a reasonable start!

Seems like you have a pretty darn good setup as is! As you say, enjoy the music.

I think the power would drop to 27 watts on the 4 ohm tap driving 8 ohms (roughy) - in fact that is the way I use them with the Merlins - light loaded. Lower distortion, less stress on tubes, and more peak power for transients (not sure why, but Roger says it is so).

Since most music is played in the home with I'm guessing 1-3 watts on average, and all that additonal power is needed for handling short term transients, it might certainly explain why you need much lower power from a tube amp compared with an SS amp to play equally loud (why watts aren't watts) - you need a lot more reserve power in an SS amp to avoid the harsheness of SS clipping, while clipping is relatively smooth and unobtrusive with a tube amp - a major difference between the two.

It might explain why Roger Modjeski built himself a 35 watt tube amp, when he could build anything, to drive his 87db Vandersteens and thinking it was sufficient power. I suspect with SS you really do need that extra margin of reserve power to avoid the clipping nasties - fortunately SS watts come alot cheaper than tube watts.

"but, I would certainly given them a try because nothing perks up the sound of dynamically polite speakers like OTLs."

Do they ever!

I think the thread has run its course regarding OP, but the theoretical discussion continues - I'll stand by the position that an amp circuit sounds its best when asked to produce less rather than more power - and if the power thus produce is adequate to drive a speaker, the better we are served. Give me a great sounding speaker capable of 89db or higher, 92-94db or more preferable, then the ability to use as 15-30watts amp makes for audio nirvana. I know, lot's of ifs.....

Unsound, you make a very good point, the Vandersteens might be the last speaker on earth (ok, I'm exagerating)you would use nearfield - with all that time alignment and phase coherecy stuff built into its design ethos. Of course they can still be enjoyed, but not really optimal placement for the way VS works across the line.

And Harbeth makes total sense given the amp and setup - sweet indeed.