Looking for first system advice

Here's a pretty forgiving, highly musical combo:
Spendor S3/1p ($1400/$800 new/used, 88-89dB/w), a decent new integrated from NAD ($500?) or used Audio Refinement Complete ($600) and the NAD C541i/542 ($300/400). Add some Canare Starquad speakercables, Blue Heaven ICs, maybe my DIY PCKits (oops!), and those nice Plateau steel 23" stands ($200) and bliss out around $3k. But first I'd spend serious time demoing speakers IN YOUR ROOM, and indeed avoid all lowish efficiency monitors (like the 83dB/w Spendor S3 I purposely substituted with its 1p big brother). So find the speaker that works well, then get a decent newest-design CDP, then an integrated powerful enough to power said speakers bass response IN YOUR ROOM.
And have fun, cause it may take awhile....

1973, since the dB scale is logarythmic, each 10dB increase corresponds with a 10x requirement in amplifier power...simple math illustrates that +3dB requires a doubling of amplifier power; also remember that +6dB corresponds with a doubling of "perceived" loudness, requiring 4x amplifier power.
Most conventional mid/woofers come in around 87-89 dB/w...simple phyxics of the motors' efficiencies and radiating surfaces. In order to coax a flatter, fuller bass response from smallish systems many designers have to "squash" the more sensitive tweeters' efficiencies in order to have a balanced system, relying on big power amps to make up the requirements to drive these "lossy" passive crossover parts (resistors, capacitors and coils). Thus wide bandwidth baby monitors like the S3/5, Dynaudios, etc., will necessarily come in at 82-85dB/W in order to have decently perceived bass response. The same drivers in the same volume cabinets can also be successfully manufactured with considerably higher efficiencies IF low bass performance isn't required...like in a system using sats and a sub. That's why you'll see small monitors also rated up near 88-90dB/w, since efficiency is usually rated at 1kHz...a very forgiving spec....
You can now surmise that if a SECOND mid/woofer is added, the overall efficiency of the same system will rise +6dB. If the tweeter's efficiency is already high enough to match the combined mid/woofs, then a very satisfying twin-woofer system can be had. Similarly, using either a larger box (especially vented), and/or larger, more efficient mid/woofer, will have the same effect. The easiest comparison I can offer are indeed the Spendors I referred to: the small 5" S3/5 sita at 83-84dB/w; the CS3 simply adds a second woofer in a larger, vented cabinet, extending bass response AND increasing efficiency to 88dB/w; the S3/1p uses a larger 6.5" mid/woof in a larger, vented box, with similar results, and contributes partly to why the S3/1p and SC3 are such a successful front "trio" in an HT system. Interestingly Spendor now has a "hotter" S3 SE with a different tweeter, voiced hotter, and presumably with a slightly higher efficiency spec. But almost everyone I know who's heard both in careful comparos prefers the classic S3/5. The SE is just too hot for 2ch stereo out on stands, and needs a sub, so to my mind is really for a brighter HT system instead of high end audio. As well, its price nearly equals the S3/1p, which is ridiculous. Hope all this helps. Ern