power reserves

yes. I read Mccormack and NAD amps use the multiple smaller = faster thinking. I was wondering if it sounds better? Why are there 2 schools of thought. It sounds to me that thereis no single formula to getting a good sounding amp.

No. The size or quantity of filter caps is irrelevant. What's relevant is the performance and price (what you like vs. what you can afford) as there are many factors that determine amp performance and many trade-offs are made to meet a price point.

One of the things that cost-no-object reference quality amps use are high slew filter caps, which are four to five times more expensive than off-the-shelf caps for a given size. This will affect the sound in a greater magnitude than the microfarad capacity since its able to charge/discharge faster and have less inductance. So if you only look to size or quantity, you miss the point - better peforming parts make a better product overall.

It's good to have plenty of capacitance available, but not necessarily in the form of the biggest capacitors. For example, Classe had a design philosophy at one point (and perhaps still now) to use many small capacitors, which some listeners felt was the foundation for a more delicate, detailed sound. The idea was that many small capacitors could deliver current when needed and where needed more quickly than a few big capacitors. I am not an electrical engineer, and I don't know if this makes sense, but I do recall reading about it. If true, this would suggest that larger does not necessarily equal better for capacitors.