Power: Good or Bad

+++ Hey, Paul, who appointed you the arbiter of meaningful information here on Audiogon +++

I did.

+++ The SET amp threw a bigger soundstage, was more warm and full, and had a more ripe bass +++

Yes, you're describing the coloration I mentioned in my previous posts. Ripe bass = distortion.

+++ Which was better? You tell me +++ and +++ I preferred the big SS amp but maybe someone else might have preferred the SET amp presentation +++

Your SS amp is better. (Refer to my prefer post) We both would prefer your SS amp. And yes, there are folks who prefer music with colorations. I distance myself from those folks and their so called “tube sound”; their sound is not tube sound, it is simply distorted sound.

+++ The main point here is that the original poster asked if high powered amps were better or worse than low-powered amps +++

Yes. High powered amps are worse than low power amps. Much worse. However, very few low powered amps are better because they are not deployedcorrectly.

+++ I think it is patently ridiculous to make generalizations on amplifier power sonics when there are so many variables that cannot possibly be kept constant, not least of which is personal tastes +++

That is your opinion and I respect it as such. I do disagree with it.

+++ If it were that easy, only one type of amp would be manufactured. +++ and +++ There is a place for all types of amps, and as always, listening is the final judge.+++

If what was so easy?

1.) Small amps are the very best. That is easy. No black magic in electronics. The more components in the signal path, the less lower level detail. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. That is a fact and it can be measured quite easily.

2.)Deploying small amps to get the best out of them is difficult. Therefore, small amps for the folks that know how, big amps for the folks that don't or couldn't be bothered.

Regards
Paul

As I said earlier, clearly inefficent speakers or/and those with difficult impedance profiles must have lots of power to sound good, and a low powered amp will not perform well. But, a better way of positioning the issue is to assume that we start with an efficient speaker and one with a benign, easy to drive load (my Merlins for example, which "require" 18 watts); under these circumstances I posit that a 30 watt amp will always sound better than a 100 watt amp of similar design and quality parts for the very reasons Pauly states - to create more power, requires more complexity and this will always create more distortion and/or loss of information. I'm not doctrinaire about this (I could be wrong) but it just seems to me that this position makes sense. But there is no doubt that many speakers sound better, indeed require, lot's of power to sound good, some indeed reuire SS to sound good because their impedance curves are so irregular and dip so low that no tube amplifier can handle them. It raises the question as to why some speaker designers build inefficient, impedance challenged speakers. I'm sure there are good reasons because all designs are a selection of tradeoffs. What I am coming to think however, is that these speakers can never take advantage of the very best amplification (i.e., low power, simple circuits).

I agree that if everything else is held constant, like your speaker example, that a low-powered amp would likely sound better. Especially in the case of speakers with high voltage sensitivity and/or a benign impedance curve. But even this is not always true. For instance, some manufacturers use better quality parts in their more expensive offerings. Also, even in this instance, it is arguable what sounds better. Some listeners may like the improved bass or dynamics that the higher-powered amp produces, while others like the tonal purity of the lower-powered amp. I spent a lot of time with some very efficient Von Schweikert speakers at a dealer trying to decide on which Cary SET tube amp to mate with the speakers, ones that used 211's, ones with 300B's, and ones with 2A3's. Even then, the sound was a tradeoff, and even a push-pull BAT tube amp had its merits. I might buy that your speakers may sound better with lower-powered amplification, but in the real world with varying amp manufacturers, associated electronics, speakers, rooms, musical tastes, and sonic preferences, IMO it is too big a generalization. BTW, one of the reasons speaker manufacturers design speakers with low sensitivities and/or tough impedance curves is bass response and also to get a certain tonal balance. But I have been most impressed with many different types of setups, inefficient speakers with big SS amps and very efficient speakers with low-powered amps. Right now I am in the moderately efficient speakers camp with a very powerful SS amp, which is by far the best amp I have heard.

Rlawry:

The SET amp threw a bigger soundstage, was more warm and full, and had a more ripe bass. The big SS amp had far more bass impact, was more transparent and detailed, and had better dynamics. Which was better?

Actually, you answered the question yself: the ss amp was better, in THAT particular APPLICATION.
The amp-spkr interfacing you described indicates this.
As you note, one may or may not prefer the result -- i.e. the chosen compromise -- but that's another story. Cheers

Thank you for your responses. It is really interesting. I'm starting to see more clearly the primary importance of system matching and synergy, and the diffuculty we sometimes get into when we ask "What is the best this or that?", independent of system context - where the amp/speaker interface is so important. The answer is clearly very system dependent. This make answering these types of ("best")questions more difficult, more artful, but that is the nature of the hobby and speaks to the value of a good dealer, trusted audiogon members, etc that are aware that great sound (and tastes may differ) requires more thought and effort then buying the "best" this or the "best" that. A pleasure hearing your thoughts.