high power tube amps vs ss


I have always had low efficiancy speakers and had powerfull ss amps to power them. Now I see there are a number of tube amps in the 150 - 200 WPC range. My questions is: is there anything to be gained by switching to these higher power tube amps over ss amps?
winggo
Hello I think most great sounding tube amps are of the 75w per channel or less type. Because these amps drive high SENSITIVITY speakers well.Efficiency and Sensitivity are words that get confused when talking about speakers.Sensitive speakers that are 93db or better are great for tube amps. The higher power tube amps like the Audio Research brand are very good sounding and that would be a real upgrade from most SS amps. But, It depends a lot on speakers to. I use a Tube Pre with a 350w Solid state amp...I like the combo for my dark low sensitive 87db Dynaudio 3.0's. it drives them loud and crystal clear. for me to switch to tube amps I would change to a higher sensitive speaker.(that's a big switch for me though)I dont like Fatigue when I listen for a few hours at hi volume.And with this system I have NONE :-)

Matt M
Totally agree with Grannyring.Tube amps have soul and personality that ss can't touch.
Woah guys, I think my last post was somewhat misinterpreted. First of all by ignorant I just meant ignorant of NOS tubes which I basically am, so I was not being defensive nor did I take offense at anyone's comments. I am sure I could easily be spoiled by NOS tubes but as Charles1dad points out I am happy with my system as it is now. Very happy in fact. Unless anyone feels like donating a quad of super fantastic NOS EL34's to me of course! ;-)
Jond,
Your point was clear.Some NOS tubes are wonderful and justify the premium cost they demand. But you can certainly do very well without them depending on the tube type in question as you have demonstrated.
Regards,
05-10-13: Mattmiller
Efficiency and Sensitivity are words that get confused when talking about speakers.
That is true. But I don't think that the references to efficiency in several of the earlier posts represent unreasonable uses of the term.

Strictly speaking, speaker efficiency would be defined as acoustic power out vs. electrical power in. It would be expressed as a percentage, and would be a very small number for nearly all speakers. It would also be a number that is rarely specified, and that is not particularly helpful.

It is common, though (and reasonable, IMO), for the term "efficiency" to be used to refer to sound pressure level at a distance of 1 meter in response to an input of 1 watt. And for "sensitivity" to be used to refer to SPL at 1 meter in response to an input of 2.83 volts.

2.83 volts corresponds to 1 watt into 8 ohms. So for an 8 ohm speaker "efficiency," per that loose definition, and "sensitivity" would be numerically identical. For a 4 ohm speaker, efficiency per that definition would be 3 db less than sensitivity, since 2.83 volts into 4 ohms corresponds to 2 watts. That difference will have greater significance in the case of a tube amp than a solid state amp, because the power capability of a tube amp into 4 ohms will generally be similar to its capability into 8 ohms, while the power capability of a solid state amp into 4 ohms may be as much as twice its capability into 8 ohms.

On another note, in my previous post when I said:
Another point I would make is that IME a forte of tube amplification tends to be imaging and dimensionality. Although I have no basis upon which to be certain, my suspicion is that that is not a strong point of these speakers, and that potential benefit of tube amplification would likely be wasted on them.
it occurs to me that my wording could be taken more negatively than it was intended, due to my use of the word "wasted." To clarify, my intention was just to say that I suspect that the potential benefit that IMO tube amplification can often provide with respect to imaging and dimensionality would probably not be realized with AR9 speakers. One reason for that suspicion, in addition to its general configuration, is the comment in the review I linked to that the AR9 is designed to be placed close to the wall, which usually results in imaging being compromised to some degree.

Regards,
-- Al