Riddle me this...

How wonderful it would be if all speakers were easy to drive and possessed of high sensitivity, and less power would get us all by. But it seems to me that what some folks are conveniently overlooking in their romantic reveries about the 'golden age' is that most speakers partnered with the lower-powered amps available back then simply could not deliver either the frequency or amplitude bandwidths along with the low distortion, even dispersion, and flat response that we demand from modern speakers. You can't have it all in a speaker design, and I for one will gladly accept the 'moderate' efficiency of most modern speaker designs in exchange for their now-commonplace combination of neutrality, extension, high S/N ratio, smooth power response, dynamic range, and freedom from resonance and breakup effects.

I am not in this hobby in order to pursue any slightly fetishistic agenda pertaining to certain schools of thought concerning equipment design, comfortable nostalgia, or the self-consciously iconoclastic exclusivity of belonging to some tiny 'club' whose members are more discerning than thou. I just want to hear more of the music and less of the means by which it is reproduced. I am well aware of the general lack of correlation between rated amplifier power output and sound quality, but that works both ways - there are many audiophiles who, while professing agreement with that last statement as it applies to lower-powered amps, seem to take it as a matter of faith that there will be a (negative) correlation between sound quality and rated watts in the case of higher-powered amps. Untrue. Low power is no guarantee of superior sound, and high power is no guarantee of either inferior or superior sound. All other things being equal, if a higher-powered design were to envince no overall sacrifice in sound quality at low-to-moderate listening volumes or playing delicate music versus a lower-powered design, I would take the higher-powered option for its predictable superiority at higher listening volumes or with the most demanding material (disregarding for the moment such practical concerns as purchase price, heat production, power consumption, and size and weight).

If it were indeed true as some would have us believe, that there exists a low-powered amp 'sound' and a high-powered amp 'sound', then both of those supposed identifiably different 'sounds' would represent deviations from the truth, and as such the goal should be to engineer amps that don't impose those characteristic deviations or limitations upon the sound (within, of course, the hierarchy of real-world constraints alluded to above). If that goal can be met with greater rather than lesser available power, then there should be no reasons other than the aforesaid practical ones why that capability should not be offered.

And maybe that's just what has happened. Maybe when people talk of 'convergence', what they're really saying is that today, you don't necessarily need to sacrifice anything desirable of your 40w to get your 150w, practical issues aside. And if today's better speaker designs - which most audiophiles will agree are capable of superior all-around performance compared to just about anything comparable available 20 years ago - can make good use of that power, then it is entirely justified. I've lived happily with under 50w, and know I could have been happy with even less if I owned different speakers. But now that I'm in a house with a larger listening room rather than an apartment with a small one, I'm getting even better sound by using 4X the power, and can still bump up against the system's dynamic limitations if I so choose. To those who would advise me to learn to listen at quieter levels I say, I often do - but feel the parameter of amplitudinal fidelity is too often overlooked by audiophiles focused on other (also worthy) sonic qualities, or understandably compromised by various real-world restrictions. But to me, the problem of reproducing recorded piano at a realistic volume without difficulty is just as important as are the challenges entailed in playback which strives to optimize any of the other well-known audiophile wish-list qualities (and probably more important than many).

As Schubertmaniac's list makes clear, maybe we are not losing anything - even for the money (adjusting for inflation) - in today's relatively higher-powered amplifier universe, and really have nothing to complain about (especially considering the modern plethora of SET's available for those who want). It's just possible. And if true, then the seemingly irrefutable evidence concerning the minimal sales of the smallest and least expensive audiophile models (speaking now of conventional SS designs) is completely understandable, as is any manufacturer's decision to either drop or phase those models upward to a higher power plateau.

Sean- for that matter, can we have efficient FULL-RANGE speakers w/out lots of compromise? Compromise that we pay for elsewhere (i.e. amplification, active subs)? I think that the "speaker + sub" scenario typifies it: we need two separate speaker transducers to even APPROACH full-range reproduction. Or, we have to turn to giga$ speakers, some of which incorporate the "sub" part... which of course requires bi-amping at least. I.e. it's not only the watts in one main amp its also often necessary to have TWO amps, even if the one of the two amps comes with the speaker set (but we pay for it, don't we?).
Three of us experimented with a pair of Avanti -- trying to get "the last ounce" of sound out of it. The best result we could achieve required $20k of amplification + another 7k of branded speaker cable. Spare change.

And, what about the upper register -- the harmonics going beyond that 20kHz standard? How much of that can we normally reproduce through our speakers? Despite the wide-band electronics that are available & hi-rez sources, and s/ware that is supposedly available? Little, I bet...

It seems that the kind of reproduction we are driving for here is an excercise in inefficiency -- in a grand scale.

I'd like to put my 2 cents in regarding these last few posts, that have alot of merit in them.

Nothing is perfect, and we will compromise in whatever we get.Like Sean says, it takes surface area and power to move alot of air for high-SPL deep bass response. Like Gregm says, it takes speed and maybe even some unknown things to cover supersonic frequencies, which may affect the listening experience in yet unkown ways. Like Zaikesman says, there is becoming less difference between high power amps and low power, in terms of accuracy, and sound quality.

So again, it comes back to what each individual wants in their system. A person that uses single-drivers and low power amps, like myself, would be foolish to think that he's going to get 125db at 20Hz out of his system. It is not going to happen. Conversely, there are different sacrifices made when someone selects a system that will produce that kind of SPL/freq. As Gregm points out most full range systems require multiple drivers, maybe multiple amps, alot of gain stages, low efficiency drivers, volumetric efficiency sacrifices in the enclosures, possibly equalization, crossover distortions, longer signal path, etc. If these trade-offs are considered to be acceptible for the SPL and frequency extension desired, then that is a fine choice.

But, there is no free ride. You will make sacrifices that accompany your decisions. There are many who think that they can get the sound quality of a good low powered SET, from their Godzilla amplifiers, and this is simply not the case. There are some who think that they can get the SPL and frequency extension of a high-powered SS system from their SET's, and this is simply not the case, either. It is a "pick your poison" situation.

Of course, there are certain applications where there is no choice, such as sound reinforcement for theaters, or stadiums, or hard rockers who must play music at 120db. For all others there is a choice, as far as home reproduction is concerned. The choices made will ultimately define the capabilities of that system.

Unfortunately, the "hyping" of certain products by manufacturers, magazines, or owners, in an attempt to make others believe that there is no sacrifice to be made in owning that product, leads to less-savvy purchasers being mis-led into thinking that they can have it all. Nobody has it all.

Maxgain, I am glad you also joined the discussion.

I, for one, do not let the word "accurate" go so easily.

Why is it that the word accurate always is used to describe sound which is opposite of musical, romantic, lush, or warm? Why is the word "accurate" used instead of threadbare, white, emaciated, etched, sterile, or analytical?

My point is that I would love to see a more accurate use of the word accurate. People who do not favor a more classic tube sound do not have any more right to the use of the word accurate than does the other camp.

I am sorry, but I do not find the sound of the past few years' worth of Audio Research tube amps(I have heard the new design may be a departure from this - trying to win back the tube amp crowd - haven't listened/not sure) to be accurate. I find them all of the things on the other side of the spectrum from that which you deride as not being "accurate". Which doesn't make it any more accurate, just different. In my opinion, in fact, this sound is LESS accurate. To you, this sound is MORE accurate.

We disagree. No problem.

I submit to you, that the goal of an audio component is to make music. Not that I mind a nice set of measurements. But, I think making a voice, saxophone, or drum sound real is closer to MY definition of "accurate" than a component which seems to be a straight wire with gain on someone's test measurement but somehow alters what I know a voice, saxophone, or drum to sound like.

For every one thing someone says is not accurate about a tube amp, there is also at least one thing that is not accurate about a solid state amp.

Trelja, I will try to be more "accurate" in my descriptions, but language is a plyable sort of thing sometimes. It looks to me that we agree much more than we disagree. For one thing we are both in the tube camp. I want amps to have the least sound of their own that is possible,I guess that is what I mean when I say "accurate". As an exapmle, I have worked for ARC dealerships and Conrad dealerships and have owned both. Both are wonderful but different. I just seem to lean tword the ARC house sound if you will. For me the sound of the VT series amp that I own is just about ideal. One the other hand one of the best and what I would consider reference quality systems for the era I have had the pleasure of spending alot of time with used a Premier One and a Three. I used a Premier Three and Four in my own system for some time.Funny thing is for me that my system does more of what that Conrad reference system did right than ever before.(I will state a preference for Vandersteens as well over anything else I have heard)
I have been working for the past year to get rid of some of what to me were colorations(for lack of a better or more accurate phrase) in my system that I felt were perhaps "romantic". We may have a different idea of what that sound is? I have gotten closer to "my" ideal sound than ever before by working these out of the sound. It is more realistic to me. which is my only benchmark as to if my system sounds good. If it can fool me for even a bit into thinking I am there with the live event keeps me listening.

I have been a tube guy since my brother came home from UofM with a Dynaco ST70 and an ARC SP3a1, while I was still in High School in about 75,listening to my Marantz 1060. I toyed with the idea of getting an ARC tatoo,just like the sweaty Harley guys, to give you a look into where I am coming from.