60 watt Rogue Tubes for Vandersteen 3A Signatures

From the Vandersteen 3A Signature website:

RECOMMENDED AMPLIFICATION
100 to 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms.
The amplifier must be stable into a 4 ohm load.

If the manufacturer recommends a minimum of 100wpc, then I'd give that serious consideration.

Agreed! It's been my experience that the old audiophile axiom that one should double the recommended minimum power, holds true much more often than not.

Unsound - power specs for amps are developed under static conditions. Music, however, is dynamic and that is where the difference between SS and tubes becomes evident. In my experience, tube amps deliver more dynamic power and hence sound more powerful in practical music listening than SS at comparable static power specs. This has been a consistent observation over many years and many different ss and tubed amps. Of course there are MANY factors that affect the resulting sound (like power supply, distortion profile of ss vs. tubes, etc) but for sheer dynamic power, tubes seem better to me.

"but for sheer dynamic power, tubes seem better to me."

I'm not sure about dynamic but I do believe a 100 watt tube amp sounds louder than a 100 watt ss amp. I still don't believe 60 watts, tube or ss, is enough to get the best from the 3As.

Wendell

Perhaps into higher impedance loads most tube amps might seem more powerful, into lower impedance loads ss might seem more powerful. According to Stereophile's measurements of the speaker in question, the impedance drops to 2.8 Ohms and the sensitivity was measured at 85 dB/W/M. That drop happens in the bass region, where a bigger cone needs to be moved. Perhaps with speakers like some 'stats the argument might be reversed.