Is more amp power always better...?

In my experience, the larger the transformer is in the Amplifier, the better it will sound (Solid State).

Class D is a bit different there, but a quality power supply in the Class D is important.

If I have this correct, the larger the transformer, the more current it can deliver (I may be wrong here) - I do know that the Dyn’s that I have are current pigs, and they sound phenomenal with high current amps and lean with lower current amps.

I have heard a lot of class D lately that sound really good.

My next Amp-Go-Round is going to be Purify’s with a tube input buffer stage (If I have that r=terminology correct).

In summery, like an above post stated, ‘Heavy is Good’ - most of the time.

My 2 cents

Better amp is always better - watts are deceiving in my experience.

For example a 80 watt Audio Research Company integrated amp and it shocked me in the dynamics, clarity and powerful bass drive.  It sounded more powerful than McIntosh C462 to me.

I've currently own Moon 860A V2 which is 250 watt amp and it's an upgrade from Moon M400 monoblocks rated at 400 watts.  The 860A V2 has larger power supply (it's a dual mono) and more capacitance capacity and able to reproduce music at a finer level of detail with finesse as well as bass drive.

I agree more power is better though theirs more to understand the power of amp than just the watts per channel.

Amplifier power ratings: WPC in isolation is meaningless , it’s current (amps) that matters.

If your speakers are demanding to drive you’ll need a suitably muscular amplifier to support them.

Don’t look only at the headline power figure - see what happens when the impedance drops to four ohms. If the number nearly doubles, then your amplifier has good high current delivery and will be capable of driving more demanding speakers.

Some designers claim that paralleling multiple output devices to get higher output degrades the sound.  The original Dartzeel amps were based on the philosophy of minimizing output devices (only two were used per channel), but, demands from the market for more than 100 watt/channel made them abandon this philosophy. I don't know if there is any truth to this claim.  But, many years ago I heard two Rowland amps that were very similar in design, but one was rated at something like 50 watts and the other 200 watts per channel.  Both were used to drive somewhat challenging speakers (if I recall correctly, they were Maggies).  At the not extremely loud volume I heard the combinations, I actually preferred the lower powered amp and so did the owner of the store that demonstrated the amp/speaker combination.  Who knows what other factors might have been involved, but, in this case, the lower powered, and cheaper, amp prevailed.  

When coupled to high efficiency speakers, my favorite amps are almost always low-powered tube amps  I currently run a 5.5 watt per channel pushpull pentode amp.  My other amp is a parallel single ended amp that puts out a whopping 6.5 watts per channel   One of my all-time favorite amp is a pushpull triode amp that I think puts out 8 watts per channel, my other favorite is an output transformerless amp (giant four box affair for stereo) that puts out something like 30 watts per channel.