Are most budget & mid range amps under-powered?


I've been reading some articles by a speaker manufacturuer about how under-powered most modern amps are for the speakers they have to drive.
The basis was that for "true hifi", a system needs to be able to achieve unclipped peaks of 105dB at the listening position, often about three meters away. For 90dB/Watt @1M speakers like mine, this means I need an amp capable of over 125W per channel, which is a lot more than my NAD 50W/channel amp can manage.
The same peak from 87dB/Watt speakers would need a 250W/channel amp.
Does this sound right to you guys, and does it mean many amplifier manufacturers are under-powering their amps?
carl109
Agree that the speakers are the important part of the equation - I use horns myself, so I don't need to worry about not having enough power.
You reference peaks of 105db but then seem to be loking for an amplifier that can deliver enough power continuously.

A 50wpc amplifier that is well designed should be able to deliver far more power in a short burst than the continuous power rating might indicate.

This is referred to as headroom.
I think the whole story 105dB peak is nonsense. It is just a marketing trick to sell you high powered amps. Musical Fidelity uses that trick often. I am not saying they make bad amps. But I do say most of the time you don't need more then 100watt. Even 50watt should be more then enough for most occasions. Unless you use speakers with low sensitivity and a large room etc.

I sit about 2meters from my speakers and my room is about 25square meter. I don't think I will ever need more then 100watt.

I am not sure at what sound pressure I listen at home but I would be surprised if it went over 95dB peak.