When someone tells you it's a $40,000 amp, does it sound better?

On the other hand, with an easier speaker load sans passive cross-overs, not least with speakers more efficient, you have a much better outset with less power needed to accommodate topologically more simple and cheaper amps, while maintaining the same (or more) headroom/SPL envelope. To me at least, that's the better hand to be dealt, while saving you a lot of money. 

The other advantage of easier to drive speakers is the amplifier, regardless of technology, will make less distortion. That will result in a smoother and more transparent presentation, since a lot of that added distortion will be higher ordered harmonics to which the ear is keenly sensitive, and otherwise distortion tends to obscure detail.

@atmasphere wrote:

The other advantage of easier to drive speakers is the amplifier, regardless of technology, will make less distortion. That will result in a smoother and more transparent presentation, since a lot of that added distortion will be higher ordered harmonics to which the ear is keenly sensitive, and otherwise distortion tends to obscure detail.

Absolutely, that's a very important aspect I failed to mention - thank you. And sadly very few speakers made today are 16-ohm load, which it seems is another means to lower amp distortion. Not least also having an amplifier only cover a limited frequency span actively, like freeing it from the lower midrange on down, is a liberating measure to lower distortion. 

The other evening I watched the wonderful special on the legendary Ron Carter, and noticed that his music collection is on CDs played through what looked to be a rather modest stereo system. :)

Ron Carter fancies himself an audiophile:

Ron Carter in Stereophile

I guess he hasn’t seen how crazy things can get. 

@larrykell

Well, Mr. Carter appears to be quite an erudite audiophile! I'm actually not surprised. Thanks for the link.