Power output of tube amps compared to solid states


I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how tube amp power output relates to solid state power output. I've been looking at the classifieds for tube amps and I see lots of tube amps with 50w or 60w output, but nothing close to the 250w output typical of solid state amps.

So I have no idea what type of tube amp is required for my set up, right now I'm using totem forests with a required power rating of 150w-200w at 8ohms. The bass is so powerful on these that I have the sub crossover set to 40hz.

My question is, are tube amps so efficient that 50w from a tube sounds like 150w from a solid state? Or will 50w output from a tube severely limit how loud I can play my speakers? If so, are tubes usually meant to be driving super-high efficiency speakers?

I had previously tried a tube pre-amp with a solid state power amp (both musical fidelity) and didn't like the results because the imaging suffered greatly, even though the music sounded nicer from a distance. Now I want to try a solid state pre-amp (bryston) with a tube power amp (no idea which brand to look at), but I don't know how much power output I need or if it will even be possible with my speakers. Does anyone know what I would require?
acrossley
A bit off topic here, but, if a speaker manufacturer needs to veer from the criterion you use to describe a "decent speaker design" and needs use something other than a higher impedance amp to achieve better results, what's the harm?
Ah, Unsound . . . this is the crux of the matter. Atmasphere and I have actually beaten this horse pretty dead into the ground on other threads . . . again, I'll try to summarize:

On one hand, I feel that one of the most important hallmarks of good engineering is to carefully consider the application, and design the equipment to work at its best within it. So a loudspeaker designer should consider the types of amplifiers that are likely to be driving the speaker, and design so as to acheive the most consistent and best results over the greatest possible number of situations. An amplifier designer should do likewise in consideration of the types of loudspeakers that are likely to be connected to it. If this approach is followed, then if a person buys a "great-sounding amp", and a "great-sounding pair of speakers" . . . then there's the highest likelihood of getting a "great-sounding system".

I also personally feel that if an engineer's preferences for certain circuit topologies get in the way of these goals . . . then the engineer should maybe reconsider their preferences. Expecting a consumer to anticipate the effects of non-standardized technical equipment interface criteria is unreasonable, or at least very unlikely.

On the other hand, Atmasphere feels that benefits of his particular circuit design approach are so great as to tolerate the fact that there will be some inconsistencies in performance depending on the particular application. To me, this is like making wines that can be wonderful and complex, but are inconsistent between vintages . . . the requirement is then on the purchaser to have some sommelier skills to compensate for it.

And it's not that I necessarily have a great many circuit preferences that are contrary to Atmasphere's . . . I love the elegance of good vacuum-tube circuits, I think that there are good applications for well as open-loop topologies, etc. etc. It's just that I would never build and sell an amplifier with such a high output impedance, knowing that inevitabily a certain percentage of the time somebody would connect it to a loudspeaker that's largely incompatible . . . and I wouldn't be happy with the way it would perform under those conditions.
Atmasphere, I'm not sure that many speakers actually necessitate that the partnering amplifier use feedback.
You say that the use of negative feedback contributes to the amp sounding "shouty". I find that ironic, in that "shouty" attribute is one of the most prominent ones that I find so objectionable in the speakers that are usually paired with tubes.
It would appear to me that in some case lower impedance would offer benefits that the speaker designer feels outweigh whatever negatives that tag along.
Again, I suppose this where we disagree. I would suggest that if a speaker manufacturer builds a superior speaker that requires an amplifier with a particular set of parameters to be effective, then so be it, make and use that amplifier. You on the other hand seem to suggest; that I can make a superior amplifier so long as the speaker works within it's parameters. As I feel the speaker/room interface presents the most challenges for the prospective system builder, I would propose; that the speaker be the determining factor in determining an amplifier/speaker interface. You, on the other hand would propose; that the amplifier(s) should be the determining factor in an amplifier/speaker interface. I suppose we have a conundrum, as to just who is seeing the forest from the trees?:-)
Two different recipes that both can produce some very good soup.

Atmasphere's is a more unique recipe I'd say that might deliver some very special results if followed properly.
In the last 20 years the use of SETs has really increased a lot. It has resulted in a lot of speakers that were simply not available 20 years ago. So these days its ten times easier to find a speaker that works with 'current source' amplifiers than it used to be.

Unsound, I can think of three speakers that if you put a tube amp on them, the result will be shrill, and all for the same reason: the amp will not double power as impedance is halved (or conversely, cut the power to 1/2 as the impedance doubles): the B&W 802, the Avalon Isis and the mbl101e. So if you are working with speakers that have similar impedance curves, I can totally see where you are coming from.

BTW the speakers on that short list are all examples of Voltage Paradigm technology, and its been my experience that when you mix Voltage and Power technologies, you will get a tonal aberration; 'shrill' is a common resulting aberration. Several others have been mentioned above, such as the 'wooly bass' that Duke was commenting too.
Atmasphere, I wasn't talking about those kind of speakers. I was talking about horns and others that are supposed to be tube friendly.