Keihr,
You are absolutely right. Even Sasha reviewer (John Atkinson, I believe) noted strongly that this is most power hungry amplfifier from all Wilson speaker line.
I don;t have Sasha so I don;t want to give any advise - as oppose to these people who states "I don;t have this speaker but..."
I owned Watt/Puppy V and I know more or less what power in right amplifier can do with Wilson's toys. I own now, also not easy (at all !!!) to drive B&W 802 Diamond and despite my love for tube equipment, my Spectrons are the best I auditioned (also I matched them with Joule-Electra "300") but they are not as expensive as other suggested here so will not be tested I am sure.
As a rule, integrated is of low power of even when with high power rms specs is of low or even very low headroom.
Mark Levinson No 33 monoblock was "only" 300 watts rms but weighted more then 400 lbs - so big his power transformer (*and asssociated headroom) was.
Good Luck
You are absolutely right. Even Sasha reviewer (John Atkinson, I believe) noted strongly that this is most power hungry amplfifier from all Wilson speaker line.
I don;t have Sasha so I don;t want to give any advise - as oppose to these people who states "I don;t have this speaker but..."
I owned Watt/Puppy V and I know more or less what power in right amplifier can do with Wilson's toys. I own now, also not easy (at all !!!) to drive B&W 802 Diamond and despite my love for tube equipment, my Spectrons are the best I auditioned (also I matched them with Joule-Electra "300") but they are not as expensive as other suggested here so will not be tested I am sure.
As a rule, integrated is of low power of even when with high power rms specs is of low or even very low headroom.
Mark Levinson No 33 monoblock was "only" 300 watts rms but weighted more then 400 lbs - so big his power transformer (*and asssociated headroom) was.
Good Luck