Is there any truth to this question?


Will a lower powered amp that can drive your speakers, in your room, listening to the music you like sound better than using a powerful amp to avoid clipping?

Here's the scenario: Use a 50 w YBA amp to drive 86 db efficient Vandersteens in a 10 x 12 room, listening to jazz or

Will a 200 w Krell or such sound better and more effortless.

Some say buy all the power you can afford and others say the bigger amps have more component pairs ie) transistors to match and that can effect sound quality.
digepix
FWIW, there is an old audiophile axiom: that one should start with at least 2 X the minimum power recommendation of the speaker manufacturer. Though a more accurate deduction can be made with more tangible information such as room size, etc.. Surprisingly enough, I've found this seemingly crude rule of thumb to be consistently useful.
Last time I visited with Roger he was using the RM-10 to power his 74 dB ESL loudspeakers. We were listening at a very moderate level in his room and there were no hiccups coming from that amp that I could hear. Sometimes you can be surprised by amp/speaker combinations. I myself would think 100 watts minimum in this case, but the RM-10 easily had enough power, perhaps not to rattle the walls, but definitely comfortable listening.
Regardless of the speaker's sensitivity I have found not driving your amp too hard and having more power and headroom available is a very good thing. In my current rig a highly touted 70 watt tube amp was displaced by a Hybrid amp with 4 times the power. The more powerful amp was not taxed as much, and I think since it was not pushed, just sang with more ease and pleasure.

Extra watts and headroom can be a very good thing especially with large orchestral music and the like. Same is true for solo piano turned up to louder volumes.
Once you have enough power to get to the volume you need, it is more Power supply and current capability, not watts per channel.