Is there any truth to this question?

Pubul, that brings up a great point. SS isn't necessarily cheaper. New the YBA stuff was over $5K not that I spent that. The RM 10 is $1995, a Rogue Cronus Magnum integrated with 90 watts is $2200. In that regard tubes sound better and better as an option to high powered SS. I'll live with the YBA and save my money and next time I probably buy tubes.

If the sound levels increase and the sound continues to expand in proportion as you turn up the volume, that is a good indicator that clipping is under control.

If the sound stops getting louder in proportion to how much you increase the volume, even if you do not hear obvious distortion, clipping is probably in play.

This applies to any amp, tube or SS, although the audible distortion effects with the tube amp is likely to be significantly less and may seem non-offensive.

You would likely hear a difference in the dynamics and clarity of transients between any two amps, SS or tube, if one is clipping and the other is not, all other things aside, at least with some better and more challenging recordings.

I have 4 ohm speakers being driven by a 150wpc into 4 ohm amp. Say I never go louder than 3 watts. I should have enough power for all peaks and dynamic events.
Say I then replace that 150wpc @ 4 ohm amp with one rated at 300wpc into 4 ohms. I still listen at 3 watts. Will I have gained anything?

That is sort of the gist of this thread. The answer might best be put in terms of a percentage: that being that your chances are about 90% that you will be going backwards unless there is something exceptional about the amp.

Digital in particular is very challenging for an amp to deliver peaks and transients. I am of the opinion that this has always been a major reason why digital does not sound good to many, ie their amp cannot deliver the peaks and transients accurately to the speakers.

Mapman, I suspect you have a misconception about how digital recording works. Here it is in a nutshell: one of the processes of mastering a CD or other digital file type is something called 'normalization'. The problem is that digital media sounds its best when it uses all the available bits; if the record level was set low during the recording process (which it *has* to be- you cannot exceed 0 VU during recording else the recording is ruined) what we want to do is reset the level so that the highest peak in the recording is set to 0VU.

So there is a certain maximum that all CDs exhibit (this allows you to go from CD to CD without having to change the volume; if you experience otherwise the CD at the lower volume level may not have been normalized). The idea that there are somehow 'peaks' in the recording that go any higher is simply incorrect. In fact an **analog** recording can to that- analog peaks can exist that are quite a bit in excess of the 0VU recording level!

So there is a very different reason why some amps sound bad with digital- it certainly has nothing to do with the level of the recording.

Back On Topic, its obvious that Digepix does not need more power. Sounds like the thing to be doing might be to look for more finesse since power is not so much an issue.

Atmas,

No I am aware of all that. Has nothing to do with my argument. I agree why many amps sound bad with digital (compared to vinyl) has nothing to do with the level of the recording.

It has more to do with the transients in digital recordings compared to most vinyl. PLaying a record is a physical process involving mass and inertia that inhibits the ability to deliver transients. The fact is historically most vinyl rigs/record players do not handle this very well, although many more modern, high tech and expensive rigs probably do better.

Often or typically the result is a natural and perhaps even pleasant filtering of transients that makes the signal easier for an amp to deliver. The more this occurs, the easier for the amp, often with pleasant sounding results nonetheless.

DIgital involves no physics of mass and inertia. THe challenges there are different but more solvable with technology as a result. In practice, the results with modern digital is often quite good and the technology to do a good job is not expensive. That was not the case early on with digital. The cost was reasonable but most stereos put together for use with vinyl and tape prior were not up to the task. Today, they are and also for fairly reasonable cost.

Of course I cannot prove any of this but that is my assessment based on my experience and observations over the years nonetheless.

I wonder if the OP should be more concerned about sitting so close to the Vandersteens than the question at hand. The Vandersteens are fine a product and a terrific value, but I doubt one can truly enjoy all the prowess of the Vandersteens at 1.5 meters. I suspect that one would need close to 2.5 meters for proper driver integrating and all the benefits that come from the Vandersteens with such driver integration. If I recall correctly Vandersteen recommends a minimum of 40 Watts per channel for an appropriately place pair of Vandertsteen 2's.