Is there any truth to this question?

02-16-12: Larryi
I cannot think of any speaker that is so inefficient that one would be listening to it at an average output of 30 watts so that a 10 db peak would require 300 watts.

Have you ever made any attempt to measure your power needs objectively or are you guessing? Objectively, 30 watts is not enough power to avoid clipping on music peaks of over 100dB for typical room and speakers though listening levels are not just a function of amplifier power but room reinforcement, room resonances, and room sound absorption all have a significant influence on the power requirements too.

What compromise have you observed with well engineered high powered amplifiers?

In my experience audiophiles under-estimate their power needs.

When I used to sell audio gear back in the 70's, the more powerful amps/receivers in any particular line ALWAYS sounded better on all but perhaps the smallest and most limited speakers. Most lines covered anywhere from 15, 20, 40, 80, 100 120 watts with the various models.

SOme lines sounded better than others at similar power points but a 40 watt amp never trumped a more powerful one with any decent line.

Nothing has changed there in general these days as best I can tell.

I finally answered my own question tonight. I took my 50 w YBA, 100w Krell and 250w Parasound along with a Radio Shack SPL meter and did a comparison. First of all a took the most dynamic cd I own, the soundtrack for "Kansas City" and found that from my listening position I was registering 95 db peaks at the volume I preferred sitting 1.5 m from the speakers in my 10 x 12 room. I'm figuring I'm using 16 watts on the peaks and less than a watt at my normal 80 db volume. I cycled each amp through the system and although I could sense the ease with the Krell and the Parasound I preferred the natural timbre and presentation of the YBA. I realize the YBA was working harder but even so the presentation of the music never changed. The Krell and the Parasound sound like you're shifting gears as you increase the volume. Thanks for all your responses. Doing the swap out was tough from the wheelchair but I guess the only way to decide is to listen for yourself.

When I first got hooked in the mid 90's I went from 100 watts to 300 then finally 500 watts. At each change better sound in all regards. In 2010 when I went from 500 to 1200 watts same thing better sound, and better at low volumes ei. .1 watts. These were and are transistors, maybe its different for tubes but with SS and full range speakers I will except no substitute. There is an ease to the music that I've only experienced with high power,YMMV.

Digepix, I'm very glad you've truly come to find the answer, as it most importantly pertains to you. Considering all the parameters you've mentioned, I'm not surprised that you have found your power requirements to be somewhat modest, and in keeping with the speaker manufactures suggested range. I would caution others not to jump to conclusions about the superiority of low power vs. high power, as the samples used in this case varied in too many other ways.
I'm truly impressed that you were able to do the Herculean endeavor of moving all those amps around, including a 100 Watt Krell(!), all the while in a wheel chair. Too bad Audiogon has removed the e-mail function from this site. Though some of us often disagree, I'm confident that if any of us were in your locale, some would have gladly offered you a hand.
Relax and enjoy. You deserve it.