Is there any truth to this question?

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.

I have had similarly inefficient speakers, the Magnepan Tympanis, the 3.3s and now the 3.7s. I first heard the Tympanis with an ARC D79 and they sounded wonderful but needed more power. Same thing with the 3.3s and a VAC 65 watt amp.

I switched to a McCormack DNA Power Drive 1 and had much better results although they didn't have the openness and bloom I had come to expect with a tube amp. The 3.7s are driven with an Audio Research VT200 and they need the 200 watts per side.

I would never go back to a smaller amp, no matter how sweet they may sound at lower listening levels.