Coincident Super Eclipse and amp power

The Super Eclipse is marketed as a low-powered, tube-amp friendly design. This is, no doubt, very much true compared to many speakers.

Using the Super Eclipses, I tried the 18/36-watt Manley 300B Retros (in their interim version--after original issue and before the Neo) and the 47 Labs Gaincard-S (50 watt version with double power supplies) and found them both to be under-powered-- especially for large, orchestral music. My room is 16 x 25 feet with large vent-offs at the back, skylights, and heavy, wall-to-wall carpeting.

I am sure the kind of music one listens to influences a lot of this , but I have a sneaky suspicion that the 'Super E's' really like a lot more power than some of the rhetoric surrounding them (and their 92 dB, 14 Ohm rating) would suggest. Am I the only one who thinks that the "Supers E's,' really sound much better with about 95, strong, push-pull, tubed watts (transformer) or about 150, OTL, triode watts?
I find your post very interesting. I don't have Super Eclipses. But, I just bought a pr of Partial Eclipses (sensitivity 92db, 8 ohms; pwr req. 7-150 watts), for use in a rather smallish room (12'x13') with a Conrad-Johnson Premier 11A tube amp (70w/channel into 4ohms). No power problem here; I can play them as loud as I want, without any hint of under powering.

However, I also own an old Krell KSA-150 (rated at 150w into 8ohms), and out of curiosity I tried the Partials with the Krell. I was amazed to find that the spkrs sound much much better to me powered by the Krell than they do by the C-J. With the Krell, there is pristine clarity, definition and a sense of the presence of pwr, etc. (at all volume levels), that I just don't get with the C-J. This really puzzles me. I expected that since the spkrs' minimum pwr requirement is only 7 watts, when I pair them with a tube amp capable of 10 times the minimum I would hear the very best they can offer. IMHO, not so.
I've noticed that Wilson speakers, as an example, which have high efficiency specifications, are typically paired with LOTS of power via Levinson or Krell or equivalent. I'm sure you can drive them with small amps, but people seem to want big power anyway.
The best i have ever heard the Super Eclipse sound is with Atma-Sphere M-60II.I have spent hours at a local dealer who powers the SE with this amp.I love the sound.
Kalan: I just noticed a new speaker (to me anyway) at the Coincident website. It is named the Victory and specs 97 db A 18+ ohms. It is out of my price range and our cats would kill a pair of floorstanders, but it looks very interesting and does not seem to have side firing drivers. 97db is a big step up.
keep in mind that an amp rated at 100 into 8 ohms only puts out 50 into 16 ohms, so higher impedance speakers aren't necessarily easier to drive to higher levels. OTL amps however generally put out higher wattage into higher impedances.
You may try calling or emailing Israel Blume at Coincident. He's great at responding to inquiries and should have a reasonable explanation/suggestion for you. Good Luck.
Thank you, everyone, for your feed back.

I have heard the Super E's with the Atma-Sphere M-60's and liked them, but much preferred the MA-1 MkII's. (I heard he M-60's in my system and lived with the MA-1's for about three weeks.) Even the MA-1's had a little trouble lending a sense of weight and authority in the bass unless I moved the speakers closer to the wall behind them. Other than that, the Coincident Super E/ A-S MA-1 combination is stunning: fast, tonal/pitch rightness, frequency extension (both low and high), and soundstaging, etc. etc. All very good. None of those 'hifi' elements would matter if it did not sound much like music. With very careful cabling, tubing, and isolation for the MA-1's, the MA-1's powering the Super E's can sound so much like live music that it's spooky.

I had some discussions with Mr. Blume about this power requirement topic when I first bought the speakers. He recommended the Manley Ref 300B Retros and mentioned the 47 Labs Gaincard. The relatively high impedance of Coincident speakers would explain why some Solid State amps may not work well because SS amps generally apply more power with lowering impedance, but I run tubed amps. Mr. Blume is a very busy, accomplished man. My quandary with his speakers may have struck him as an anomaly because I may have unusual requirements. I just could not understand why my experience was so different from his and most of his customers.

Many Wilson speakers do have somewhat high sensitivity ratings, but I think they also have a 4-Ohm nominal impedance. This generally will favor, high powered, solid state amps--as far as I know. I owned the Chapman T7's: 90 dB, 4 Ohm. Although some people drove them with 40-watt 300B push/pull amps, the speakers also loved power! They came alive with the BAT VK500 and the Cary SLM-200's.

I noticed (on another thread) that some Super E users like the ARC VT100. This I can understand.

I also noticed that another Audiogon member bought Mr. Blume's own system (used for demonstrating the Total Eclipse, presumably). Member Sutts stated-I believe-that it used 170 watts on the bass modules of the Total Eclipses with additional amplification for the mids and tweets in a bi-amp config. And the 'Totals' are supposed to be even more efficient than the 'Supers' are. Does this tell you something about how the Super Eclipses really can shine?

I love the Super E's, don't get me wrong. I love them with power is all.
Kalan- I think Israel will respond and clear things up for you. Yes- the bi-amp setup (Altec 170 highly modified triode on bass; highly modified Golden Tube or equivalent on mids/highs) is a great way to go- power requirements more than covered, with the additional benefit of greater sonic purity in mids/highs. However, that's not the only way to go- the Manley route is always a strong receommendation for Coincident, and Leafs is also right- I know who he's talking about with the Atmasphere setup. Perhaps Israel can help shed some light for you- good luck!