How many tube watts for Vandersteen 2's?

Those 35 watts are magical, though Roger would say "nonsense" to that. But I think it would work for you. I owned the Music Reference RM9 Special Edition which was a limited run ($10,000), point-to-point wiring version of the RM9 with a different driver stage than the std RM9s, that put out 162 watts into 8ohms. It was one of the finest amps I have ever heard - the RM10 was good enough to let me sell it, something I never thought I would do. Buy one used, you'll sell it in a few hours if it doesn't work for you in your room - only you can tell. You could also get two and run them in mono for 70 watts/8ohms if you love the sound but just feel the need for more power. Roger had them on sale for $1550 during the recession, might still be able to get them at that price. I use mine with Merlin VSMs which are more sensitive and an easier load, but I run it off the 4ohm tap which drops the power to 27watts (but more current reserve)and it never, ever, seems to be running out of juice. I think Richard recommends 40 watts min with the 2s, but I would trust Trelja's observations (they are tube watts afterall.)

I think the S30 would not be a good match, very different kind of amps in terms of delivering current. I think you would need M60s and maybe even Speltz autoformers to drive Vandersteens with the lower powered Atma-spheres, but expecially the S30 - not ideal, I would think.

Back to your original question though, and already answered, if you like the sound VTLs (what's not to like)85 watts is enough watts:)

I had not noticed this reference on Roger's website before, but somewhat relevant:

"The RM-10 came into being in early 1990, when I noticed I rarely played music above a few watts on my Vandersteen 2C speakers."

Hmmm.

The discount price was never listed on the site, but Roger announced on his Audiocircle forum, and it was confirmed when called 2-3 months ago.

Maybe it was breaking in? I would try the 4ohm tap one more time after it has broken in for a while and you use to the sound of the amp. I'm curious what you think then. A great little amp - isn't it?

Ecclectique, any idea why that would be given Roger's comments on the benefits of "light loading"?

Modjeski comments on his RM10:

"The amplifier is flat within 0.1dB and has low distortion of 0.3% when played below clipping on average level material. At the recommended bias current of 30mA/pair, the idling dissipation is nine watts or 75% of the tubes' rating. I estimate tube life to be 5,000 to 10,000 hours. Although higher idling currents will reduce distortion, it can also be reduced by light loading. Basically, light loading reduces the output current demand on the output tubes, allowing them to be more linear. It also reduces noise, raises damping factor, reduces distortion by 78% and allows for 80% more peak current when needed. The only loss is about 20% of the power rating or 1dB." Light loading means connecting the speaker on the tap that's one half its nominal impedance rating (i.e. the 4-ohm tap for 8-ohm speakers). For 4-ohm speakers, the he recommends running two RM-10s bridged to 70-watt monoblocks.

I prefer the light loading too, but I do wonder why Ecclectique has had a consistent preference with using the 8 ohm tap. That of course can be explained depending on the speaker, but he did say he tried it with Merlin, I'm using the VSMs.

This proabably should be a new thread since it is ain interesting topics, and was interested in what Ralph had to say. Not that OP has gotten his answer, but not sure others would find this topic buried in a Vandersteen discussion.

Not bad for an amp the size of a book - is it? :)

A small book - not Websters Unabridged.

Old Testament only.