Every design, no matter how expensive or supposedly uncompromised, involves inherent tradeoffs. What compromise a designer finds intolerable or allowable accounts for some of the differences in products. For example, OTL amps are designed so as to eliminate the need for an output transformer (other designers actually LIKE what transformers do), but, in order to bring down the inherently high output impedance of tubes, a lot of tubes have to be wired in parallel (the high number of tubes is not just to increase output). Other designers might not like having many output devices. I happen to like the way most OTLs sound, compared to other higher power tube designs, so I would say that is a good compromise (the last thing that would come to my mind when hearing a decent OTL is "mucky"--they are the paragon of clarity and speed). In the SET world, there are a lot of purists who would never do parallel tubes to boost power (particularly tricky with SET amps), but, that is one way to increase power (I own, and love a parallel SET amp).
The same thing happens with solid state amps. DarTzeel and several other companies have tried to minimize the number of output devices, and NOT to save money, but for sonic reasons. This company also minimizes use of feedback, at the cost of lower measured linearity, more issues with instability, etc. I have no idea if these design choices account for the sound of their amps, but, I like the sound of the smaller DarTzeel amp I heard. Some designers even find it worth the trouble to avoid using complementary pairs of output devices--there are almost endless number of design choices.
I have NEVER heard an amp that just offered "more of everything" in all systems--and that is just based on my own preference. If you consider that each listener has a different set of priorities, I don't see any single design will every be crowned the undisputed champion.
I suppose there are some speakers that really demand a lot of power, but, as a general observation, I think there are far too many listeners who overestimate the amount of power needed to handle the dynamics of recorded music. Yes, in theory, the dynamic range of a live performance of an orchestra is extremely wide. However, recordings never actually capture that dynamic range;so, if I set my volume level at a reasonable level for softer passages, the peaks will NEVER reach realistic levels and I really don't need a super high reserve of power. For rock and popular music, my own preference is not to listen at "realistic" live volume levels. As I improve my system, I find that I get full sound and enjoyment at lower volume levels. I don't really care about attaining "realism" I go for sound I like (frankly, if my system didn't sound a whole lot better than ANY live amplified venue, I would junk it). As to the example above where the starting point of the analysis was an average level of 20 watts, that is a completely unrealistic starting point for even speakers of reasonably low efficiency. As an average, even a single 86 db/w efficiency speaker, in free field (no room) would be playing at 99 db at one meter (extremely loud). Actually, it would most likely be playing at a lower volume because it would be compressing like mad from overheating.
The same thing happens with solid state amps. DarTzeel and several other companies have tried to minimize the number of output devices, and NOT to save money, but for sonic reasons. This company also minimizes use of feedback, at the cost of lower measured linearity, more issues with instability, etc. I have no idea if these design choices account for the sound of their amps, but, I like the sound of the smaller DarTzeel amp I heard. Some designers even find it worth the trouble to avoid using complementary pairs of output devices--there are almost endless number of design choices.
I have NEVER heard an amp that just offered "more of everything" in all systems--and that is just based on my own preference. If you consider that each listener has a different set of priorities, I don't see any single design will every be crowned the undisputed champion.
I suppose there are some speakers that really demand a lot of power, but, as a general observation, I think there are far too many listeners who overestimate the amount of power needed to handle the dynamics of recorded music. Yes, in theory, the dynamic range of a live performance of an orchestra is extremely wide. However, recordings never actually capture that dynamic range;so, if I set my volume level at a reasonable level for softer passages, the peaks will NEVER reach realistic levels and I really don't need a super high reserve of power. For rock and popular music, my own preference is not to listen at "realistic" live volume levels. As I improve my system, I find that I get full sound and enjoyment at lower volume levels. I don't really care about attaining "realism" I go for sound I like (frankly, if my system didn't sound a whole lot better than ANY live amplified venue, I would junk it). As to the example above where the starting point of the analysis was an average level of 20 watts, that is a completely unrealistic starting point for even speakers of reasonably low efficiency. As an average, even a single 86 db/w efficiency speaker, in free field (no room) would be playing at 99 db at one meter (extremely loud). Actually, it would most likely be playing at a lower volume because it would be compressing like mad from overheating.