Watts, and clarity.

I have yet to see a credible proof of the scissor argument.

And it all kind of depends. I don't think absolute wattage matters so much as output impedance and your speakers.

ESLs are among the most challenging, but some dynamic speakers are really tough too. Some speakers which are rather easy to drive don't require as much muscle and would do almost as well with several modest integrated amps now on the market.

IMHO, for small living rooms, with 86 dB+ speakers, 100 Watts per channel is all you will really ever use, and the quality of the amp will matter much more than the watts.

What IS true is that to double the effective volume, you must multiply the power by 10x. So, buying a 200 Watt amplifier isn't all that in terms of clarity or performance. In fact, it will only be 3dB louder.

The Parasound Halo A23's are great examples of modest power (100 W/ch I think, maybe 120? ) with reasonably low output impedance and quite reasonable, slightly warm sounding amps. I recommend them as a starting point for your listening.

erik_squires"I have yet to see a credible proof of the scissor argument."

You and you're "credible proofs" are so funny always demanding, insisting, and requiring that others deliver to you upon your sole, unilateral, and arbitrary demand "proof" supported by scientific data that you accept or reject at your singular discretion while you insist that lack of credible proof reflects "snake oil" "cons" and other such nonsense. Why don't you go do some testing on you're own and then you will have your answers. 

The math hasn't changes since the 80's.  You should gain 3db every time you double your wattage.  The "perceived" volume will double with an increase of 10db.
Speakers rated at 90db at 1 watt, will put out 93 at 2 watts, 96db at 4 watts, 99db at 8 watts and so on...
There's a lot of arguments out there about 1 watt at 1 meter and how that isn't accurate but it is consistent even though most people do not listen at 1 meter.
Personally, I'm more worried about dynamic headroom.  When you overstress an amp, that will reduce musicality.  Just my 2 cents.

@elevick Good point! 

Among lower priced amps, NAD often touted plenty of dynamic headroom as one of the reasons theirs sounded better than others with comparable power output.

Back to the musicality aspect of the OP's question, IMHE, better parts quality and circuit design have plenty to do with increased clarity. Once you have enough clean power to drive the given speaker to the desired volume, then the devil's in the details and you have to trust your ears. 
Even the simple equation:  X squared = 4 has more than one correct answer! Of course, in online forums, the response containing more than one negative is usually most provocative. ;-) Cheers,
Spencer

"I have yet to see a credible proof of the scissor argument."

Hi clearthink, let me walk you through this with a little more context, especially for those who have no idea what we are talking about.

As I recall, some amplifier vendor claimed that you needed super amounts of power to reproduce the sound of scissors snipping without distortion, which is what I believe the OP alluded to. I believe that based on this the originator claimed 300 Watts was the absolute minimum audiophiles should have.

What I meant to say, without writing a page about it, is that no one has verified this claim. It was 1 vendor making 1 very technical and, if true, easy to prove claim that has become legend. It is not up to me to verify someone else’s proof, and justify their sales pitch.

Because this is from a single vendor, making a rather novel claim, I can’t treat it with a lot of credibility. If I had made this "discovery" believe me that I’d have a paper in the AES journal by now!

Also, note the exact phrasing I used "I have yet to see..." meaning, show me otherwise. I never claimed I knew all of it.

You and you’re "credible proofs" are so funny always demanding, insisting, and requiring that others deliver to you upon your sole, unilateral, and arbitrary demand "proof" supported by scientific data that you accept or reject at your singular discretion

You are unhappy that my standard for credibility is higher than 1 sales pitch? Just how low do you think our standards should really be? Or are you unhappy that this 1 sales pitch got amplified to the point where it has become audiophile lore? Are you unhappy that I mentioned to the OP that this is in fact 1 person’s sales pitch, without validation? Should I have let the OP go on his merry journey buying amps without this information?

We should all have the luxury of enjoying our music and equipment aesthetically without the need to rely on false or unproven claims. If lore comes up that can’t stand up to scrutiny, it should be pointed out.

while you insist that lack of credible proof reflects "snake oil" "cons" and other such nonsense. Why don’t you go do some testing on you’re own and then you will have your answers.

Please show me where I have made this exact argument. Or even where I make an allusion to this. Nowhere in my original reply to the OP do I use these words or make those claims. In fact, the best way to refute me would have been to post a link to an article from a reputable source, and say "Erik, you didn’t see this, here you go..."
And no, I’m not the fascist you claim. To summarize I say :

• You referenced a legend I have no verification of, and which may not be accurate
• I think 100 watts is a good amount
• I recommend an amp to start with
  

Reading my original reply, I think I’m a pretty swell guy. :)


Best,

E