I'm not suggesting more power is not desirable. I had a Rotel separate amp rated at 2X 60watts. It was a dual-mono design, having basically two mono amps in a single chassis. It could be bridged to put out a mono 180watts. I ran it initially full range to my Vandersteen 1b's. It sounded much better than my old NAD 40w/ch integrated. I had to send one of the Vandy's back to the factory to repair a woofer, and in it's absence ran the Rotel bridged to the one speaker. If I could have swung a second amp, I'd have bought it and ran each one bridged! The main difference was in the bass control, extension and definition. Big difference. But, once I added a powered sub that leveled the playing field........somewhat.

My point, if there was one, is that most people don't realize that at average listening levels, only a few watts are being used the mjority of the time. Only on transients, or peaks, are the reserves called upon. If you double the 1070's power rating to, say, 130watts, 7 channels driven, you only gain what....2-3db?

My Rocket UFW-10 has 500watts. My old PSB had 180watts. The UFW is a 10" sealed sub in a roughly one cubic foot cabinet. The PSB is a 12" ported sub in a box approx. 16" square. The PSB will rattle everything in the room at a lower setting on the volume. The UFW is not as "powerful" sounding at first, but is smoother and has better control and articulation. I guess it takes a lot more power to overcome a smaller driver, cabinet and being sealed vs. ported. So while 500 vs. 180 watts seems like a total mismatch in comparison, it is not all that obvious.

But I agree with you on one thing, Curegeorg(OMG ) For the difference in price from the 1050, I expected a higher power rating too.