|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.62.50
I have often seen the debate that SE guys went to SE from solid state and don't generally go back.
So my questions are as follows:
1) When did you know SE (SET) was the best sound to your ears
2) What amplfier (SS or Tube or both) did you leave in the dust
3) Did the SE or SET amp you went to cost significantly more than the non SE (SET) amp you had before.
For me
1) The first exposure to SET was a kind of blind audition in that I didn't know I was listening to a SET amp and by far it was the best music reproduction I had heard in the last 20 years (at that time) - it was a Audio Note Meishue amplifier at around $8000.
2) I had owned amplifiers from Pioneer, Arcam, Fisher but lots of experience with many highly touted amplifiers from Bryston, YBA, Krell, Meridian, Cambridge Audio, NAD, Rotel, Naim, Sugden, Classe.
3) The Meishue at $8k was more expensive than what I owned at the time but nowhere near as expensive as many of the amplifiers I had a lot of audition time on. So in a sense I found it to be exceptional value - but also costly in that $8k isn't chump change.
Follow Ups:
1A) About four years ago, as a guest at a gentlemen's home I heard his Kronzilla amps driving Focal Grande Utopias. I had never felt so connected to the music. How a few watts could make those giant speakers sound was jaw dropping!
1B) I recently obtained a pair of Mastersound SET 300B monoblocks to power a pair of 100db efficient speakers.
2) The monoblocks trounced my Sonic Frontiers Power 2 SE+ and Bryston 3BST.
3) The new Mastersound amps list at about 2 1/2 times that of the SF Power 2 that was modded.
This is a very old experience ... i've build many amps , high power PP, to match low efficiency speakers ... Finally, had the chance to find A5 VOTTs : I discovered the wonderful matching with SE 71A, 307A, R120 , especially biamped . I've sold all the solid state collecting dust since !
1) The second I heard it but I did get some help from Sound Practices on what to expect. Fi X.
2) Dynaco ST-35, Pilot SA-232, Fisher SA-16, these are still very good amps in my system and needed when I really want to crank-up the rock-n-roll. I'm using Altec Flamenco's.
3) No, I still consider it the best deal going to get you started on the SET route unless you can DIY. With a few extra tubes to play with and a few upgrades I have about $1600 into my fi X.
4) I've been looking for a backup SS amp for a few years now for cheap. Tried the vintage Harman Kardon 430, the JVC Super-A amps, Yamaha M series stuff, Marantz PM amps, etc. Could not live with them even as a backup. Went over to DIY Audio to read up on the chip and class D amps and ended up getting a Topping TA2020 t-amp type amp ($99 plus shipping). This is the biggest no-brainer audio purchase I've ever made. Good spare amp, good for an AV system for watching stuff on PALLADIA.
I heard a pair of Atma-Sphere Music amplifiers back when they were first introduced - maybe around 1991 - at Salon I Audio in "Up North" Wisonsin, and tried to buy them right off the sales floor. The owner, the legendary Bruce Jacobs, refused to sell them to me until I had tried them out at home first with my Maggie 3.1s. He sent them home with me that day and when I hooked them up, I fell in love. I still have them today and will never part with them. They worked great with the maggies, but eventually everything in that system has been upgraded except the amps.
Everything is going to the dogs
When I heard these three amps:
KR Audio Kronzilla monos
New audio Frontiers 845SE monos
Ayon 52B reference monos
Grew up with a Motorola Mono console. SEP EL-84's for treble and Mids, and Push/Pull EL-84's for Bass. With a family and a career that kept me gone a lot i didn't get to be too picky for many years. As my children grew and I had a chance to dig my vinyl back out I realised that with all the stuff I'd heard over the years, I hadn't heard anything better. I have a smal Push/Pull amp right now and it's enough to keep me satisfied, but eventually I will make it back to SE amps.
It is pointless to debate the sound quality of SE vs. PP in the abstract. Both topologies are capable of excellent sound assuming compatible speaker loads. In addition, different people have different listening priorities.
In my system, I have several tube amps to choose from---two pairs of push-pull E-Linear amps with power ranging from 35 to 50 watts, and a set of 46 SE monoblocks which have an output of roughly 1 watt. On my Spendor SP-100s, I prefer the E-Linears; the 46 amps sound surprisingly good but don't have the control, focus and power of the PP amps. However, the 46 amps really shine on my 99db 2-ways with a Jensen 15" and Altec 32 horn driven by 802-8G compression driver. So which amp is better? It all depends on the speaker being used, and my preference in speakers changes depending on the music and my mood.
Here's another example. At last months's Capital Audiofest in DC, two rooms really stood out in my opinion. The first room had Wilson Sashas powered by D'Agostino's new ss amps. Peter McGraths's recordings on this system were simply phenomenal. Incredible dynamic swings, full frequency extension, excellent tonal colors, and spooky transparency.
The second room was about as opposite as one can get. The DejaVu Audio room used vintage Jensen field coil speakers in an open baffle driven by tube electronics using Western Electric iron and other vintage parts. The amps were PP and had 4 watts output. Playing CDs with an Audio Note DAC 5, this combination was, to my ears, the most realistic from the upper bass through the low treble. It was not as neutral or full range as the Wilsons, but somehow equally real in its own way. I suspect that Peter McGrath's uncompressed orchestral recordings would not have sounded nearly as good on this system, but with the right music the Jensen field coils were remarkable.
There were a number of other rooms at CAF with SE amps that didn't sound nearly as good as these two rooms. I guess that's what keeps this hobby so interesting. There are a number of roads that can lead to good sound--PP as well as SE.
It seems the OP was asking when did we decide we prefered SET amps over other topologies. Nothing in his post implied that SET amps are better than PP as a whole, just that he prefered SET. And, this is the SET forum.
I would not say I like SET automatically better every time. I have noticed a general pattern over the last 20 years where I have preferred Single Ended designs more.
It started with the Solid State SET (Sugden A21a). When I was first starting out like most I owned a SS based system - a flagship Pioneer Elite receiver. But it never really sounded very good - I though it was my 95db sensitive horn loaded (mostly 10ohm) Wharfedale Vanguards (based and improved upon E-70s). Trying out another power amp I realized that the speakers were not the problem. So I began looking at amps.
Like most 20 year olds who get in (and before the internet) I browsed review magazines - Stereophile, Hi-Fi Choice, What hi-fi and all of them gave a very good review to the Arcam Delta 290 integrated amplifier (was also the number one selling SS integrated in England - according to one of those Brit magazines.
So I went to the big high end dealer selling it. It was decent enough and then they let me audition the A21a (never heard of Sugden - some small British outfit). Wow I thought it was much better sounding but I could find no information on it (remember before the internet took full flight) so I figured the reviewers are the pros and if the Delta 290 is getting a Class B rating and Hi-Fi Choice and What Hi-Fi rave then maybe it was just the room or my ears playing tricks on me. I bought the Arcam. The Sugden I would hear many times in the future and each time I knew I made a critical mistake.
Then the internet is in full swing - Hi-Fi Choice does blind panel level matched sessions - and the old 1992 version was beating easily all of the new amps it was compared to. One of them chose a Roksan as a super test winner but only based on watts and features as they noted the Sugden sounded the best in the blind sessions.
Forumers then convinced Stereophile to review one - one of their reviewers - John Marks I believe but can't remember noted that it was basically the best amplifier in its class.
Martin Colloms in Stereophile noted that he conducted a blind listening session with some of the best solid state amplifier designers in the business - designers like those from Meridian. All of them making expensive amplifiers and all of them when blind chose an old $100 Radford tube amp (no feedback).
I read forums and wrote tube technology off - look at the measurements after all. I auditioned the Meishu semi-blind not knowing what I heard was a tube amp let alone a SET. None of the SET myths I read about were true - not one. Very deep very tight bass and extended treble and could play very loud. The myth about 2 way speakers with a single eight inch woofer also proved untrue as the dealer was selling massive B&W N801s which on big huge SS power lacked bass, bass weight, and sounded identifiably grainy and artificial. Something in the land of internet was wrong - perhaps a SS maker started the myth and lots of people without hearing it just repeated it and sooner or later the myth becomes a reality. Plenty of people rip a technology but when you dig it is almost always the case they have never heard a good example of the design.
Having been on forums for many years now - it is amazing to me how many people rip a system I say is good and not only have they not heard the system - they have not heard even one component of the system.
There's a guy on another forum who rips SET - hasn't heard one mind you. Same people rip turntables - have not heard a truly good turntable or one for the last 20 years. They have improved - but nope - they know because they heard a 1983 Dual with a $20 cartridge.
These same people who will write the technologies off based on measurements will spend $3000 on solid state amplifiers which measure no better than $300 receivers or used Crown and Hafler amps in pawn shops for $75. So they bought based on "better sound" without any real audible measurement advantage" and then write something else off without hearing it based on the measured performance which clearly stacks the deck against SET and vinyl.
SET measured best at low volume where SS measures worst. but all amps are measured at or near full volume where SS measures best and SET worst.
My CD player actually publishes the wow and flutter measurement - it has no bearing on CD players but used ONLY as a marketing tool to show people how much better it is to vinyl. This despite the fact that pretty much every modern table has wow and flutter below the threshold of human hearing. The analogy is like a camera with 16mega pixels looks so much better than a camera with 4 megapixels. Yes the numbers are a gimmick because if the 4 megapixel is using a massive high quality glass lens it will kick the snot out of the 16 mega pixel with a cheap plastic rubbish lens.
In the late 90's Doc Bottlehead hosted a listening party in his home that turned into a life changing experience for me.
I own some Wright-Sound and Bottlehead gear today but most of my listening is PP gear because I have yet to hear a truly good high efficiency speaker.
Edits: 08/14/11
When a friend demonstrated that my (then) ProAc Response 2 speakers absolutely loved his 6-watt SETs, and then built a pair of 845 SETs that pretty much slaughtered my CJ Response 12s driving Response 3 and Gallo Ultimate speakers, I figured there was more than one way to skin this cat.
I've been using the 845s with Gallo Reference 3 speakers (88 db sensitivity) for 7 years and haven't heard anything yet that I like better. It can be done. Synergy helps.
Thanks Dave, you are correct there are some workable choices.
I have used LS3/5A's and a Sun 2A3 or Wrtight Sound 2A3. A friend had Cary 300B with Harbeth Compact 7 ES 3 sounded great within their limits.
I have not owned or spent real time with a 845.
Someday I hope to find a truly great horn speaker over 100dB.
This is my "Lab" set up: iMac > TubeDAC0.9 > Transcendent GG Preamp > Bottlehead V1.1 > Hsu HB1-Mk2 w/ Hsu VTF3-Mk3
OMG! This is 'only' a dedicated 2.1 system so that I can play with CD rips and the like but it does take my breath away! I throw on a track just to check it out and I find myself listening all the way to the end of the disk, going, wow... I never heard THAT before!
Music came alive! The emotional impact reminds me of the feelings I had many years ago in band and orchestra playing a baritone horn. We would get through one of the Brandenburg Concerto's and look at each other afterwards and sigh... We did it! Without screwing up!
To me, this is, after all, what we try to replicate in some small way the emotional involvement that music requires. It takes a willing participant. One willing to invest in it.
This is not a passive endeavor. If you want to Rock, you had better be willing to Roll!
It did take about 6 months of adjacent room side by side listening. I had John Hogan's first amp, a 6sn7/300b stereo amp. And it took a few additional experiences during that time like going to hear a 60k system and going to a stereophile show or two.I realized this about two days ago when I changed my speakers for the better in one room that I have. What I realized when I put more interesting speakers in a room was that audio sound ranges from the ordinary to the extraordinary. In this one room, I had let the sound slip to a rather ordinary one, but when I switched the speakers the sound went to the extraordinary. Then I took the replaced speakers and moved them to another room where they also changed the sound to extraordinary.
Audio sound is about going to the extraordinary. I realized early on that the amp had the greatest effect on the movement to the extraordinary. In fact, a good amp with good speakers can be sufficient to get an extraordinary sound. The multitude of other tweaks, which can add to going to the extraordinary, isn't all that important in this type of situation.
Other types of amps can also provide an extraordinary sound but to me their magic was not as compelling as what I experienced with SET with certain vintage opts. Some audio sound is alluring but alluring can be deceptive when compared to magic that is like bread and butter to the soul.
Edits: 08/13/11
For me, it was about 6 yrs ago. I'd been hearing about single driver speakers and went to audition a pair at a sellers house. He had them hooked up to some McIntosh MC 60's. I knew the Mac sound, owning their MC2000 and MC275 tube amps. Sounded great. He asked me if I'd like to hear his SET. Sure, I'd never heard one before. It was a Wavelength Duetto. Oh Oh. Something happened that I really liked and hadn't heard before. My best attempt to describe it would be like looking thru an autofocus camera "before" you pressed the af button, then after. Before: You see a tree, you can tell what kind it is, color, size, what's in the background/foreground, all is fine, then you press the af button. After: Oooh, the tree has branches, leaves. Depth of field is more dramatic. I like this.
I bought the speakers and eventually a cheap 2a3 SET integrated. It was the beginning of love affair that still goes on today. Now it's a matter of finding my preferences. I've since owned SETs that have used the 45,2a3,300b,300bxls,845 and 211. Loving the 300b and 45.
Where I'm at currently: I have 3 systems.
One is optimised for SETs (high/flat impedance and good effiency). It uses a custom made (for me, not by me) 2 way with an active x/o. I use a 300b for the mid/woofer and the amp for the ribbon tweeter can take a 2a3 or 45 so I play there a little.
Two uses a pair of SF Guarneris (originals). I use a 300b on them but also rotate a Pass XA30.5 and a Marantz 8b. They all have their strengths. BTW, I did own the newer Guarneri Mementos and the originals at the same time. The originals are much more frienly toward SETs.
Three uses Magnepan 3.6's. Yes, I have used SET's on them. This is long enough so I'll post about this under Paully's reply.
hey-Hey!!!,
Started out with a big Carver PM900 running efficient speakers to ridiculous SPL. Got handed a set of tube amps and decided they( Dynaco Mk.iii ) had potential to eclipse the Carver. Got myself to some listening sessions and heard my first SET amps. Found some things attractive, and applied some effort to PP designs.
SE didn't have enough horsepower. SET w/o NFB has a signal-variable output Z.
So I built better Class A PP designs, and whilst doing so listened to better SE designs. Still no motivation to attempt building my own SE. I can't see finding a SE amp that will convince me; who'd build it?
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
FWIW, after about 10-12 years of living in SET-land, I've pretty much given up on the idea, at least for now. After Wavelength Cardinals, Wright sound Labs 3.5s, 1.5s, Moth 2A3, Wavac 811, Almarro, ASL Leyla, all with very tube friendly speakers, ranging from 93-100 db/watt. All good amps and speakers, but eventually the pluses and minuses just didn't balance out. I've also had some SS and digital amps, and a really good hybrid. Right now I'm using a class A PP amp with 0 Negative feedback. Less compromise, and the plusses outweigh the minuses.
Jack
Edits: 08/14/11
I would say that the positives to SET are really something but I haven't heard a SET that is as good on all types of music as push pull.
Same answer below - speakers that are easy to drive. If a SET amp is not giving you the bass slam and drive or treble sparkle it is one of two things - A) it's not a good SE amp or B) the speakers are no efficient enough and are causing the amplifier to run into distortion which then becomes a fuzz box of mush.
And no - not all horns are easy to drive. High efficiency is far more important than high sensitivity.
----High efficiency is far more important than high sensitivity.
Do please define the difference so that we'll all be talking about the same thing please.
On your A and B possibilities, I've got speakers that play well with SE amps, they've been subjected to enough of them with the amp's owners pronouncing the combination Good I think I can exclude that option.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
High Efficiency is simply a speaker that does not possess low minimum impedance and Audio Note argues that they also should not have high minimum to maximum impedance swings either.
As an example - My speakers are 92.5db sensitive (in corners) 89.5db not in corners) (measured by Hi-Fi Choice) but they never drop below 5ohms nor do they go above 12ohms. My amplifier has a 4 ohm tap making it very easy to drive - easier than a 105db sensitive speaker that drops to 3ohms. The AN J is actually easier to drive than the AN E which drops to 3.6 ohms for a large section of the lower octaves - even though the AN E has a higher sensitivity rating it is harder to drive.
Still the AN J has no problems with bass, bass tightness and control, and the modest 10 watt amp I used (4 undistorted) is never needed past the 11 o'clock position on a full rotation pot. I get deep (sub 30hz) controlled bass at leave the room volume levels.
The Meishu is a 300b and in a much larger room the 8 watt beastie had oustanding grip and the ability to play louder than I am comfortable listening with "I can't believe there is no sub" kinds of bottom end. Granted I don't have a ton of experience with lesser grade amplifiers but to me the synergistic match is important with SE amplifiers. I think the Jinro has more grip than the Meishu but that is a 211 tube thing I believe - as from what I can tell the 300B people seem to find a mellower type - but that's another issue - the Jinro has a ton of command and grip and dynamics and headroom galore. And the AN speakers are not the easiest of speakers - there are even more efficient and more sensitive speakers out there.
"High Efficiency is simply a speaker that does not possess low minimum impedance and Audio Note argues that they also should not have high minimum to maximum impedance swings either."
Do you realize the absurdity of this comment? Just one simple example ought to show you the error of this thought process.
Maggies are probably the most linear load any amplifier will ever see. Are you now proposing that 87dB sensitivity planars are "High Efficiency"?
Granted, no power is lost trying to drive 2 ohm loads, but really?!?!?
I addressed this below - the problem with Magnepan - is that most of the Magnepan owners all yell at me saying you need HUGE SS amplifiers with 150 watts to drive them properly. t I then point out to said Magnepan owners that right on their website they claim to use a 40 watt RECEIVER to drive them just fine. I in fact drove the 1.7 with a Soro - a sub 20 watt SE tube amplifier and got the best results that I have ever gotten from any Magnepan speaker. For $1800 it's quite good - much less impressed by the more expensive models however.
----High Efficiency is simply a speaker that does not possess low minimum impedance
I always thought high efficiency was reserved for things that did a better job of converting input power into output SPL. IIRC there is nothing in the term regarding impedance.
Further, it is quite possible to design and build a speaker that is one Ohm and varies very little around that value while delivering 100dB/1W-1m. Now this would present issues to the usual impedance matching articles with 8 or 16 Ohm matching taps.
Instead of butchering the language, it might serve you better to recognize we don't all like the same things.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
Douglas
> > Instead of butchering the language,
If you think about it it isn't butchering.
Speakers convert electrical power into
acoustical power so when the impedance dips
it is drawing more power and so it is
less efficient than another speaker of
the same sensitivity with flat impedance.
DanL
----so when the impedance dips
it is drawing more power and so it is
less efficient than another speaker of
the same sensitivity with flat impedance
This makes a few assumptions...such as IFF this impedance dip happens and no more SPL is produced. In any case, since tube amps typically have higher output Z than SS ones, and SET w/o nfb usually top this list a change in the load does not work well. That is not what I am worrying about...couldn't care less actually; it is a red herring.
I've still not seen the description from RGA as to the difference between sensitivity and efficiency. When he delivers that( if he ever does) the discussion will continue.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
"One misleading piece of information with which our customers are often provided is sensitivity. This specification is commonly misrepresented as "efficiency" which it most certainly is not. Loudspeakers are terribly inefficient and it is likely that virtually no consumer has ever been given an actual efficiency specification. The most efficient loudspeaker designed to date was the Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater, which had an efficiency rating of approximately 3.6%. No loudspeaker manufacturer would ever publish an efficiency specification because it would discourage and mislead consumers. Be clear on one point: sensitivity and efficiency are not the same thing. Even when using a solid state amplifier, one cannot necessarily equate high sensitivity to high efficiency - the physics are simply more complex than many manufacturers, and sadly reviewers, lead us to believe.Instead of efficiency, loudspeaker manufacturers provide a sensitivity specification. This figure is supposed to indicate how loud a speaker will play when fed one watt of power, or 2.83 volts, listening from one meter away. The problem with this measurement is that the conditions under which it is to be recorded are not well defined and hence the figure does not provide a consistent "apples to apples" point of reference. For one thing, the input sensitivity (gain) of the amplifier used to measure the sensitivity is unknown and unspecified. More importantly, while the specification calls for measurement at one meter away, the conditions of the listening room are not defined. It is not clear whether measurement is to occur in an anechoic chamber, a concert hall, a coat closet, or a gymnasium. Each of these rooms will yield remarkably different sensitivity readings at one meter from the speaker.
The most important lesson to learn from the above discussion is that for the purposes of determining tube-friendliness, sensitivity is essentially meaningless. Many tube gurus insist that one must use speakers with sensitivity ratings of 90 db or higher. This is simply not true. Many speakers with high sensitivity ratings are poor choices for tube amps, just as many speakers with low sensitivity ratings often work quite well. Why is this so?"
I suppose the word efficiency should really be changed to "ease of drive" since according to the above all speakers are not the least bit efficient - however a speaker of 85db sensitivity can be a LOT easier to drive than a speaker rated at 100db sensitivity.
So we need a word that illustrates this "ease of drive" attribute. Simply playing loud with 1 watt doesn't mean it's playing well with 1 watt.
Edits: 08/14/11
"More importantly, while the specification calls for measurement at one meter away, the conditions of the listening room are not defined. It is not clear whether measurement is to occur in an anechoic chamber, a concert hall, a coat closet, or a gymnasium."
Do you know of a speaker that has specs that are taken from other than in an anechoic chamber?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Most speakers are not tested in an Anechoic chamber - since most makers don't have one.
My Audio Note speakers are rated in room corner loaded since they were designed for corners - quasi anechoic measured speakers try to take all room boundaries including corners out of the equation. Therefore the measurements done quasi anechoic will be lower than real world results when positioned according the manufacturer. Corners gain 3db of sensitivity and up to 18db to low frequencies. This is why both Hi Fi Choice magazine and Hi-Fi Critic (Martin Colloms) measured and found the AN E to be 94.5 db sensitive and 17hz -6db (hi-Fi Choice 23hz -3db) while Stereophile which measured center of room (one loudspeaker) got 92.5db and ~28hz.
Apparently, anechoic style measurements also don't really provide accurate information about Electrostatic panels either due to their radiation pattern (ie their sensitivity is rated lower than their real world results at the listening position).
I am not a big fan of most of these specs because it takes people out of the listening. Here is a simple truth to figure out the specs - listening
1) speaker is set-up
2) amp is 8 watts
3) I get very loud very deep bass with any music
THEREFORE = system has high "enough" efficiency/high "enough" sensitivity/ High "enough" ease of drive
1) speaker is set-up
2) amp is 8 watts
3) Sound of bass is mushy, slow, lacks control distorts, treble is rolled off
Therefore = no matter what the specs and measurements the speaker does NOT possess high "enough efficiency/sensitivity/ease of drive"
But you can tell all of this with listening - no one really needs to read the spec sheet to hear if the system (speaker/amp) is having problems - if you need the spec sheet and the measurement to tell you this - then you don't really have very good ears so why bother spending money on high end audio equipment - you may as well go to Wal-Mart and buy the Home Theater in a Box for $129.99.
"But you can tell all of this with listening - no one really needs to read the spec sheet to hear if the system (speaker/amp) is having problems - if you need the spec sheet and the measurement to tell you this - then you don't really have very good ears so why bother spending money on high end audio equipment - you may as well go to Wal-Mart and buy the Home Theater in a Box for $129.99. "
I agree with all of that.
JBL has an anechoic chamber pictured above.
I would be surprised if most of the driver manufactures don't.
MacIntosh has one.
http://www.roger-russell.com/cham2pg.htm
Energy has one.
http://www.energy-speakers.com/na-en/products/rc-50-specifications/
Axiom Speakers use the one at the National Research Council in Canada.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html
Microsoft has one.
http://gizmodo.com/5372268/microsofts-anechoic-chamber-the-place-where-sound-goes-to-die
Meyer Sound has one.
http://www.meyersound.com/products/technology/chamber.htm
Stetron International has one.
http://www.stetron.com/resources/archives/stetronenhancesspeakerdesign0/
OK, sorry. I'm done.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yes some of the bigger makers have them - unfortunately it doesn't really translate into the best sounding loudspeakers in real rooms.
This is why magazines tend to review speakers in a free standing position to try and emulate the anechoic condition for measuring sensitivity. Doesn't help any speaker not designed for a free standing position or one that doesn't take into account room boundaries (such as my speakers). Granted corner loaded speakers are in the minority and so are panels - but an accommodation should be made in such cases - and they generally are not.
"Granted corner loaded speakers are in the minority and so are panels - but an accommodation should be made in such cases - and they generally are not."
I agree again.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
hey-Hey!!!,
the marketing surrounding efficiency/sensitivity is misleading, and deliberately so. However, the xxx dB/1W-1m is another measurement of efficiency( what ever the number happens to be ). Note that is says 1W, not some other number dependant on a voltage applied to an unpublished impedance. At 100% efficiency, in defined space, at specified power SPL is the dependant variable.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
Electrical load vs. Frequency and Phase Angle vs. Frequency can't be quantified into a single measures over the entire frequency range. Most LS3/5As (certainly the 15 ohm versions) work "reasonably well" with as little as 3W and very well with 8W, even though they are 82 or so dB sensitive. Of course, they have limitations that even 100W of any kind of amp can't overcome. So do Audio Note Ks, although they do not present quite so benign a load as an LS3/5A. Js, and E and HE E's, of course, do a better job due to their higher sensitivity. But if you are living in Japan and your living room is 3Mx3M (if you are that lucky), the smaller the box, the better!
Wait and see.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
This is why I don't pay too close attention to watt ratings or sensitivity ratings. It doesn't really matter - what matters is speaker A connected to amp B and does the combination produce the levels and bass and grip required.
The AN J is 93db sensitivity - the amp is 4.2 watts undistorted in a 13 X 16ish room is deafeningly loud with sub 30hz bass - I also had the AN K in this room and it played louder than I would ever need.
The AN E/Spe HE at CES with the Jinro had some of the best bass at the highest levels of any room at the show easily and convincingly bettering rooms with 1000 watt amplifiers. I guess people play at extreme levels when the make their judgements on this - if so they'll be deaf very soon and so the point is moot.
But we live in the real world and not in a theoretical one - we might be able to build 1ohm speakers with 100db sensitivity - The real world we get stuck with dumb designs like the Apogee Scintilla which goes down to 1ohm with horrible sensitivity and when you can get an amp to drive it - the sound is phenomenally overrated (read lousy and a good reason they went belly up because most people when hearing them chortled to themselves when dealers told them the price of the things).
A flat impedance of 4 ohms would be better than one that dips and dives but is rated at 8 ohms nominal. Magnepan is fairly stable at 4ohms and so there is no good reason a SET can't run them - indeed, the Audio Note Soro at ~15 watts drove them better than 150Watt plus Bryston - the bass was deeper and weightier on the Soro too so there!
"What Tubes Want
Tubes like a resistive load - it's really that simple. A resistive load translates to a flat impedance, and an inductive rather than a capacitive phase angle. A less technical way of looking at an ideal speaker from a tube's point of view is as follows: tubes like consistency. They prefer a speaker that doesn't swing from 8 ohms to 2 ohms and back again. If the impedance is going to dip it should do so gradually, or in small dips. Tubes like a steady load - capacitance is the opposite. When a speaker behaves in a capacitant manner, it presents an uneven load to the amp, asking for current in sudden spurts. Tubes don't like to pump out current at the drop of a hat. They prefer a consistent and predictable load.
Naturally it is sometimes difficult for speaker manufacturers to keep all the aforementioned variables in their ideal ranges. If phase angles must be capacitive, impedance should be high. The lower the impedance, the flatter it must be, and the less capacitive the phase angles must be. All three variables (slope of impedance, value of impedance, value of phase angle) together determine how good a match a speaker will be for a tube amp.
For this reason, the argument that only speakers with an impedance of 8 ohms or higher will work on tubes is incorrect. There are many tube friendly speakers whose nominal impedance is 4 ohms. If the speaker's impedance is relatively flat and consistently hovers around 4 ohms, and if the phase angles are only slightly capacative, or better yet inductive, there is no reason why a 4 ohm speaker cannot perform well on a tube amplifier. Some of our favorite tube friendly speakers are 4 ohms! It is also important to recognize that one need not use the 4 ohm taps on a tube amp with 4 ohm speakers. Many 4 ohm speakers sound their best when hooked up to 8 ohm, or even 16 ohm taps. If the speaker presents a resistive load (i.e. the impedance is flat - even though it is low) the 8 or 16 ohm taps will work fine, and always sound better than the 4 ohm taps. If the speaker requires more current because the impedance is low and and not terribly flat, the 4 ohm taps will likely offer better bass control at the expense of definition in the highs and mids." http://www.dhtrob.com/overige/tubefriendly_lsp.shtml
A solid state voltage source amp into a low speaker impedance like 2 ohms plays louder than 4 ohms or 8 ohms. This we know. It doesn't make the lower impedance loads more efficient in actuality, as any tube amp would require a need to change impedance taps for each condition. The SS amp if very strong in current can keep on delivering more power out into lower speaker impedances, but the watts are also increasing, not making this actually more efficient. But some manufacturers will show a dubious figure like 91dB/2.82V/1m, where the voltage of 2.82V will deliver one watt into only 8 ohms. But the intended amp with it works in lesser impedance, and thus this figure is misleading. Then at 4 ohms the power is actually doubled by the voltage source SS amp to 2 watts.
True speaker efficiency is measured in percentage. It's the amount of acoustic power developed for power inputted. A driver could be 2% or 20% efficient. An open framed driver is much less efficient than the same in a loaded compression chamber. There's physics there I don't care to get into.
Then after the efficiency is increased, the sensitivity can be increased which might be 110dB/1W at 1m away. This will be done by the method of impedance matching to the air, and waveguiding the output of the driver to concentrating the energy with directionality to a narrower beam.
Impedance contouring and control is another effort to ease the load for the amp, and by electrical theory all amps like an easier load to drive to make voltage out remain what it should be.
There is a fallacious theory about SET amps that high output impedance makes them unable to follow even minor impedance changes with frequency. Actually, the voltage sourced amp is harder to make a flatter acoustic response to small variations. SET amps are partially voltage sourced and partially power sourced outputs into speakers.
With a 'flat' response speaker, a SET amp will *RAISE* power output when a small impedance rise occurs: small higher impedance usually correlates with small lower output from the speaker with the crossover. Only the open zero NFB amp can help. On extreme impedance change, it's not as good.
:-)!I'm pretty much convinced that valves need a teeny bit of NFB to rid them of low-level microphonic behaviour. And it doesn't hurt with real speaker loads either. I like short speaker leads.
Being able to drive real speaker loads without turning into a tone control - that varies with the signal - is a base-line requirement, for me.
Powerful SET amps - over 15 watts - are not cheap. Giving a SET amp a truly capable PSU is also expensive.
I liked the 18W 13E1 'UL?' amps I borrowed for a few weeks, note enough headroom though.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
Edits: 08/13/11
Higher sensitivity speakers - high efficiency speakers will get around the headroom issue - 91db speakers - with perhaps high varying loads?? means 3 watt sets will struggle. But then it also means 10 watt high negative feedback SS will struggle too. 100 watt SS high negative feedback won't but then they all sound bad.
Moral - there is not a single good reason to buy a hard to drive loudspeaker. There are manufacturers out there that combine high efficiency, high enough sensitivity, in a relatively small box and get bass to 20hz and sound absolutely stunning to boot.
What are these speakers that combine "high efficiency, high enough sensitivity, in a relatively small box and get bass to 20Hz and sound stunning"? I'm not arguing, just curious.
My SET amps use a 46 so I am limited to a tad over 1 watt. They actually sound pretty good on my Spendor SP-100's which are 90db but easy to drive. However, the 46 amps really shine on true high-efficiency speakers.
Oh sorry - I didn't realize you were using a one watt amp. The speakers I was talking about are the Audio Note E standmounts - which come in two versions - their SE and SET amps are all above 8 watts however which give more wriggle room on the headroom required where obviously 1-3 watts does not.
An interesting cheap (well cheap for Audio Note) is the AZ Two which is something like $1500 and is a quasi - T-Line, OB, Horn. Audio Note specs it as 28hz but Hi-Fi Choice reviewed it saying they got down to 20hz. It is partnered with an 8 watt amp in the new zero system. two way floorstander using an 8 inch Hemp woofer.
This is the review from Hi-Fi Choice magazine - there are two pages - the amp is not a SET though - but their other amps like the Kit One (300b or 2a3 8 watt SET) has no problems with these speakers as my dealer had both the speakers and the kit one.
I built a SET amp from first from the schematic example for the One Electron UBT-1 with 3 parallel Chinese 2A3's driving it. It was a breadboard with a lot of voltage flexibility and tube sockets to use. I needed the about 14W/ch to drive my 'regular' DIY speakers. I loved that sound over the Music Reference RM-9, although it was low in power.
Then I tried a pair of Siemens EL-34's in parallel, and like that. Then I decided to buy a horn speaker to make use of these smaller amps. But I just decided to go with a 50W DHT 845 PP for my speakers. PP amps are easier to design when you use IT's everywhere. I saw the Amity amp and I wanted to avoid that expensive tube complement. Chinese 845's are much cheaper.
Then I found most 4 ohm speakers, and good big DR speakers are like that, cannot use zero NFB well. It needs to be more tamed in its impedance curve. It was then I decided the whole mentality about high end was screwed: audition the speakers first using a common SS amp and setup and compare. The 4 ohm speaker sounds louder with them and sells more. So I decided the speaker first idea was for morons who don't know it's a defective design that way, and that controlled impedance that allows for more and better quality amps was in few business plans. "It's the amp's fault if it can't drive ALL speakers!" What crap I learned.
I took my DHT 845's to an Avantgarde dealer and listened to the UNOs and DUOs. I liked the DUOs and man could that get loud and not hurt my ears at the same time. I sold out RM-9's and eventually M60 OTL amps.
Later I experimented with a 45 amp using Vaic VV45 and many others and also a cobalt OPT. Of course this sounded better, but now my friend had an Oris 150 horn. With his 45 amp, he had a better sounding speaker IMO. Well, with some roughness in places.
This setup after playing around enough with phase plugs and tweaks, I really liked it most of all. Not as super transparent and fast as the later Orphean horn, but these mostly misused AER/Lowther type drivers were seemingly going extinct once again. Yet I would go back to this over all systems I had, except the size of them were ridiculous even to me. but the most satisfactory overall.
I went to Orphean horns, and tried 71A amps and a 1/4 watt single lateral MOSFET battery powered class A follower amp. The MOSFET follower was the most transparent amp I ever heard at any time, but sterile again. the 45's sounded just right to me with the 01A for a DHT driver. A 7119 driver done right later might be even better, but that microphonic 01A has a tone to die for I think.
In the end, the most overall excellent system ever was my Orphean horns with 45's, especially on well used Raytheon ST 45's, my favorite of all time. This in terms of transparency, but not in terms of just music, like those AER/Lowther Oris 150's with that 45 amp.
I had to remove all the clutter and then went to minimonitors in the den, going back to my UBT-1's on the breadboard amp. I learned from the Orphean horn how important that Duelund crossover cap on it was. It made so opaque and artificial sounding anything else I had, including decent teflon caps. So I used the next gen Cu PIO in the tweeter and the new 300BXLS 10W/ch amp coupling camp, the Cu CAST cap.
Now I have an old designed audiolab integrated that I actually like and am surprised how well balanced it is designed to sound. But not like when I had a job and things.
SET still sounds the most right to me. And only two tube types I find exceptional: Czech 45's or Raytheon 45's and Czech versions of the 300B in larger capacity variety. These all have a similar sound. But the tone of the Raytheons, when well used but still strong, are a combined tone and fine detailing that can't be beat, especially in concert with the 01A. 71A's and 2A3's and 845's in comparison are tubes I haven't had good examples of.
as you might remember, I bought your Orpheans a few years ago. I am moving to a Don Garber X-series 45 triode integrated, so I am thrilled to hear that you think that it was a great combination.
Steve
Remember, it's all about the music.
Yes, those horns were something else. The trick is to find the amp that can do it the most justice. And that will not mean one with great specs for 100 watts. It needs to be great at 10 - 100 mW. This is where you can use one of the finest amps in the world and take it to its fullest glory. And it won't take an arm and a leg to do it. Enjoy!
2A3
1)..2),,.i knew SET amps were for me after hearing how much better the sound was from my current Chalice Audio 'Grail' SET monoblocks were then my Goldmund 29m SS amps.
3)..the 'Grail' monoblocks are more expensive then the Goldmund was but are in a league ...possibly... by themselves when it comes to amplifiers and can drive almost any speaker ..easily....i have not heard an amp/amps that is/are better at conveying such superbly natural sound and dynamics...
My first two amps were SE. That must have started around 1960; I was in the 8th grade and built a battery-powered SE transistor amp powered by four D-cells. The house we rented at that time had one of those huge mono speakers, extremely efficient. Later, in high school, I designed and built an ultralinear SE EL84 amp, and inherited a 8" Wolverine in a back-loaded horn cabinet from a friend of my fathers who was converting to that new-fangled idea of stereo :^)
After leaving college I could afford stereo and got a Sony V-FET amp which lasted for years, with various home-built and kit speakers. I gradually lost interest in recorded music, turning to computers for fun instead. We continued to attend symphony and operas so music was still important to me, just not recorded music.
It wasn't until the early 90s that I ran across Sound Practices magazine and the local club, where I heard tube amps again and liked them - but mostly I liked the fact that these people were building there own stuff, and having WAY more fun than the Stereophile acolytes. In 1995 I first heard an SET - the World Audio kit - at a club meeting and was hooked. My interest in listening to recorded music returned immediately - it sounded "right" again. Nothing has changed that opinion since.
Funny. PJ heard that World Audio 6080 SE amp at my place. But that was not the one that hooked me (in fact I didn't like it that much). I had acquired a mesh plate CeCo 10 and several other 10s at an estate sale. Built a pair of amps for 10s using some AN SE transformers designed for 211s. They blew my mind, and like Gordo when I got some of Mikey's trannies a while later and built a few more SE amps there was no turning back.
I started my first serious stereo system with a SS Pioneer SX-1980 in the 70’s because a friend of mine worked for Pioneer and swore it was the best thing out there. I put it with a pair of RTR omni-directional speakers and could really rock the house.
I got into tube amps in the 1980’s with an Audio Research D-70 MK II and Thiel speakers. These were the days when there were lots of great stereo shops around and you could audition to your heart’s content. I was taken by the rich sound and more natural reproduction of the music with tube gear. In the 90’s I had switched to a more powerful Music Reference RM 9 Mk II with fabulous Audio Physics speakers and had a dedicated audio listening room.
In 2003 I got married and moved to a house where I had a combined Home Theater and stereo listening room, but the configuration did not allow for good speaker location. So, I decided to set my home office up for serious stereo listening. I started with the RM9 in the office and soon heard about these SET amps. I bought a Tube City 300B online (Chinese integrated amp) for $900 and immediately was thrilled by the three dimensional sound stage and the richness of the mid range. In this case, the SET amp cost only about half what the PP amp cost, and the monitor speakers where a small fraction of the cost of the Audio Physics speakers. Almost right away I started tube rolling, which started increasing the costs. Now, of course, several large sets of storage shelves in the garage are filled with tubes. After reading about 45 amps, I bought a Moth S-45, which could use either 45’s or 2A3’s. The clarity, detail and transparency of the 45 really hooked me. Even at it's best, my PP tube system in a dedicated room could not match the immediacy and presence of a good SET system. Since then I have been doing the buy/try/resell thing with amps and speakers. I do my budgeting so I can buy the next item, test it against the current piece, and sell the looser. Since I got hooked on SET’s, I have owned a couple of dozen SET amps and a dozen or so speakers, always looking for the best amp/speaker/room combo. The quest continues.
Gang,
Mike LaFevre talked me into making an SET amp. I was making EL34 and KT88/6550 PP amps before that. I told Mike that nobody is going to buy a sub 10W amplifier so we made and 845 amplifier (6SL7, 300B, 845). This was a long time ago. I went to a ham fest and Mike Marx sold me a ton of 45 tube he had just got. So I made a direct coupled constant current 45 amplifier out of a 6BM8 using the Triode section as the gain and the Pentode as a current source in the cathode of the 45. It sounded really good... so much so that Joe Roberts made one and Corey Greenburg used that in Stereophile to review the Studio 100's. I had some early ProAc 2's and this amp sounded great on it. Sure it wasn't shaking the walls but it sounded great.
I then got a call from Purdue university which ended up getting me a ton of WE300B's and other WE tubes and that was it we started working on the Cardinal. The first Cardinal was 5693-> 300B with a 5AR4 rectifier. That design got stolen and I changed the design to a 6SL7 300B, 5AR4 and it stayed there for years getting Product of the Year in TAS 1994 and then dual Class A rating in Stereophile the following year.
Wouldn't even consider doing PP or SS again, thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
I owned one of the earliest Wavelength Cardinal Monoblocks back in the early/mid 90s. It was one of the first SETs I heard (Cary, Wavelength, Fi). I can't remember what the exact system was but solid state stuff all just sounds wrong to me now. I still like a good push pull amp (especially if it uses triode output tubes or EL84s).
which when I finished...I thought it was quite good, but when I measured the power it was half what I thought it should be...
This was a KT88 Triode PP driven by everyone's favorite tube 12AT7, Hammond 156c choke loaded....anyway I finally started to go through it, and found that OMG, I had only hooked up one side of the 12AT7 to the KT 88 grids...
So I was running one sided (SE)....so I hooked up the other side, had actual PP, double the power, and it sounded like #hit in comparison...
So I unhooked one of the grids, added a second Hammond 156c to the anode of the 12AT7, and never looked back....
I ran both the KT88's in each channel to balance the transformer, so it was a non air gapped SE design...running from a regulated tube supply....It had tremendous Solid Bass, huge soundstage, and sweet sound...
so I never built anything PP after for Hifi....I still build PP guitar amps, and have a new design ready to go out...
Anyway,
Peace,
-3db
I went from tube PP to SE accidently when I powered up an old Magnavox EL84 amp around the year 1995. The cheap Magnavox blew away my carefully modified PP amps. I modded the Magnavox for even higher performance.
I sold my Dynaco Stereo 35 over that Magnavox. I also gave up on Fisher SA-100, Eico 2536, and others with serious mods.
I build a triode 6V6 PP & 45 PP amp and then PP was finally on par or slightly better than the highly modified SE EL84 Eico 2510 that outperforms the Magnavox SE EL84.
Now, a current DIY 6A3 PP amp is a little better than the Eico 2510 with that smooth and accurate SE sound but having better dynamics. However a Jeff Korneff SE 45 is causing me some problems with the 6A3 PP. The 45 SE smoothness is better than the 6A3 PP, but dynamics is not quite as good.
I believe I will build an 'all out' 2A3 SET and compare using newly acquired Klipsch Cornwalls. I may have to modify the Cornwalls to get a good comparison to my super DIY speakers that need more power than the Cornwalls.
It is hard to explain my amps as I doubt any vintage and many new manufacture would outperform my DIY designs. New manufacture amps of reasonable cost usually violate some ground rules I used in my DIY amps.
Rules are-
LCLC or fully regulated shunt power supplies with oil caps. Use of select tubes and rectifiers. Select coupling caps, wire, audio transformers, etc.
However, even that statement my DIY amps are best is flawed as what I like in sonics pleases me first and may not exactly please some others.
Fact is I am ever seeking the best sound, but is fun even if I an f*cked doing this crazy quest. Whatever.
Solid-state- just fun, not in the tube league IMO. Perhaps some Accuphase could make me think again. Never say never- right?
I've been hooked on tube amps since the late eighties. I switch between pushpull and set depending on which speakers I am listening to at the time.
Neff, if you don't mind me asking. Which "select" coupling caps do you prefer? I'm in the market for some new ones and am open to suggestions.
Thanks much!
Warmest regards,
No Regrets
Russian K40Y-9, Russian FT-3, Murdorf Supreme Silver Oil and V Cap TFTF.
K40Y-9 adds a little warmth wheen needed.
Russian FT-3 rather dry & neutral, needs mix with warmer cap like K40Y-9. I use FT-3 on power tube grids.
Murdroff Silver Oil is a good upgrade to K40Y-9 when budget permits.
V Cap TFTF is a good upgrade to FT-3 when budget permits. My main stay for SET two stage amps. I will pay more just like buying better audio transformers.
Thanks Neff for your list of suggestions. I will keep those recommendations in mind for next time, but for now I ended up ordering something new. It is a copper foil/paper in oil by Duelund called the Alexander. They will be replacing my VTV silver oil caps. Sorry if this post seemed to highjack the original thread.
Warmest regards,
No Regrets
Ping Neff, si-vous-plais?
Yes, the caps do please me. I also like Russian KBG for speaker crossovers.
Any tasty PP-6V6-triode circuits that are winners in your experience? that alone is a good collection of conclusions..
I went from Fisher and Scott integrated to Dyna, Heath, Eico to HK.Started modifying these.
My long time power amp was a highly modified Citation 2.
From there I built my own version of the Atma-Sphere M60 OTL.
Too hot for the So. Cal. summers so I built a PP 6b4g amp just to get me through the summer.
I never looked back, I knew DHTs were the way to go.
I then built a PP 300b amp using the HK Citation 2 output transformers.
That was a great amp.
I had heard SET amps but they never had great highs.
One day I was talking to Jack Elliano (ElectraPrint). I told him I had never heard SET. He said "you're kidding?"
I had to explain that IMO hearing a system at a show etc was not the same thing as hearing it in your own space with your own records....etc
He said he'd send me a pair of his new partial silver single ended output transformers. (smart guy, he knew once I had them and had built an amp for them I would buy them. He was right)
I have since built a pair of SET 6b4g amps that in some ways sound better.
I don't think I'll ever go back to PP. I know I'll never go away from DHTs.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/09/11
Had only read about SET - had John Hogan build me an amp - last one he ever built.
Replaced Marantz 8b and Dynaco MkIV
Did not cost more...sounded much better
That's what it makes it fun! But for me, I am not wed to high efficiency speakers. I like what I have, but have also heard some Thiels I wouldn't mind owning someday. Would like to hear some ESL's. Might like some Maggies eventually, I remember thinking they were beautiful. So I absolutely enjoy what I am doing now, but once the kids are grown and I have a little more disposable income, or maybe I happen on to some completely unknown speakers that demand more current, I may very well change it up.
I've had my Maggie 3.6's for over 10 yrs now, mostly ran them with big SS amps and occasionally a 130 watt pp KT88. Love the tube sound.
A few yrs ago I was looking at the impedance graph of the 3.6's. Pretty flat, no dips, slight bump at the x/o. So on a lark I hooked up my 16 watt 845 SET to it. Really nice. Then a 10 watt 300b. Even better, less volume (not even 3 db) but I like the 300b. This does work with the big stipulation of "you can only go so loud".
I've always enjoyed listening at lower levels (what's average anyway?) and I'm sure my 60 yr old ears are thankful for not bombarding them over the time. One of SETs strengths is that they have vanishing low distortion as the signal level drops.
To me,some amps, ss in particular and pp in general, seem to sound better the louder you play them. Same with some speakers. IMO, both SETs and the Maggies sound great at lower volumes so to me this is a marriage made in heaven. If you like loud and/or Rock n Roll, maybe not a good pairing.
Last yr, I took a chance on a pair of Cary 805 AE's. I'd read Dennis Had describing the circuit as a 300b amp driving an 845 or 211 tube. Whatever it is, this is a keeper for me. I now have 50 or 70 watts (845 or 211) of SET sound. It's class A2 at those levels, probably around 25 or 30 class A but it does give some headroom on peaks.
There will always be doubters about this pairing. It's ingrained in many that Maggies need power. The truth is, it will work for some people and not for others.
For those on the borderline and the spec readers:
The Maggies, being a line source, will sound louder at say 10 to 15 feet than a point source of the same specs. So less power is needed for the same volume.
Omitting room gain and that you are using 2 speakers, if the Maggie is rated at around 84 db at 1 watt, we know that it takes 10 watts to get to 94, 100 for 104 and 1000 watts to hit 114. So I can see where the rep for high power comes from. But what about the other direction? 1/10 of a watt for 74 db, 1/100 for 64. 64 db is a long way from a whisper.
Sorry for the long post. Too much time this am. :-)
Good post and food for thought. When and if I have the wherewithal to buy a pair of Maggies I just might be more willing to give them a whirl and worry about the amplifier I am using less. One of the best systems I ever heard were a pair of Magnepan. While I chose a different route, and have been happy with the results, I still just can't seem to get those out of my head and it has been years and years since I heard them.
Some people like SET with Panels - Morricab is a big panel lover and he runs sets with them and swears by the combo - I think SET can drive more than people think - perhaps they see the watt ratings and don't even consider the pairing.
This seems to be a growing trend, SET/Panels, that I will be exploring.
Based on an article I read in HI-FI World by Noel Keywood, he was reviewing a panel speaker that I currently own, the Eminent Technology LFT-8b and to my surprise and against all I had read previously, he highly recommended these speakers to be paired with SETs at about 20 watts! I was really taken back by this statement as I have been lead to believe over the many years, panels and high power amps were a must combo.
So thinking Noel might have been a bit tipsy that day I called Bruce Thigpen of ET and asked him what he thought of this idea and again to my surprise I found Bruce was running his panel 8s on about 10 watts of tube power and getting into the 90+ db range of listening music without clipping. OMG!!
He did go on to say if you wanted to listen to higher music levels like in the 100 db range then all bets were off but given moderate listening levels SETs were an excellent option for his panels. I would assume this would hold true for other panel makers as well. In any event I plan to find out. :)
Realize this is a year later, but if you're still out there:
When you say Bruce from ET was running his panels with 8-10 watts did he mean the LFT-8s, or the panels alone with other amps on the woofers?
Thanks,
The best sound that I have ever heard from a B&W N801 was with an 11 watt SET - same thing again - can't play loud but for actual quality it was quite good.
I heard Magnepan at CES with Bryston and frankly hated it. Dealer he put an Audio Note Soro on them (1.7) and it was really very good - actually had some body and the bass sounded better (like there was some). Most of the time people are using less than 10 watts anyway - and usually SS measures better at full volume - not low volume.
I would definitely try something like ESL with a 300B amp. The Thiels I would try but wouldn't have much hope. But I have heard my buddy's system with 3.5 watts from a set of 2a3 Paramours driving some low 90's efficiency Triangles and they sing. So I do hear what you are saying.
You could also try beefier SET amps - then the speakers really don't need to be HE. I am not thrilled with most horns and the ones I like tend to cost sums I can't afford. Plus they're usually giant. The AN J I have is 93db sensitive and I run an 8 watt OTO (4.2 watts undistorted) and I get plenty of volume level - leave the room levels in fact).
But there are less expensive SE amps out there.
An interesting option if you really like speakers that are not too set friendly would be the Sugden A21a - which is solid state but it is a pure class A SET. You can fry an egg on it - it's one of the great SS amplifiers and has been selling since 1967 for a reason.
Cool suggestions. For the moment I really want to try out a pair of Altec Model 19s. That is next. Actually that is after we build another SE amp in a few months. I am going to keep tweaking within the SET arena for now. The desire to try out other speakers is just a hobbyist's desire to try other things. I actually like the Altecs and Bottlehead equipment I have now, it is superb. I have just heard other speakers that I know I want to play with when funds allow. But the Sugden suggestion is a neat one for down the road.
RGA
I went from -
Sony Reciever STR-V45 (really nice sound)
Aragon 8008 (Class A SS had great detail but poor bass)
Jolida 202A (PP EL34 Clear with better bass)
DIY SE KT66/6L6GC with 6P5 driver
with SS driven subwoofer.
Once I heard the SE the Jolida collected dust.
DanL
Actually, I think Class A DHT-PP amps represent a nice compliment to SET; also some Class A Pentode/triode PPs.I first heard SET in 2007 in an AN(UK) shop in Copenhagen, but didn't buy one until around 2009-2010.
I think it was a pair of 50W SS monos.
Yes. I bought a used Meishu Sig. and it still cost 3x as much!
When are you going to write a review about the new OTO SE Sig? You are, after all, the ultimate OTO-lover, along with Bob Neill.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Edits: 08/07/11
Hi Friehead
I am moving to Hong Kong later this month for a 2 year teaching contract which will put my reviewing on a hiatus. My plan though is to get myself set-up and try and review complete systems - I far prefer "system" reviews anyway since I always feel that component reviews are not as helpful to people. My OTO sounds stunning with AN speakers but run them with a B&W and who the heck knows what it will be like.
Fortunately, a lot more companies are designing their own equipment and you can buy a whole system from the likes of Rega, Grant Fidelity and even Krell. There are a lot of companies selling in Hong Kong as well so it may actually be easier to get gear than in Canada where shipping costs can be staggering. I tried to get a smaller speaker maker's speaker but the shipping was just horrendous for him and we ultimately decided that it was a no-go.
I am also excited to attend and cover the Hong Kong Audiophile shows since it's not commonly covered by western writers. Unfortunately I will miss this one held later in August.
I went from big ss amps to PP tube amps. Never went back. At one time I had a CJ Premier 4 - eight EL34s and well reviewed of course. Well, my modified Leak Stereo 20 sounded better. So I downsized the speakers and the electrostatics and Apogee ribbons went. Hard choice, but I saw the solution in better amplifiers. Next step forward was taking all the globale NFB off the Leak - big improvement. Then triode output stages. Built a 300B SET and that was it. Sound was pretty good now.
But the breakthrough for me wasn't SET, it was using inly DHTs right through. Right now I have 26 into 46 into 300b. Best I ever built.
You're unlikely to be able to buy an all-DHT SET, but that's a pity. The DC filament supplies require a bit more work but it's not rocket science.
andy
One day, I will rebuild my SE 300B amps using 6sl7 input tubes to be all DHT amps. Hopefully that day will come....
Retsel
Here's one, but expensive. Quite doable for a reasonably experienced DIYer, though it would still be costly, relatively speaking.
Also, did you ever build your DHT headphone amp for the K-701s? I'd like to see that one, and hear about it, if so.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
I don't have a PP schematic. Attached 300b SET. Excuse the rather "inventive" symbols in Excel.
andy
What are the double § marks? I see a battery filament supply, but the source of the other supplies seem to be back-stage on the left?
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
What are the double § marks?> > Resistors.
There is no battery filament supply - there's a battery bias on the 46 grid.
On the 26 stage the neg. supply is connected to ground and positive to one side of the filament. the other side of the filament goes to ground via the 10 ohm resistor. That's filament bias. the supply goes through the cathode resistor, hence it needs to be 50 watts.
The 46 and 300b have DC supplies using Rod Coleman's filament boards (gyrator + current source), as seen on DIY Audio.
Andy
Oops then what are the vvvvvs? Sorry.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Oops then what are the vvvvvs? Sorry.> > > >
also resistors!
I'm doing my best here in Excel....
nt
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: