SET Asylum

Single Ended Triodes (SETs), the ultimate tube lovers dream.

Return to SET Asylum

Wikipedia definition of SET

207.237.205.114
Posted on October 16, 2009 at 18:06:37
2bkurius
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: 10001
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Wikipedia definies SET lovers of which I'm one as people with more money than sense and SETs as dinosaur technology that doesn't stand up to even cheap solid state.
Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-ended_triode

RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 17, 2009 at 11:40:24
jon_s
Audiophile

Posts: 390
Location: UT
Joined: March 21, 2003
 I don't even like SET, but I think the author of that is being a dick just for the sake of it. Their position shows that they don't really understand how amplifiers are measured, and their description of push-pull amplification is similarly poor.

edit - I see my comments no longer apply as the offending paragraphs were deleted. However, I think that some of the original statements could have been rearranged into something meaningful. The high distortion is a result of how we measure SE amps - distortion is generally quite low at very low powers. Specifications (which sound so appalling) are given near clipping at 1% or 5% THD. With highly efficient speakers the SE amp will be operated in a more-linear range than that specification suggests, hopefully never reaching anything close to clipping.

RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 17, 2009 at 11:36:21
Caucasian Blackplate
Industry Professional

Posts: 4445
Location: Seattke
Joined: June 18, 2004
 I went ahead and made some changes to that article, removing more than half of it actually.

There were a few decent points there, and then some pretty strange assertions (linearity being a big one, a 300B is about as linear as it gets).

There was also some strange notion that all SET amps are extremely simple, which is just not the case. The biggest SET amp I have has three regulated supplies, nine tubes, about twelve pieces of iron, etc. etc.

RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 22, 2009 at 16:34:22
Matts_
Audiophile

Posts: 1975
Joined: February 4, 2005
 whew! that solves that mystery. I was wondering what OP was talking about, because I looked at the entry and I thought it was actually very good! 300B's were widely used in radar in olden days, and that required excellent linearity.

How can you do that?, posted on October 17, 2009 at 11:51:54
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 841
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 I agree the published comment was out of line, but I though any changes to Wikepedia had to go through a peer review?

RE: How can you do that?, posted on October 17, 2009 at 16:37:08
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1017
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
 No. Wikipedia 'articles' are not comprehensively peer-reviewed, nor are they consistently (adequately) referenced. This is the reason why one can not use them as an academic reference.

Cheers
Raymond

"As long as we have any intention to be right... we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest."
Charlotte Joko Beck
RE: How can you do that?, posted on October 17, 2009 at 13:32:42
Caucasian Blackplate
Industry Professional

Posts: 4445
Location: Seattke
Joined: June 18, 2004
 Obviously there was no peer review there, as a lot of what I deleted was obviously wrong or very much in the realm of opinion. It kinda makes me wonder who wrote it to begin with.

If SET amps sucked so much, we would have stopped using them all together.

RE: How can you do that?, posted on October 19, 2009 at 04:07:34
PakProtector
Audiophile

Posts: 9949
Joined: May 14, 2002
 It isn't that they 'suck so much', rather if their strengths are delivering what the listener considers important.
cheers,
Douglas

Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 17, 2009 at 09:52:05
Donald North
Manufacturer

Posts: 910
Joined: February 8, 2001
 Dinosaur technology? Last time I checked a triode is still a more linear voltage amplifier than a single transistor, when both are compared on their own without feedback.

Donald North

RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 18, 2009 at 13:58:17
chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com
Reviewer

Posts: 10208
Location: Lancashire.
Joined: January 21, 2001
 "Dinosaur technology?"


Bearing in mind dinosaurs were the most successful species ever to walk the Earth, including Homo Sapien, and that even the scrawniest raptor could make short work the best UFC competitor, I'd accept that SETs are more dinosaur than modern man.


Today is a gift - that's why it's called the Present.

Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
RE: Wikipedia definition of SET, posted on October 17, 2009 at 09:38:47
gusser
Audiophile

Posts: 841
Location: So. California
Joined: September 6, 2006
 Respected published amp experts Morgan Jones and Douglass Self don't have nice things to say either. And Morgan Jones takes us completly through an SET build he did so he did actually build one. Morgan also stated it sounded much better after it was "broken in". "The fact that the bottle of wine he was nursing while listening was also well broken in by then made no difference" :)

IMO, SET is an art. If you like it, then enjoy it. It's not for everybody though. And I think we all agree SET is not suitable for any commercial application. But then neither is any tube amp - PP or SET!

Sounds similar to what I hear here, posted on October 17, 2009 at 08:15:26
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 723
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 How many times we read emotional reactions to those who are using their ears instead of a distortion analyzer or the infamous power supply designer tool (I love the tool but would never use it as an argument for or against a design)?

SET design is as much an art as a science, it would seem. Yet, there are many who forget that all science begins somewhere with an observation (which does include the ears). How often when someone has told of a phenomenon they have discovered, or think they have discovered, and they ask others to try it to see if there is something to it how often the reaction is based upon the fact that it does not follow what the textbook said, it does not perform well on the PSU DESIGNER, their friend the physicist said it is ridiculous, it measures poorly, one can go on and on.

Those drawn to the immediacy of simple circuits KNOW they are having to compromise certain aspects while other approaches to amplifier design plainly outperform the beloved SET. They are willing to forgo these attributes for the emotional impact of the immediacy of the simple circuit.

So who should be surprised of such a write up in WIKIPEDIA. They could easily point to many of the controversies in this FORUM for proof.

And, of course, they are not completely wrong. But it is a choice made for a specific reason.

As with all things audio one tires of the sound before too long. One should have (at least!) two amplifiers of very different qualities to switch back and forth since all of the approaches have their merits.

Is there a serious listener (one who listens intently for more than an hour at a time) who has used the same amplifier for over two years? I would like to know.

Rick McInnis

RE: Sounds similar to what I hear here, posted on October 19, 2009 at 17:58:32
Dmannnnn
Audiophile

Posts: 140
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: November 23, 2008
 Quote: "Is there a serious listener (one who listens intently for more than an hour at a time) who has used the same amplifier for over two years? I would like to know."

There are thousands of them...

None on this board though.

RE: Sounds similar to what I hear here, posted on October 17, 2009 at 15:04:08
RC Daniel
Audiophile

Posts: 1017
Location: Brisbane
Joined: November 3, 2002
 "As with all things audio one tires of the sound before too long. One should have (at least!) two amplifiers of very different qualities to switch back and forth since all of the approaches have their merits."

Thankfully then, I am more into connecting with music rather than audio equipment or merely its sound. I don’t do the archetypical audiophile thing so much. Yes, systems are a tool or conduit for musical reproduction; I can critically evaluate them when I feel it is a requirement (rarely). Largely, I simply connect with music without thinking about the system – or how music is being presented – at all. Systems are not my usual primary focus; generally there is no system to get bored of. However, I do like to experience fresh music. I guess it depends on one’s orientation and the mental / emotional attachment (neediness) to said orientation.

Note: I am not saying my approach is right or wrong; better or worse; good or bad... There is nothing factual here - just personal spun concepts and ether.

"Is there a serious listener (one who listens intently for more than an hour at a time) who has used the same amplifier for over two years? I would like to know."

I guess I fit the broad description (I have had my current amp for about 10 years), though I would not consider myself a "serious listener".

I am looking to design and build a SET amp in the near future, though that is more about my need for a creative interest rather than a need to change equipment.

Cheers
Raymond

"As long as we have any intention to be right... we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest."
Charlotte Joko Beck
I do not doubt for a moment you love music, posted on October 18, 2009 at 18:29:22
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 723
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 I was just speaking of human foibles, not being able to discipline the brain and the senses.

I think it is a goal to learn to use one's system as nothing more than a tool, a means to an end, not the end itself. I think I am half way there yet I know if I listen too often I get bored; a few days "rest" and all is just fine. Why are we this way?

I would say your abilities to keep the foibles in check are admirable.

Rick McInnis

RE: Sounds similar to what I hear here, posted on October 17, 2009 at 12:19:28
Palustris
Audiophile

Posts: 251
Location: Cape Cod
Joined: September 12, 2008
 Sad to say, I have used the same amplifiers for several years with no modifications until just a few weeks ago. I get my audio building fix by building and restoring mono amps that I use for background music connected to a nice Tannoy speaker or WE 728B.

RE: No, posted on October 16, 2009 at 18:15:45
Neff
 are you kidding?

Page processed in 0.070 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]