Double down, good or bad?

Audioquest4life:
I see a few posts back that you state the Magnepans are a difficult load to drive.
Not So. The impedance is pretty flat and at least for the 1.6s, the phase angle is moderate at worst. The only fly in the ointment is they seem to like current.
That being said, even my old Rotel RB1070 of 130x2 into 8 with NO 4ohm spec did well until pushed.

Stereophile measures phase / impedance but few manufacturers publish such data.

Magfan, I also find the Magnaplanars easy to drive.

Unsound, the TAS review using the Duettas did not use the autoformer, but in the case of the Full Ranges, without an output transformer of some sort, driving 1 ohm is difficult, even for transistors. Its not 'cheating'- its simply a tube amp that was able to do the job. The speaker otherwise is easy to drive.

Kirkus, I see now why we were not on the same page- I was referring only to my posts. You are right- the article is over-simplified. So I think we are really on the same page here. With regards to 'belief systems', what is happening in high end audio is tubes are effectively competing with transistors, and there are speakers (like the Wilson Watt/Puppy) that are more effectively driven by tubes than transistors and other speakers (like the B&W 802) that are more effectively driven by transistors.

People are constantly trying to mix the two technologies and in the process are flushing a lot of money down the loo.

The Paradigm paper seeks to expose why, and in the process also expose something that I regard as the Emperor's New Clothes- that aspect wherein products are made to look good on paper and ignore human hearing/perceptual rules; that whole thing that all of us are familiar with where the specs tell you nothing about how it sounds. IMO/IME we as an industry are measuring the wrong things, and there is little or no discussion about that!

I know of a neuro-scientist that has done studies of human hearing- he has found that when the audio playback system violates our perceptual rules, the processing of the sounds in the brain is actually handled in a completely different area!

Atmasphere,
Could you please elaborate a bit about the point in your last post where you say some speakers are more effectively driven by tubes and others by transistors. I do not see much written about this and am curious as to why. Thanks.

Peterayer, The drivability has to do with whether the driving amplifier is based on Power theory or Voltage Theory, and which approach the speaker designer used.

Power Theory (or Power Paradigm) is where the amp seeks to make constant power into all loads. It will not succeed, but that is the goal. The Dynaco ST-70 is a good example, 4,8,16 ohms its 35 watts. Our own MA-2 is another, 4,8,16 ohm 220 watts. Some transistor amps fall into this category.

Voltage Theory (or Voltage Paradigm) is where the amp seeks to make constant voltage into all loads. It will not succeed, but that is the goal. Such an amplifier doubles power as the load is cut in half. Lots of transistor amplifiers do this but only a handful of tube amps do.

The speaker designer may have used an amplifier for reference. If so the speaker obeys the same rules that the amp does. So if the designer favors a tube amp, his speaker will likely follow the Power Theory. An example is Wilson Audio. If the designer used a speaker design program or favors a transistor amplifier, the speaker will be a Voltage Paradigm device. An example is the mbl 101E.

Anytime one kind of amp is used with the other kind of speaker, a tonal anomaly will result due to inappropriate power response. Here are some examples:
*Transistor amp on ESL =>bright high end, weak bass
*transistor amp on horn =>shrill high end
*tube amp with mbl101 => harsh midrange
*tube amp with B&W 802 =>weak bass

I have used the term 'Paradigm' in the past as those who operate within a paradigm seek to describe that which is outside that paradigm as wrong, on account of a restructuring of that individual's world view that the individual is understandably reluctant to do. It is easier for such individuals to see the alternative as wrong, but in so doing does not change the nature of reality.

This reluctance to accept reality has resulted in several debates in the audio world that are on-going and have been so for decades: tube vs transistor, subjectivist vs objectivist and the equipment matching conversation which you have asked about.

To deny the existence of the Power Paradigm denies the validity of ESLs, horns, magnetic planars, full-range drivers and a variety of acoustic suspension and bass reflex designs, as well as many tube amplifiers. The Power Paradigm places a high value on design responsiveness to human hearing/perceptual issues.

To deny the existence of the Voltage Paradigm is nearly impossible- that is what is seen in bench measurements from all magazines. Many acoustic suspension and bass reflex designs use the Voltage Paradigm rule. The Voltage Paradigm places a high value on design responsiveness to bench specification, particularly low distortion.

I side with the idea that audio equipment should obey human hearing/perceptual rules, as I maintain that human hearing is the most important aspect of audio. I get very little argument for the latter, but a lot of resistance to the former!