2. speakers
  3. 1429587251

High value, high efficiency speakers for SET amps

Hi, Gang,
I know that some of what I want to discuss here has been dealt with in other threads, some of them quite old, but I wanted to see if any of you fine, knowledgable folks are willing to help update and consolidate some of this info in a more current thread.
I am currently running my new Audio Note Kit 1 300B SET amp with a pair of Reference 3A De Capo speakers. I think it's a fine pairing and I am really enjoying what the 300B SET experience brings to the table in terms of musicality and emotional connection.
Still the De Capo, while supposedly an easy load due to its crossover-less design (only 1 cap on the tweeter with the mid-woofer directly coupled to the amp), is "only" rated at 92 db efficient, and based on the most recent Canadian NRC specs, that rating may be optimistic.
So, I am toying with the idea of trying a pair of more efficient, deliberately SET-friendly speakers in my rig, something that might also play lower and with greater dynamic swing than the De Capo's. Note that the De Capo's have served me well and I am very fond of them, but I can't help but wonder if my lovely Kit 1 would shine even better coupled to a VERY easy to drive speaker.
Devore and Audio Note are obvious options - the O/96 looks really tasty. Unfortunately, both of those choices are out of my budget, which I'm thinking maxes out (for real) at around $1500. I am willing to consider used equipment.
Tekton Lore 2.0: This is the speaker that Eric Alexander of Tekton has recommended when we've spoken on the phone, based upon my medium-small listening room and amp. I've read the epic "Lore vs. Zu" thread elsewhere in this forum, and clearly Tekton has its enthusiastic fans here. What I wonder is whether the Lore 2.0 has the refinement of the De Capo in terms of resolution, sweet high end and imaging. Audiogon'er Mikirob has pointed me to the many rave reviews of Tekton's speakers and I'm definitely interested.
I've corresponded with the Sonist folks (who are super nice) but their really high-efficiency, nearly-full-range floor stander is out of my budget.
Then there's the "vintage" route, going after some used JBL's or other high-efficiency "classics" from the 80's (or '70's). I am not inclined to go in this direction, but mention it because it's been suggested to me.
And then there's Omega. I spoke to Louis some time ago and he recommended his 7XRS hemp cone model. But I know all the raps on single driver designs and I'm cautious, although I would like to hear from any of you who own or have owned Omega's.
I'm in no rush to make a switch but I am very interested in your thoughts. Thanks, folks!
rebbi
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,337 posts
 
"I don't understand the singling out of SETs as if nothing else mandates compatibility considerations."

As Atmasphere likes to point out, SETs along with many tube amps like his OTLs operate under a different paradigm than most gear in today's world. In addition, SETs have the additional disadvantage of delivering just a few precious watts.

So its not an issue unique to SETs, just perhaps of greater magnitude in general than in most cases. For top notch performance in all common cases a home audio enthusiast might encounter, you have to find speakers that are both efficient and an easy load to drive and the choices may be limited.

So its not a problem that is not solvable, just one in which there are more ways to go wrong and perhaps also of greater magnitude or consequence when they do.

Again, if listening mostly at low to moderate volumes, it may not be much of an issue at all but that does not address the needs of all home audio enthusiasts.

For example, in my case, it might work for a second system but not likely for my main system in that I could neither afford nor fit any of the speakers I have heard run off a SET that I considered to not have limitations that would matter to me.

Of course as always YMMV.

Just beware of teh limitations in any case. They are always there.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,337 posts
 
""I don't understand the singling out of SETs as if nothing else mandates compatibility considerations."
"

Of course they always do but also this thread is about speakers for SETs specifically so that is the topic at hand here. There are pros and cons with everything.
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"Tubegroover, Ralph and others,I understand that you are drawn to something else and move in a different direction."

While we may be drawn in different directions Charles, I do believe our goals are essentially the same. I, like you and Rob believe that correct tone is the most important factor in realizing long term enjoyment and reduces the encroachment of fatigue more than any other factor, at least to me. If tone, timbre and pitch is off just a bit, very little else matters. Tone, energy (is this pratt, toe-tapping that is referred to?) realistic transients, dynamic contrasts and low level musical information are some of the things that make music more real to me. What contributes to great tone the question might be? I have come to the conclusion that correct tone is directly attributable to the reduction in distortion, the less the distortion in the system, the better the resolution and tone. The wild card is that tube amplifiers seem to get this more right than SS, at least most I've listened to, "anyone got a recommendation of a ss amp that sounds like tubes" never the reverse. Something I always marvel at is listening to a pair of well set-up Quad speakers, how natural and convincing they are in getting tone and timbre right, more right than anything I've personally listened to. I don't and wouldn't own them because they have other limitations I personally can't live with.

So far as SETs are concerned, I DO agree with you guys! We're not in disagreement on any point other than that IME they require very efficient speakers to reduce the distortion characteristics that would make them more appealing to ME and quite possibly others for the wide genres of musical tastes I and others might have.

Please don't take offense. I've made the points of my comments clear. There is nothing wrong with SETs, they have magical qualities, just to others watching which I include myself, there may be more restrictions using these amps because of their power limits so if you take that path you have PLENTY of information above to use as a guide going forward.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,337 posts
 
Tubegroover,

I'm with you on teh pros and cons of teh Quads. They were one of my main references when undergoing changes in my gear in recent years. Macrodynamics being the main limitation.

My other reference is all manner of live performances. I go to and soak in as many as I can.

Still, I ended up going a certain way to achieve my reference sound. Interestingly each "walks that lonesome valley" in their own way despite often having similar goals and references.

Tubes have helped me along teh way but I am still of teh opinion that they are optional in that quest and I am still seeking to minimize my dependencies and finding I am able to make progress in that direction.

My philosophy is to attempt to take advantage of modern technical advances and innovations. Digital and related technologies have made great strides in recent years. I am finding I can ride that wave a lot further these days then I was able to even just a couple years ago, when I turned more to tubes to help close the gap.
keithr
1,306 posts
 
I'd be curious if the 8 watt SET folks on this thread have tried 845s to see if the sound was more effortless.

I had a 10-watt, stereo First Watt SIT on my 100 db Zu Def IVs and it started breaking up in the mid-90s. The adjustable bias, monoblock SIT-1s (same 10 watts though) however could give me more range.

Also, when I was looking to purchase a Shindo amp, the 10-watt SE Cortese was not recommended by JH given my speaker specs- only the P/P EL34 model and single-ended GM70 monos.

Every room and speaker is different, but I'd like to hear those who have tried multiple SET amps.
More to discover