SET the best?

Atmasphere you said {This power limitation is one reason why I don't use SETs. The bigger you make them, the less bandwidth and detail} Please explain if you would for this doesnt seem to make sence, maybe its just wordered wrong. Maybe Im not getting your point. But power rating in SET doesnt have anything at all to do with bandwidth its the SETs design. Mostly the transformers used. I have owned SETs with limited bandwidth but if of proper build this isnt a universal SET problem. Now if you dont have power your loudspeaker requires thats a system matching error and not the fault of the SET amp but of owners system choice.

Johnk, the post was worded right. The upper power limits of SETs in a way are more of a function of the output transformer that it is the tube! The bigger you make the transformer, IOW to handle more power, the less bandwidth it will have. If you try to optimize it for bass, the highs will be rolled off and vice versa.

Since many high efficiency speakers (99db+) have limited bass response, SET builders usually sacrifice the bass performance in favor of the highs, since speakers that go below 40 Hz in the high efficiency world are few and far between.

IME experience the bigger SETs also have less detail. This is based on my personal listening experiences, but you will notice that one of the revered 'king' tubes in the SET world is the type 45, which usually makes less than one watt at full power. IOW, the smaller you make them, the better they sound, which is a common theme with amps in general (although OTLs seem to be one of the few exceptions), both SET and P-P.

I've also noticed that it is exceedingly rare to compare like technologies in the SET world. People often compare say a 300b SET against a P-P EL-34 amp (with the results in favor of the SET), but how often is a 300b or other SET compared to a P-P DHT class A amp of the same power rating? IOW to be scientific, this is where one would start if looking for real answers.

I went the other way - from a Cary CAD-805AE SET to the CAD-211AE push-pull amps. The reason for the switch was because the SET was underpowered for my new speakers. With the old speakers (ProAc D38's) the SET sounded magnificent with certain types of music - vocals, lieder, violin solos, string quartets. But the SET's could sound muddled when given something a bit more full range, like heavy orchestral. The symptoms were poor seperation of any instrument from the midbass down.

The CAD-211AE is an improvement in almost every aspect, mostly with dynamics, midrange weight, and almost unstoppable drive. But the top end is nowhere near as good as the SET. I was bi-amping for a while (see my sig) before I was forced to return the SET to pay the bills! If I could afford it, I would buy another pair of CAD-805's and bi-amp again.

My experience with SET was after several years of experimentation with SS and PP amps matched with a number of speakers. Most recently a few more systems have made their way through, and while some were quite good, I am always in a hurry to get my 300B SET/Altec 604 back on for the ease and sense of 'life' it conveys.

I have been very happy with my present main system for the last three years. The lower freq are augmented by two powered subs that have been set on a seperate volume and balance control to allow ease of integration with the mains. Further the two subs have varying crossover points to fill in any gaps. Not complicated in practice, but it took me a while to get it to this level.

Along with the well considered responses above. I'd like to add that the realism from this current system is quite stunning at times. Tho I'll be the first to admit the speakers could have better resolution, amongst other things... The whole effect as a whole is wonderful.

Give it a try and let us know how it goes...

Cheers,

RW

HanaleiMike, take a visit over to the JE Labs website. Question...do you listen to acoustic instruments or a lot of electronic instruments? For the latter, some other kind of amp/speaker combo might be better.

My 300B amp measures flat well below 30hz. 30hz is the lowest range of piano. They also measure beyond the upper limits of my hearing capability. I need to measure my 45 amp (have much smaller, cheaper transformers) and haven't done so yet. I cannot listen to the 45 amp wide open but can listen at a decent level...too much distortion and I'm guessing it is what Atmasphere describes. In another forum JohnK told me minimum 300B for my speakers and he was right...for optimum performance. Thanks JohnK.

Speakers are 100db at one meter. I think I have roughly somewhere between two to four watts to play with before the distortion really starts to kick in and become relevant. Four watts is 106db. I would be inclined to agree with Atmasphere on how much power is required for these sorts of amps. This for live music type levels not quiet listening.

However, this should be more about enjoying the music/sound (overall frequency response throughout the music spectrum) based on how you listen and not getting caught up with the manufacturers' spec chasing of lower and upper bandwidth statistics.

Perhaps a bigger reason SETs are popular is price/performance ratio. Nothing comes close imho.

http://members.myactv.net/~je205d/obsize-vs-freq.jpg