I think that most often people who are SET fans arrive at that point after going through a range of other choices. Low-powered SETs tend to be an end-point only after a long search because it takes some experience finding the relatively few speakers that are compatible with such amps (many high-efficiency speakers are highly "colored" as far as their tonal balance so you have to find the few that are not so odd or learn which "color" works for you). It can also mean giving up a little on some of the more obvious attributes (like extremely deep bass response and bass punch) for the more sublime attributes of SET amps and compatible speakers that one learns to appreciate after long-term experience. So, in that sense, I agree with Charles.
But, in this day and age, where "knowledge" so freely flows on the internet, I can see Mapman's point that a lot of inexperienced listeners could be seduced into trying SET amps at the outset (it took me YEARS before I even learned of their existence, today just google "best amp" and you are there). I fear that it is the case that many are tempted to try SET amps with incompatible speakers and/or assume that cheaper SET amps will do the trick because they should not cost that much to manufacture (because they a simple and have few parts). The problem with that is that those parts can be very expensive to get right, particularly the large, air-gapped output transformers that can handle the high standing current in the primary without over saturating. You will find a lot of internet posts from those saying that the SET amps they heard are crap; I bet that a lot of this comes from listening to such "bad" setups (easier to be WAY wrong with SETs that with any other kind of amps).
While I agree that it is far easier to get quite decent sound at a reasonable price from Class-D amps, I have not heard any "all out" assaults on top quality sound that involved such amps. I admit that I haven't heard too many in high-end systems utilizing Class-D amps, but, those that I have heard were somewhat disappointing (e.g., Devailet and Rowland) because they just sounded a bit dull and un-engaging. In a lower-end system, I thought that a Bel Canto amp sounded pretty good for the money.
But, in this day and age, where "knowledge" so freely flows on the internet, I can see Mapman's point that a lot of inexperienced listeners could be seduced into trying SET amps at the outset (it took me YEARS before I even learned of their existence, today just google "best amp" and you are there). I fear that it is the case that many are tempted to try SET amps with incompatible speakers and/or assume that cheaper SET amps will do the trick because they should not cost that much to manufacture (because they a simple and have few parts). The problem with that is that those parts can be very expensive to get right, particularly the large, air-gapped output transformers that can handle the high standing current in the primary without over saturating. You will find a lot of internet posts from those saying that the SET amps they heard are crap; I bet that a lot of this comes from listening to such "bad" setups (easier to be WAY wrong with SETs that with any other kind of amps).
While I agree that it is far easier to get quite decent sound at a reasonable price from Class-D amps, I have not heard any "all out" assaults on top quality sound that involved such amps. I admit that I haven't heard too many in high-end systems utilizing Class-D amps, but, those that I have heard were somewhat disappointing (e.g., Devailet and Rowland) because they just sounded a bit dull and un-engaging. In a lower-end system, I thought that a Bel Canto amp sounded pretty good for the money.