2. amps-preamps
  3. 130671-3105

Sonic qualities of SET output tubes?

Can you readily identify a 300B, 2A3, 805, 211, etc., amp’s sound with your eyes closed most of the time?


If so, I’sure would like to hear from you.


Amplifier design and the technology utilized within its confines decides the ‘voice’ or influence it will yield as much or more so than merely the output tubes the designer has chosen to use.


I get that part emphatically. One must hear the amp regardless the type of output tube technology on hand.


And yes, some Pentodes and Tetrodes are used as Triodes but are not indeed triodes by their specific architecture. That’s OK, just focus on their use as Triodes herein, please.


There are however certain tube types, irrespective of vintage which have basic undeniable sonic colors or characteristics, apart from their electrical aspects which keep attracting people to amps which use this or that tube in its output stage.


Some love 211s. some adore 300Bs. Some love EL34s configured to run as Triodes. I have an affinity for the latter. So far anyway. This topic could change my mind.


Has your own experience informed you what this or that output tube’s natural flavor regularly announces itself to be so you can have a reasonable expectation of its general presentation?


What sonic attribute continually attracts you to a particular SET tube design, 300B or some others?


Or, conversely, what is it about the sound that would bring you to covet a 211 amp over a 2A3, for example.


Why as another example, would you pick a 2A3 amp over one using 805s or 300B, 211, etc. or vice versa?


Removing ‘vintages’ and electronic or electrical qualities from the argument, what sonic attributes for the more popular S.E.T. amp output tubes have you determined seem to persist in their particular DNA?


I’m asking for input from those SET tube devotees to lend their experiences and knowledge on the subject of what tube sounds like what irrespective of the SET application, generally speaking.


My goal is to try getting a better feel for which SET Tube amp design, if any, I’d want to pursue and possibly invest heavily into going forward as the soul of a new system.


Tremendous thanks to all!

blindjim
blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
Atmosphere > good sound can be had on almost any budget.
Blindjim > thanks. My depression lifts.

Inna > We are chasing great sound not good. Good is easy.
Blindjim > … and its back. lol

I’ve been delving deeply and steadfastly in between the lines of articles where possible on Coincident and Devore loudspeakers. And feel there yet may be a light at the end of the tunnel, that ain’t a train.

As a secondary outfit, an all Coincident system could wind up landing fairly inexpensively and be like my last Honda ’73 750cc bike…. A SET starter kit. Actually, the Harley owners called the Honda a harley starter kit.

After the military, my Kawasaki full blown streetable drag bike was very different. It ate Harley’s for breakfast.

I suppose, one must begin somewhere at some level and thereafter merely follow directions from those who have been there before, to achieve a similar destination.

Life is so simple. Only money complicates it.


atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
12,164 posts
 
Life is so simple. Only money complicates it.
**That** certainly seems to be true.

The Coincident loudspeaker concept (tending to higher impedance) that Israel has had for the last 10-15 years or so was developed using an OTL, not an SET. Unless you get a fairly powerful SET, I think you will find that in most rooms the Coincidents really are not efficient enough to bring out the best of such amps, although they are otherwise easy to drive- I find most of them need about 60 watts as a good minimum in most rooms (we've showed with Coincident a bit in the past at CES and had them in our shop so this is based on direct experience). We had one customer (also a reviewer) that ran one of the smaller Coincidents with our S-30, and while it sounded fine, she found that she was wanting more power. 

We had a set of Coincident Total Victory loudspeakers here at our shop for several years; they sounded just fine but if I had to rate the efficiency I would say they were around 93 db.

We had a set of Audiokinesis loudspeakers here too; Duke of Audiokinesis rated them at 92 or 93 db 1 watt/1meter but they seemed more efficient than the Coincidents (Duke tends to be very conservative with his ratings; we've yet to see any of his speakers that didn't play well with our S-30).

We also had ZU Druids which were obviously more efficient (rated 101db which I think was a bit optimistic as well; 97db seems more accurate- otherwise also about 10 ohms) and also Classic Audio Loudspeakers which are 98db 1 watt/1meter (and 16 ohms).

So I have good reason to think the 93 db number I suggested above is pretty close.

In a nutshell, while Israel's amps sound just fine, on any of his speakers (unless you only play at lower volumes) I would think his amps won't make enough power although they do sound good together.
inna
7,923 posts
 
" she found that she was wanting more power "
Right. Women are always wanting more power. So are men.
I agree with Ralph philosophically. Just because it overall sounds good doesn't mean that that's enough. Double the power while maintaining the rest. At least double.
saki70
907 posts
 

Ralph ;

Another terrific and very useful response .

Thank you .

grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,645 posts
 
I owned the Coincident Total Victory II and found they also needed more watts to sound their best. However, I know Charles1dad has had, and continues to have, stellar results with his 8-10 watts on his set of Coincident Speakers. I am sure he will chime in.
More to discover