Does anyone care to ask an amplifier designer a technical question? My door is open.

@krelldreams, though you asked Roger for a recommendation of a low-powered tube amp for use with Maggies, I hope he doesn’t mind if I chime in on the question. As a long-time Maggie owner (my first bought in 1973, the original Tympani T-I; I now own Tympani T-IVa’s), I can assure you a typical low-powered tube amp is about the worst kind you can partner with a Maggie. But what do you consider a "lower" powered tube amp? Under a hundred watts? Under 50? Maggies are very insensitive speakers, and benefit from a "higher"-powered amp. Another factor working against tube amps with Maggies is that the speaker present a 4 ohm and lower load to an amp, and almost all tube amps prefer a higher-impedance load, producing less power at higher distortion into lower impedances than into higher.

While this may strike some as inappropriate in an answer to a question posed to the designer/manufacturer of Music Reference amps, I’m doing it anyway ;-) . There is one tube amp I can suggest for use with Maggies, the one I use: the Music Reference RM-200 Mk.2. Unique amongst tube amps, it produces slightly higher, not lower, power into a 4 ohm load than into an 8 ohm one. About 100 watts/ch into 8 ohms, a little more into 4. Most 100w tube amps produce only 60 or so watts into 4 ohms. The RM-200 is also a real good amp in general terms. Low distortion ("clean" sound, including at bass frequencies, The Achilles heel of many tube amps), low output impedance (no tube amp colorations, such as added "warmth" and/or "soft" highs), stable into reactive loads (usable with ESL’s and ribbons), long tube life (some popular tube amps burn through a set of output tubes in as little as a couple thousand hours, and a replacement set are not cheap), and tasteful, classic styling, all at a reasonable price. Review, both subjective and objective, available on the Stereophile website.

I really like the sound of SET over PP.You can see my audio history in the below link.https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-most-musical-sound-in-my-40-year-s-audio-historyThanks again for your kind advice

I think the debate between cone and electrostatic is reminding me of the great cable interconnect debate. Could it be that this is just personal preference? Or even that my ears are just trained and accustomed to whatever cones do to the ears? I’ve listened to my share of electrostatics. Some were very impressive. Some were better than my Altecs in many respects. But none moved me.

@ramtubes, Roger I happened to make my first visit to a new hi-fi shop just opening in Livermore, CA in 1973, Audio Arts. It was a 1-man shop, that man being Walter Davies, now the maker of the great Last Record Care products. And as luck would have it, that was the same day Bill Johnson was delivering and installing a complete ARC system in his new dealer Walt’s listening room; a Thorens TD-125 MK.2, a Decca Blue mounted on a prototype ARC arm (it never went into production), an ARC SP-3, and Tympani T-I’s (as you said, at the time distributed by ARC) bi-amped with a D75 and D51.

I was just a kid, and spent a couple of hours getting an education in high end hi-fi. A couple of months later I had that exact system (with a Decca arm) in my own room. All set up and connected, I pushed in the power switch on my SP-3, and immediately heard a "poof" and smelled the aroma of something burning, which turned out to be a resistor in the power supply. Welcome to the wonderful world of using under-rated parts! High End? Not by my definition!