Hi Rob,
Although I haven't personally used any SET's, low powered or otherwise, in my own system, I'm sure that would be a wonderful pairing for most listeners with the great majority of recordings, and for many listeners with all of their recordings. However, I also feel certain that at least a few recordings that would be listened to by some listeners would cause the amp to clip, or at best to experience a substantial rise in distortion.
My collection includes many classical symphonic recordings on labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, Reference Recordings, Chesky, etc., which have brief dynamic peaks that reach SPL's of 100 to 105 db at my 11 foot listening distance. I can't conceive of an 8 watt amplifier, no matter how robustly designed, being able to comfortably handle those peaks, even with the 94-98 db efficiencies of the Daedalus speakers.
That is why I chose a VAC amp which uses four 300B's per channel, in a push-pull parallel configuration capable of 65 watts. I wanted to draw a compromise between the magic that a 300B can offer in a SET configuration, and having power capability that would not be marginal (or worse) under any circumstances that could conceivably occur with my particular listening habits. And I made that choice while realizing that the cost of upgrading eight 300B's from the VAC-supplied Chinese tubes would be prohibitive.
Another point to keep in mind is that although the impedance curves of the Daedalus speakers are exceptionally flat, and they are extremely benign loads in terms of phase angles, their impedances are in the 6 to 8 ohm area (6 ohms in the case of my Ulysses), as contrasted for example with the 14 ohm nominal impedance of Charles' Coincidents. So I suspect that his Franks are capable of providing a bit more power when used with his speakers than they would be capable of with mine.
But as I say, I suspect that for many and perhaps most people the Franks would do just fine with the Daedalus speakers.
Best regards,
-- Al
Although I haven't personally used any SET's, low powered or otherwise, in my own system, I'm sure that would be a wonderful pairing for most listeners with the great majority of recordings, and for many listeners with all of their recordings. However, I also feel certain that at least a few recordings that would be listened to by some listeners would cause the amp to clip, or at best to experience a substantial rise in distortion.
My collection includes many classical symphonic recordings on labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, Reference Recordings, Chesky, etc., which have brief dynamic peaks that reach SPL's of 100 to 105 db at my 11 foot listening distance. I can't conceive of an 8 watt amplifier, no matter how robustly designed, being able to comfortably handle those peaks, even with the 94-98 db efficiencies of the Daedalus speakers.
That is why I chose a VAC amp which uses four 300B's per channel, in a push-pull parallel configuration capable of 65 watts. I wanted to draw a compromise between the magic that a 300B can offer in a SET configuration, and having power capability that would not be marginal (or worse) under any circumstances that could conceivably occur with my particular listening habits. And I made that choice while realizing that the cost of upgrading eight 300B's from the VAC-supplied Chinese tubes would be prohibitive.
Another point to keep in mind is that although the impedance curves of the Daedalus speakers are exceptionally flat, and they are extremely benign loads in terms of phase angles, their impedances are in the 6 to 8 ohm area (6 ohms in the case of my Ulysses), as contrasted for example with the 14 ohm nominal impedance of Charles' Coincidents. So I suspect that his Franks are capable of providing a bit more power when used with his speakers than they would be capable of with mine.
But as I say, I suspect that for many and perhaps most people the Franks would do just fine with the Daedalus speakers.
Best regards,
-- Al