SET the best?

Wow! More of the ever-evolving absolute conclusions based on very limited experience.  It is one thing to say that you have heard, and liked, a certain 845 amp running a particular set up, but, that does not then lead to a conclusion that "845 surpasses all PP amplification in all genres" and that PP amps are not needed.  

I have heard a number of 845 amps, and liked quite a few, but, none were clearly better than a whole bunch of SETs running other tubes.  If higher power is needed, does it have to be an 845?  How many 211, 833 and 1610 amps have you similarly auditioned?  In all of these comparisons, how many pushpull amps and tube types have you auditioned other than the Defy7?  Also, OTL amps are pushpull amps--how many of these have you also auditioned?  

No none of the above

Hey Larry

I am only basiing my opinions on some sound bites from our local tech,,who has heard quite a few SETs and has built a 300B SET.

All I was trying to say is that the 845 hasa good reputation for delivering the goods.

My tech points in the 845 direction for what he feels will give me best bang.

He also likes most other SET tubes.

I mean if we want to take this to the last word in SETs

There’s always Kronzilla 4 tube PER CHASSIS!!!! Super SET.

Now that amp will beat any PP amp.

But back to reality.

Sure my exp is limited to the UX250,

What I was trying to express is a SET design will offer a certain liquid midrange that I doubt even Jadis new KT170 will deliver.

Again not heard the 170 but PP is not going to be same sound image as a SET.

btw my tech does not care for the 300B in any part of a SET design. AS main or driver.

But again my guess is the bass of a KT PP amp will deliver a superior bass response, and maybe highs.

Give and take.

I prefer midrange liquid gold, as my CM is 95%+ midrange fq’s.

SET vs PP 2 dif sound fields. .

All I was trying to say is that the 845 hasa good reputation for delivering the goods.

My tech points in the 845 direction for what he feels will give me best bang.

He also likes most other SET tubes.

Liking a tube is very different from how it can be made to perform 😁

The simple fact is the more power the SET has, the more limited its bandwidth. This is because the higher the power the output transformers designed for SETs are, the more limited their bandwidth. Its inescapable (except in marketing literature).

The more limited the bandwidth, the more phase shift is introduced (unless you have a mess of feedback to control it; not possible with a tube amp). Phase shift messes with the soundstage; not saying you won't have one, but it will be more palpable if the phase shift isn't there.

That is why the 300b was King 30 years ago, why the 2A3 supplanted it 20 years ago and why the type 45 is reigning now. So we went from 7  watts to 4 and from 4 to 0.75Watts. Compared to these tubes in terms of the sound quality you get, the 845 is fun but not in the running.

I'm with Atmasphere on the choice of tube.  I prefer the lower-powered tubes for SET amps, and I like the tubes in the order he presented--from 300b to 45 (the 45 sounds great if you can get by with a very low amount of power.  My own SET runs parallel 2a3 tubes; I wish it was set up to run 45s instead (some others I know who own the same model of amp run 45s in place of the 2a3, but, the tubes don't last very long).  

My Dennis Had SEP (pentode) is plenty loud and clear into my alleged 99db rated Heresy III speakers, enhanced by a couple of RELs. I simply don’t care much about opinions of others regarding things they haven’t heard (i.e. my system), although some here have garnered my respect generally...I’ve owned a couple of these Had Firebottle HOs ("high output" or "prostitute" depending of who you believe) and the one I kept sounded best and is a bit louder than the rejected one (a newer version, but still...outta here!). Suffice to say that after many decades of enjoying various well designed SS amps, the single ended tubester stays right where it sits. That said, I might try a Pass XA 25 someday since I can.