Looking for advice on these speakers

Thank you, gentlemen, for all your input. I have to say, I'm a little bit surprised reading opinions about Daedalus speakers as they are appreciatively more efficient than Coincident speakers. Seems they should be a better match for low-power amps than either Coincident or the Silverback Reference. Even if the impedance is hovering between 7 and 8 Ohms above 100 Hz (according to Lou), at 96-97 dB and a flat curve they should be top contenders for SET amps, based on their specs at least. .

The Daedalus does have specifications that would seem to make them excellently suited for low powered SET amplifiers. They very well may be, the one difference may have to do with crossover design. It appears the Devore and Coincident may employ simpler ( minimalist) crossover networks which "could" be easier on a SET(just speculation). Daedalus uses 3 or 4 crossover boards and a number of poly caps. Does this matter? I don't know. Auditioning these various speakers of interest with the SET of choice is the only way to get a definitive answer.Measurements and specifications are obviously useful but no substitute for direct listening.
Charles,

The Devore Silverbacks can work well with SET although the O/96 may be the better option. I ran silverbacks with an LM218IA, 22W 845 SET which had plenty of drive and power. The current production silverbacks have a different crossover than those original and I have heard that they are more efficient but I don't think John has changed the spec. I have talked to owners of O/96 who love them but I have not heard them myself. There are many articles, reviews, and forum threads that profess the incredible synergy between Shindo and Devore, and it is true.

Given what you are trying to do and the level of investment, I think it would be worth a plane ticket and a weekend to get to hear some of these speakers yourself. Maybe there are people in your area that will host a listen to their gear?

Too be fair Lou doesn't discourage the use of SET amplifiers. He just
doesn't advocate them to the same degree of enthusiasm as John Devore
and Israel Blume do with models specifically designed for these amps.
I agree with Truemaineiac, it's worthwhile to get out and hear these very
worthy speakers driven by a SET.
Charles,

You raise an excellent question, Marek, which I've wondered about myself at times, and I can't add a great deal to the good responses Charles has provided.

I don't doubt that for MOST recordings for MOST listeners a robustly designed SET employing a single 300B per channel and putting out 8 watts or so would work well with the Ulysses (98 db/1W/1m) or the Athena (96 db/1W/1m). But as I indicated earlier a key variable is the dynamic range of the recording (i.e., the difference in volume between the loudest and softest notes). In my case my listening includes some classical symphonic works on audiophile-oriented labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, Reference Recordings, etc. which have extraordinarily wide dynamic range, 50 to 55 db in some cases (determined by me by looking at waveforms on a computer). So with those recordings brief dynamic peaks will reach 100 to 105 db at my listening position, with average levels in the 70's, and soft notes in the 50's.

There is no doubt in my mind that an 8 watt amplifier could not handle that kind of dynamic range with the Ulysses cleanly, if at all. I suspect that a well designed amplifier rated in the vicinity of 30 watts would be able to, though.

Most classical recordings, however, do not approach that kind of dynamic range. And rock and pop recordings are commonly compressed to vastly smaller dynamic ranges, often less than 10 db, although they may be played at somewhat higher average levels.

So as I indicated I think that most listeners would do fine with 8 watts with most recordings, with the Ulysses and perhaps also with the Athena. But substituting "all" for "most" in either of those two places makes the question problematical.

Best,
-- Al