SET vs Single Ended Parrallel


Is there a big dif in the sound between a SET amp and a Single ended parallel amp, if they are both using the same power tubes?
Thanks
brm1
The only meaningful way to compare the sound of both approaches would be to hold as many other variables (apart from the number of tubes utilized) constant. However, there is a lot more to implementing parallel single-end. So, comparing any two amps utilizing the different approaches would not be definitive. For one thing, the parallel approach would reduce output impedance, so the ideal output transformer would require a lower turn ratio than that of a single tube SET.

I spoke to a designer who tried to implement the parallel approach and he could not solve the problem of one tube in a pair "hogging" and putting out most of the output. I have also heard that others who have tried this approach found that the sound is muddier when tubes are parallelled.

I haven't made a reasonable comparison myself, and I have no personal design knowledge. I do own a parallel singled ended amp -- the Audionote (uk) Kageki. This amp utilizes 2a3 tubes. To me, this is one of the better amps I have heard, in a variety of systems I've heard it in, provided that 6 watts is enough. But, I am NOT one who thinks only particular topologies work. I've also heard several terrific single tube SETs and pushpull amps as well. If I had to pick the single best amp I've heard, it would be an old Western Electric pushpull amp. Unfortunately, the amp I heard cost more than three times the price of a Kageki, and the Kageki is NOT cheap.
Single-ended parallel is SET.

A SET is a SET regardless of the number of output tubes.
Paul,

There would be many that disagree with you. If the signal is being amplified by more than one output tube per channel isn't there more room for error in the reproduction. I realize that there is no phase splitter, probably the biggest dif between SET/PP, but there has to be more issues than that doesn't there?
Thanks
Mike