SET with inefficient speakers

After owning all types of gear (some very expensive and powerfull) I have downgraded to the diminutive Shanling MC-30 receiver (absolutely fantastic value). Tube preamp, SET 3-watt amp (yes, that's SET!), cd player and tuner all into a single stunning chassis. All for not much money. Actually, the cd player alone sounds like twice the price of the whole unit. I had purchased this to use it only as a cd player to be paired with some powerfull monoblocks. When I tried this gizmo on its own, with no power amps, I just could not beleive the proverbial jaw-dropping sound with just 3 watts....sort of makes a lot of other gear look overpriced to me right now.

Paired with my 89db Opera Quintas, I get great, full sound at low-moderate volume.

My personal opinion on the subject:

If it sounds good, it is easier to accept power limitations.

If it sounds bad, power won't make up for a better experience unless one likes noise.

Good luck.

its not impedance alone that will get you, but rather a combination of low impedance AND hi phase angle. Meaning a highly reactive load.
More info on the speaker, including some real measurements would be helpful.

I prefer low impedance, a 180 degree angle, preferably on a sofa, phase-reversed continuous ohm calibration along with a non-reactive by-passed load of no more than 100 cryogenic microfads wrapped up in double-wound 100% oxygen-free copper, originating from planet Krypton.

Another route, a bit simpler maybe, would be to just sit-back and relax with a glass of wine, forget hi-fi and enyoy music...and life!

No offence intended, with a grain of salt !

Tim,

It is hard to predict whether or not a low-powered SET will work for you -- it depends on your taste and priorities, how loud you need your system to play, the particular characteristics of the amp you audition/buy, etc.

I will hazard a guess that a SET amp is within the realm of possibility, but, whether that would be an optimal choice is harder to guess at. When one looks at numbers, most low powered SETs seem completely unsuitable for all but the most efficient commercial speakers. But, I think most people will be surprised at how low a wattage is needed for satisfying volume.

Sonicbeauty raises a very good point about SET amps, or for that matter, any truly worthwhile "improvement" to a system. As one improves quality, the volume level that one tends to listen at should go down as the listener will not be trying to compensate for lack of resolution or poor dynamics with higher volume.

While SET amps using higher power transmitter tubes (845 and 211) will make power much less of an issue, they tend to give up something in the way of performance to the much lower powered tube types, such as the 2a3 or 45. They tend to be more expensive, too, because of the need for a beefier power supply and high voltage wiring. If you can listen to both low and high power types to assess the tradeoffs.

Another consideration is that a SET amps that truly represent what this genre is capable of delivering tend to be quite expensive. While the circuitry may be simple, really good parts are required. In particular, SETs require transformers designed specifically for this use and really good single-ended transformers are very expensive to produce. When priced on a $ per watt basis, SETs seem even more pricey. But, with compatible equipment, the sound is quite special.

Anytime speakers are being driven by less than the ideal amount of power, "success" will be pretty subjective. I know people who use SETs (not flea power) to drive speakers that spec like yours, and state that they hear no benefit with additional power. I seldom share their assessment. Even when I like the sound a lot, I can still hear gains with an increase in power. There is no right or wrong here. It's just one of those times when there is no substitution for listening yourself.