FWIW, the best and least compromised sound I have actually heard with affordable speakers run off a low power tube amp was...drum roll Audio Note (do not know the exact model or cost but they start out in Reb's price range I believe and I believe are typically made for corner placement for best results, which I think has to be a big help with moderate sized speakers off just a few watts.
And they sell kits as well. |
Also Decware specializes in "affordable" low power tube amps and makes speakers to match that might be in teh price range. Disclaimer: have never heard these but Decware gets a good rap overall and these are made with that goal in mind. |
here's another radical thought.
A lot of pro gear ie monitors are high efficiency out of necessity and tend to offer good sound quality value/$$. Are there any very high quality pro monitors in the price range worth consideration? Tannoy for example is one vendor who does both home and pro speakers/monitors. JBL another. |
Brownsfan and Seikosha,
You both make excellent points concerning SPL preferences. This is strictly personal and all of us have our comfort levels. Ralph to suggest that just because one chooses moderate/reasonable SPL is somehow missing out on true musical enjoyment, well I disagree.
I listen to live acoustic music very often and sometimes its louder than is comfortable. And at other times the SPL remains in the mid 80-90s db range. Much depends on the musical fare, venue and where you're seated. I've discovered that lower listening levels at home can be and are immensely involving. There's no need to mimic live venue volume levels to achieve deep enjoyment. Brownsfan I have also experienced SPLs at shows and demonstrations that are unnecessarily loud and sounds like crap! Those who feel the SPL must be cranked up, more power to you and again this is merely personal choice. I don't view this as a right or wrong issue. I just believe it's disingenuous to say that preference for moderate SPL means your missing out on true satisfaction, No way.
Charles, |
Atmastphere,
I respect you greatly, understand what you are saying, yet I fully agree with Brownsfan, my parameters in my home match his. Yes, at times I might go 95db-100db with one of my Various set-ups, but not normally in my home office system in a 14x16x9 room. Hey, I must get some work done on occasion. Plus, I too, prefer/listen to Bach, Beethoven over the Wagner stuff 99% of the time. I'm happy for you that you have found your sweet spot. I'm happy for Charles, Brownsfan, Jet, Granny that they have achieved their sweet spot; now let us help Rebbi get closer to his sweet spot with a smaller budget. Theory is fine, but $$$ speak. The real question is: how far can we push the envelop and get to sound quality of 90-95% of expensive systems for Rebbi and the majority of music lovers who will not or cannot spend $$$$$$$ and upgrade every other month. |
I remember HP from TAS talking about sneaking a DB Meter into Carnegie years (decades) ago. If I remember correctly, he was only getting peaks in the mid 90 decibel range. I've seen others talk about doing it and coming up with similar numbers.
Suprising to me, because when you are in a hall and the Orchestra builds to a crescendo, it always seems pretty intense.
There used to be a woman who could sing that worked in my office. She did opera. Every once in awhile, I'd ask her to do a song if we were working late and our area was empty. My god did it seem loud. This was in an office space with me just 10 feet away. She was always definitely louder than I'd ever want to play my stereo. |
Ralph, I guess I will have to take my dB meter next time I take in a St. Matthew Passion. I favor small ensemble, period instrument, even at times, one voice per part, which I doubt would give anything like 105 dB mid hall. My current set up, with the 94 dB monitors driven by the Coincident Franks, is not the set up I would prefer for Das Reingold. Walala, weiala weia! With apologies to Herr Wagner, the ring gets a couple playings a year. Bach plays night and day around here.
The pairing is, in my opinion, absolutely sublime with the material that garners 95% of my listening time. I could get it all, no doubt, but at what cost? I have $7.5 K in my amp speaker pairing, and for what it does, which addresses 95% of my needs, it outperforms everything I've heard even at 5 x the price. As for the room, it is 15 x 20, with a long wall set up.
I hear what you are saying, but I remain happy where I am. It seems a prudent investment to me. |
One way to be happy with lower volume levels at home after experiencing what can occur live with an orchestra is to only sit further back in the cheaper seats. or listen to outdoor live concerts only. Not as hard to reproduce those SPL levels experienced at home.
Its all a matter of expectations really.
I went to see John Fogerty live on Monday. It was a fantastic show, great tunes, fantastic musicians, lots of energy, good sound, and loud loud loud. But sound quality was good with distortion well under control. When I go to these things I am always assessing "can I attempt to reproduce this at home" and I leave feeling good about that.
In my case, with only modest efficiency full range speakers, my amps are my power hitters needed to carry the team. In the case of a SET, it would need to be very high efficiency speakers based on what I have heard to date. |
A few comments.
I also listen at lower than typical volumes. I frequently have to fight with salon proprietors to turn it down when I audition new equipment. In my case, those lower volumes represent realistic volumes. Bach cantatas are seldom performed at 105 dB. So, Ralph, no worries! You did not confuse me by presenting the facts as dictated by physics and math. My problem is that I played in several orchestras over the years and my wife was a singer. I've seen her singing in a Bach Cantata and FWIW 105 db is **easy** when the full choir is singing at a double forte (ff)! Having such exposure to the real thing (which is on-going; I operate a recording studio and play in a band), playing with peaks at only 75-80 db is good for background music when I am reading or cleaning up the kitchen but not if I am seriously listening. What if you want to play Wagner (Das Reingold, Decca, Sir George Solti conducting, side 6) or Verdi (Verdi Requiem, RCA Soria series, side one cut 2)?? 80 or 85 db peaks ain't gonna cut it- you need the unrestricted ability to play well past 100db without incurring artificial loudness cues (previously mentioned in prior posts) from the system. With a low powered amp this means high efficiency and make no mistake. If you have 91 db, the is a moderate efficiency and although you may like what you hear, just keep in mind that you are not really hearing what the amp is about and for that matter the speaker as well and it just goes to show. Seems a poor investment to me, unless you are in a fairly small room or office. But that's me- I figure if you are going through the trouble and the cash, might as well be able to really enjoy the music the way it was recorded. Others might differ on that... |
Rebbi,
I am confused by much of your vacillation and think Brownsfan gave you superb advice; but did you, or did you not, like the sound of the Tekton overall? Do you want a speaker that spotlight in the stage? There are not too many speakers in the $1,700 range that are going to give you absolutely everything you desire, but I believe you know that...that is why in my value system I pushed the Tekton idea, it gets you 90-95% of what the big buck speakers do; that is the aggregate consensus of more than a half-dozen quality Review Mavens from respected publications. You made a stellar decision with regard to an amp, the AN Kit. Perhaps, as Brownsfan suggested, hold on to the DeCapo, live with their bottom end limitation until you can save up for something that give the whole Megillah. Another thought with respect to the Tekton you heard. The limitation you thought you heard in imaging I believe is due to your cabling, interconnect, and perhaps something else not discovered due to your lack of time with said speaker. As I stated previously I do not have that problem with either the M-Lore or Lore. Also, maybe Eric is correct and the Tekton 2.0 is the ticket being that it is 98db efficient, 8 ohm nominal, digs down to 34hz. Plus, being taller. Statically this speaker betters the M-Lore/Lore. I also believed your room was smaller than it actually is, this 2.0 version will not overload your room based on dimension and shape as you recently described. Regardless, best in this pursuit. Rob |
Hifis are like baseball teams. Ideally, you want 9 40 home run power hitters in teh lineup. That's optimal perforamnce. But realistically you will have some poor hitters and some good hitters with decent averages and on base % but not power hitters. They are good baseball players as well, many hall of famers.
So teh reality of things is that we often live quite happily with significant compromise compared to the ideal.
But the ideal is still best.
Oh, and some decent pitching and fielding does not hurt either. |
REbbi,
One other thing I can recommend taht might help in any case is go with something where drivers can be/are located closer to teh floor perhaps with slight upward tilt for treble balance at your listening position. That will help get more bass out which is where the challenge will be. To accomplish this I would put the speakers on the floor but on a pair of Isoacoustic pro monitor stands. There are three different sizes for different size monitors to choose from. These will help to keep the bass clean along with the extra floor reinforcement. This was the magic sauce to get my little Triangles to finally perform optimally in my wife's acoustically challenged 12X12 sunroom with lots of windows and a cathedral ceiling. Similarly I put Auralex Subdude isolation platforms under my bottom ported OHM 100s to achieve similar results with those. |
If I were Rebbi, I would try Tekton. Can't say how it will work out, but that is where I would start from what little I know. |
Zu Essence sounded very thin and lifeless at moderate volumes off a SET with rock music that requires some meat on teh bones to sound good IMHO when I heard them.
Just one audition but by Zu experts who admitted the amp used was underpowered for that kind of music. They were demoing acoustic jazz and such solely until I asked for something more challenging. |
If one widely elects to preserve their ears, its a good thing to in general not go louder than low 80s db volume. So that is not a bad limitation in practice necessarily ie one that is good for ones health.
But the flip side is that real music can be much louder than that and when the goal is to reproduce reality higher volumes are often required. This is part of the performance aspect of gear that I always talk about. Performance enables good sound but is not necessarily the same thing.
Unfortunately for me, I occasionally like to go louder when called for. Not often but on occasion. So its a limitation I am not able to live with currently.
Maybe someday as I continue to get older and mellower. :^) |
A few comments.
I also listen at lower than typical volumes. I frequently have to fight with salon proprietors to turn it down when I audition new equipment. In my case, those lower volumes represent realistic volumes. Bach cantatas are seldom performed at 105 dB. So, Ralph, no worries! You did not confuse me by presenting the facts as dictated by physics and math. My Coincident Triumph Extreme II monitor pairing with the Coincident Franks is not a perfect in every respect set up, but it achieves my goals better than anything I have yet owned or auditioned. What I loose with reproduction of Mahler, I gain in reproduction of a Beethoven violin sonata.
Rob made an especially astute observation with respect to some of us having true timbre as the number 1 priority. Indeed, for me, if a piece is slightly amiss in this respect it is a non starter. I have quickly rejected very well reviewed equipment on this basis. I can make sacrifices in low frequency extension and dynamics, but not with timbre. I suspect this may also be something Rebbi values, based on his love for his new AN 300B.
In Rebbi's case, I am sympathetic to arguments for very high efficiency speakers. It may well be that given his musical tastes and listening volumes, he can't get what he seeks without getting into the 97-100 dB efficient range. His deCapos can certainly be bettered in that respect, and with a higher efficiency speaker he is likely to realize the improved dynamics he seeks. Also, it is my experience that the deCapos, for all their virtues, don't handle the lower octaves all that well. Both Rob and I noted issues with walking bass reproduction.
The problem is his budget. At $1500, there are going to be trade offs. If there were a $1500 speaker that did everything he wants, we would all own a pair. I would have thought something in the Tekton line might have been his best shot. His brief audition of one of the Lores was disappointing. My fear is that while he can probably find a deCapo replacement that betters their performance in one or two respects, he may find a decrease in what he calls refinement may not be an acceptable long term solution. He is not in a position to run experiments that are not cash neutral.
So Rebbi, sorry if I have spoken as if you are not in the room. I can still remember when cash flow was tight. My advice is to continue to audition everything that you can at minimal cost. Too bad you are so far away from Tennessee. I'd love for you to hear my Coincident TE IIs. The performance gap by comparison to the deCapos is startling. Be careful selling the deCapos to fund something that is a pure experiment. It is going to be easier to deoptimize in a cash neutral transaction.
If you had another $1000, i think you would have more options.
Meanwhile, enjoy what you have. |
Keithr
I tried 3 SETs on my Zu Def IVs. First, an EAR859, then a Yamamoto 08, then a DejaVu 2a3.
I thought the EAR859 to be too sterile. The Yamamoto 08 (45 SET) and DejaVu 2a3 did not have enough oomph. (Caveat: I have very long speaker wire runs - under the floor to the other side of the room.) I am very happy with an Ancient Audio SET using Takatsuki 300b tubes and driven by an Ancient Audio CDP/preamp combination. (There were major differences among 300b tubes.) This combination can fill a large (45' x 22' x 16' high) volume - although the front third - 15' x 22' x 16' high with the speakers on the long wall - is the primary listening space. This is regardless of the music that I play to include full scale chorus and orchestra as well as classical rock. And it does so without sounding overly loud and never strained.
I have heard the SIT monos with the ZuDef IVs at a show, but I have not heard any 845 amp. I have also tried powerful solid state amps, but did not sense any increased output. I think that the built-in amp for the down-firing sub mitigates any weakness of low-power SETs. |
As Rob, Grannyring and I have mentioned previously, our typical listening volume is 75 to 85 db. At this level power required is less than 1 watt (actually fractions of 1 watt) for our speakkers. Distortion is miniscule, resolution/detail retrieval is superb benefitting tone and timbre. No need/desire to listen at louder levels(unless you just want to). Result=excellent sound with preservation of one's precious hearing ability.
Charles, |
I'm loving learning from you folks. :-)
And remember Rebbi's Rule (TM): "A thread ain't a thread until it's hit 500 posts."
:-D |
The key to good sound is all about low noise and distortion.
Agree with Ralph that a major difference and potential advantage of a set is that first watt or so and results will depend on how far you can make that go. |
Tubegroover,
There's absolutely no offense taken by any stretch of the imagination. We're just all sharing our varied experiences and opinions. The irony for me is that the SET ownere here as a group are about as an experienced bunch you'll ever find. We've as a group have owned or experienced a multitude of different amplifiers and by this time and place know what we want and how to get it. Class A, AB, D, SS or tube, OTL push pull, you name it and we've heard them collectively. Those of us who've chosen SET did so willingly, enthusiastically and with both eyes open. This has been a good discussion.
Charles, |
Grannyring,
Agree, the same rating doesn't mean they're the same amplifier by any means.
Pehare if the Dynamo didn't suit your needs then yes you should move on. One point though, don't confuse the Dynamo with the Frankenstein. Yes they're both 8 watt amplifiers yet are in reality very different. Very different design objectives, far more power supply and trannsformer capacity for the Frankenstein MK II. The Franks are 3 times as heavy as the Dynamo for a good reason. Note the comments of Jetrexpro and Grannyring regarding power supply quality and grunt. This factor and output transformers make or break SETs and thus a hierarchy is established. Franks drive the Coincident Total Eclipse brilliantly.
Charles, |
Jetrexpro, you nailed it. Well done sir. One 8 or 10 watt SET amp can play much louder than another 8 watt SET amp without the distortion Ralph talks about, if the amp has a robust power supply and iron.
10 watts is not created equal in all 10 watt SET amps. One amp may run out of gas well before another based on power supply and iron. This has certainly been my experience. My current 10 watt SET amp drives my 90-92db 8 ohm speakers wonderfully. A past 12 watt SET amp ran out of gas! |
So, Atmasphere,
Then why don't we have manufacting that promotes high efficiency nominal 8 ohm or higher speakers. Seems like it makes amp manufacting funnel into a narrow "limiting" high power proposition that does Limit and force a specific choice that doesn't often times serve music by my definition, but does loud/dynamic. As a maker of a fine amp, don't you realize many benefits with more efficient speakers in the manufacturing process. I'm a big advocate of high efficiency- tube power is expensive! My speakers at home are 98 db and 60 watts is pretty good power on them and I don't feel like the extra power is wasted at all. I like to play things at a lifelike level. I'm also an advocate of higher impedance- 8 ohms or more. This reduces the distortion of all amplifiers, tube, solid state, class D, whatever. Higher impedance is also a lot less critical of speaker cables and connections! IOW if high quality reproduction is your goal, there really is no good reason to use a 4 ohm speaker. If sound pressure is your goal and you have solid state then there is a reason, albeit a 3 db reason... it would be cool if speaker manufacturers figured this out as a simple way to make any speaker sound smoother and more detailed is to reduce the distortion of the amp by increasing the impedance of the speaker. Ralph I stand by my statement that there is no perfect amplifier, some will excel in some sonic areas and be less than ideal in another. We choose the tradeoffs we can live with. Restated in this fashion I've got no beef; I agree 100%. One of the huge strengths of SETs that many audiophiles don't realize is that 'first watt'. SETs might make a lot of distortion at full power, but as the power output is reduced the distortion decreases linearly to unmeasurable- at lower power levels most push-pull amps make a lot more distortion (one of the few exceptions being our OTLs which have the same reduction of distortion as power is reduced). This is where that great 'inner detail' and 'magic' comes from- without distortion you just get the music (distortion masks low level detail via the ear's masking principle). That's a lot harder to do than it sounds! This is why if you really want to hear what the amp does you need a speaker with real efficiency. |
Pehare,
I also loved my RM 10, I was stupid for selling them about 10 years ago, but I love the Coincident Dynamo even more. Like anything audio, careful system synergy, your ears, your room. Best, Rob |
I bought a new Coincident Dynamo & pretty quickly determined it wasn't going to cut it power wise for my louder listening. It was a great experiment because for years I've lusted after the Frankensteins but 8 watts per channel ain't gonna cut it in my world. Been enjoying my RM10 for over 4 years now w/nary a glitch & it's a phenomenal combo w/the Partials. Every room & system is a different animal. |
I'd be curious if the 8 watt SET folks on this thread have tried 845s to see if the sound was more effortless.
I had a 10-watt, stereo First Watt SIT on my 100 db Zu Def IVs and it started breaking up in the mid-90s. The adjustable bias, monoblock SIT-1s (same 10 watts though) however could give me more range.
Also, when I was looking to purchase a Shindo amp, the 10-watt SE Cortese was not recommended by JH given my speaker specs- only the P/P EL34 model and single-ended GM70 monos.
Every room and speaker is different, but I'd like to hear those who have tried multiple SET amps. |
Tubegroover,
I'm with you on teh pros and cons of teh Quads. They were one of my main references when undergoing changes in my gear in recent years. Macrodynamics being the main limitation.
My other reference is all manner of live performances. I go to and soak in as many as I can.
Still, I ended up going a certain way to achieve my reference sound. Interestingly each "walks that lonesome valley" in their own way despite often having similar goals and references.
Tubes have helped me along teh way but I am still of teh opinion that they are optional in that quest and I am still seeking to minimize my dependencies and finding I am able to make progress in that direction.
My philosophy is to attempt to take advantage of modern technical advances and innovations. Digital and related technologies have made great strides in recent years. I am finding I can ride that wave a lot further these days then I was able to even just a couple years ago, when I turned more to tubes to help close the gap. |
"Tubegroover, Ralph and others,I understand that you are drawn to something else and move in a different direction."
While we may be drawn in different directions Charles, I do believe our goals are essentially the same. I, like you and Rob believe that correct tone is the most important factor in realizing long term enjoyment and reduces the encroachment of fatigue more than any other factor, at least to me. If tone, timbre and pitch is off just a bit, very little else matters. Tone, energy (is this pratt, toe-tapping that is referred to?) realistic transients, dynamic contrasts and low level musical information are some of the things that make music more real to me. What contributes to great tone the question might be? I have come to the conclusion that correct tone is directly attributable to the reduction in distortion, the less the distortion in the system, the better the resolution and tone. The wild card is that tube amplifiers seem to get this more right than SS, at least most I've listened to, "anyone got a recommendation of a ss amp that sounds like tubes" never the reverse. Something I always marvel at is listening to a pair of well set-up Quad speakers, how natural and convincing they are in getting tone and timbre right, more right than anything I've personally listened to. I don't and wouldn't own them because they have other limitations I personally can't live with.
So far as SETs are concerned, I DO agree with you guys! We're not in disagreement on any point other than that IME they require very efficient speakers to reduce the distortion characteristics that would make them more appealing to ME and quite possibly others for the wide genres of musical tastes I and others might have.
Please don't take offense. I've made the points of my comments clear. There is nothing wrong with SETs, they have magical qualities, just to others watching which I include myself, there may be more restrictions using these amps because of their power limits so if you take that path you have PLENTY of information above to use as a guide going forward. |
""I don't understand the singling out of SETs as if nothing else mandates compatibility considerations."
"
Of course they always do but also this thread is about speakers for SETs specifically so that is the topic at hand here. There are pros and cons with everything. |
"I don't understand the singling out of SETs as if nothing else mandates compatibility considerations."
As Atmasphere likes to point out, SETs along with many tube amps like his OTLs operate under a different paradigm than most gear in today's world. In addition, SETs have the additional disadvantage of delivering just a few precious watts.
So its not an issue unique to SETs, just perhaps of greater magnitude in general than in most cases. For top notch performance in all common cases a home audio enthusiast might encounter, you have to find speakers that are both efficient and an easy load to drive and the choices may be limited.
So its not a problem that is not solvable, just one in which there are more ways to go wrong and perhaps also of greater magnitude or consequence when they do.
Again, if listening mostly at low to moderate volumes, it may not be much of an issue at all but that does not address the needs of all home audio enthusiasts.
For example, in my case, it might work for a second system but not likely for my main system in that I could neither afford nor fit any of the speakers I have heard run off a SET that I considered to not have limitations that would matter to me.
Of course as always YMMV.
Just beware of teh limitations in any case. They are always there. |
Charles,
Completely logical. Everything in audio requires planning, experience for one's self...that is, how you explained, how we ultimately got to SET. It is a journey, in the end we make a decision as to what satisfies us the most according to our own personal value system. Different folks make their own, perhaps different choices. But you and I don't run around trying to tell them their choice was limiting or wrong.
I want to ask all the speaker makers here, why did you go to 4 ohm? You have forced amp makers to have limited choice. Why make speaker loads and efficiency harder to comply with, not easier? Do 4 ohm speakers inherently sound better? I think not. |
Rob,
You make many logical points. SETs aren't unique in requiring some thought and planing regarding synergy and component matching. As you cite this is true for virtually all audio product to ensure successful outcomes. If you like Maggie speakers, be prepared to seek out high power amps to drive them. I don't understand the singling out of SETs as if nothing else mandates compatibility considerations. I would expect any person interested in a particular amplifier or speaker will do their due diligence as to what's required.
Charles, |
Amps are either well designed and built, or not. A perfect measurement does not necessarily equal good sound. |
As discussed many times SET amps need a very well designed power supply so they can handle dynamics and bass as well as they handle midrange. Even a small change in the design of the PS can either improve or detract from how the amp handles bass and dynamics. It is not an exact science so if one hears a SET amp with well matched speakers and it's dynamics are weak and the bass is soft and uncontrolled the possibility exists that the amps power supply could use more attention from the builder. |
|
I'd imagine that the vast majority of SET owners had a variety of different amplifiers prior to discovering SETs, this is true in my case. At some point with experience under our belt we realize what sounds preferable to us individually. To state the obvious, these choices/tastes will vary. I can only speak of my own listening encounters. I've found SETs as a group sound better and closer to what I seek. That's it.
Tubegroover, Ralph and others,I understand that you are drawn to something else and move in a different direction. This is as it should be, I chose what moved me the most in terms of music enjoyment and involvement. I really don't understand what the dispute is, if SET doesn't float your boat then find what does (there's plenty of options).
Ralph I stand by my statement that there is no perfect amplifier, some will excel in some sonic areas and be less than ideal in another. We choose the tradeoffs we can live with.
Mapman, I don't get your "sugar coating" comment, sugar coating what? Every SET owner who has participated in this thread has been clear and open concerning proper amp/speaker matching. Their comments simply support and express the satisfaction they have found going the SET route. How is this perceived as sugar coating? Is Rebbi strongly preferring the AN Kit1 SET over his former Manley or Bel Canto an example of sugar coating?
Charles, |
So, Atmasphere,
Then why don't we have manufacting that promotes high efficiency nominal 8 ohm or higher speakers. Seems like it makes amp manufacting funnel into a narrow "limiting" high power proposition that does Limit and force a specific choice that doesn't often times serve music by my definition, but does loud/dynamic. As a maker of a fine amp, don't you realize many benefits with more efficient speakers in the manufacturing process. |
Tubegroover, Others,
The DeCapos are my brother 2nd system, usually paired with Leben CS600. Admittedly, in his system everything is fine, except the lower bass realm, yet does not best the Tekton with said Leben. The DeCapo Ref is a very nice speaker, I have said so here many times. I personally like the tone and presentation better with the Tekton. My brother's primary speaker is the Harbeth SHL5 also very good. Another thing to note as previously mentioned here is that between my brother and I, we often enough have audio shootouts at our houses with usually 6 to 10 audio buddies, their systems are all over the map. Between my brother and I we have owned or listened to many, many serious systems. Not as reviewers, but music lovers...I've even shopped at one of the stores Mapman worked at back in the 70s.
With regard to "limitations" all audio equipment/amps have limitations and must be matched synergistically with appropriate ancillaries. Monitors have limitations, usually a a lot missing below say, 55hz; Ribbons have limitations and usually require amps with over a 100 watts and high current; Electrostatics present other problems; many speakers have a Head In The Vice sweet spot; some speakers are difficult to set-up; and so on and so forth. A SET is no more problematic than anything else. Historically low-powered amps with gigantic horns filled large movie theaters with loud dynamic sound. I would argue that just because an amp is powerful does not make it a good match for many speakers, sure they'll play loud, likely dynamic; but what of the quality of sound?
Too me, like Charles, Brownsfan, Roxy, many non Westener listeners such as the Japanese, we seem to be Timbral listeners and have very specific musical requirement as outlined above where I pasted Jeff Day's blog on "Listening Bias". As a former professional musician I care for the above musical attributes. Directly heated SET matched with appropriate high efficiency speakers does it for me and I suspect legions of others. I also think speaker manufacturing took a wrong turn with 4 ohm based solely on financial considerations. I strongly believe we would all be better served with efficient, easy to drive speakers, perhaps, some rare exceptions. |
The is no single type of amplifier that is the best for all genres of music, I don't care what amplifier it is, there's inevitable compromise somewhere. Charlesdad, while I appreciate many of your posts and your primary tenant (paraphrasing: 'get the system that sounds right to you and enjoy it'), the above quote is simply incorrect. Electronics don't care what signal you give them and can't express taste. If the amp is excellent for classical it will be excellent for rock, because it is excellent. I trust Ralph of Atmasphere when he states that distortion rises quickly with these amps before they reach peak power, but I can tell you that that is not the case with my speakers. I, like Charles, choose to listen at moderate levels, but when I am off and around the house in different rooms, I will turn it up to levels that are pretty loud by any standard, and it still sounds great, without a sign of strain. 102 db is the kind of efficiency that is needed to work with many SETs. I suspect though that the Klipsch are really 99 db (which is still helpful) due to the difference between efficiency and sensitivity; unless I am mistaken I would expect that they are 4 ohms in the bass region despite the '8 ohm nominal' impedance claim. 'Strain' BTW has nothing to do with what I was talking about in my prior posts. If you have ever wondered why SETs are so dynamic, especially considering their low power, the reason has to do with how they make distortion without clipping. As you get over 20-25% of full power, the higher ordered harmonics start to show up. Its important to understand that the ear uses these harmonics as loudness cues, so their presence will make reproduced sound seem louder than it really is. At the volume is increased, these harmonics show up on transients (where the power is) so essentially the loudness cues that the ear detects will be more prominent on the musical peaks. This gives the amp a very 'dynamic' quality. However what is really happening is more distortion is present for brief periods. Actually in about 95% of audiophile conversations, the word 'dynamic' or dynamics' can be safely substituted for the word 'distortion' without altering the meaning of the conversation at all. I may have ruined it for some as the awareness that distortion is driving this phenomena may mean that you become more aware of it. |
Hi Reb.
I've downsized my second system to a 60 watt/ch Class D integrated (Bel Canto C5i) so if any new speakers on my horizon, tehy may well need to be more efficient as well. So far I'm liking the combo with the OHM 100s. Eventually I will try with my Triangles and Dynaudios just for fun.
The DeCapos would be a nice upgrade over my Triangles off my main rig still, but they are holding their own for now plus my audio budget is shot. I am looking to downsize and sell not buy these days. In addition to the STAX, I am also plannign to sell my TAD Hibachi monoblocks and mhdt Paradisea tube DAC.
I am a bit of a Klutsz so surely I would be the one to drop the Frankensteins. Charles would surely never forgive me for that one. |
Rebbi,
One thing I have found about orchestral recordings is they vary quite a bit in recording technique. Some sound like they were recorded at the first row or actually from the conductor's seat and some sound like they were recorded way back in the cheap seats. Recording an orchestra is a real challenge for recording engineers. I guess what I am trying to say is hopefully which ever speakers you choose they will portray those differing perspectives accurately. |
Thank you everyone for your responses, I feel it is worthwhile information to lurkers viewing this thread with interest.
Rob your comments regarding the Decapos sounding thin and lean "yelping down the street" (LOL) kind of underscores MY point. If everyone recalls very early on when Rebbi asked the original question about "best value in SETs" this very point was questioned with some of the manufacturers' claiming "no problemo", others questioning whether 92 db is enough for a SET amplifier for all types of music. I WILL say this Rob, I don't know if you have listened to the Decapos with a good tube PP amp but I can attest they are anything but lean and can throw a HUGE soundstage, up, out and back, for those interested. I've listened to these speakers to date with 5 different amplifiers including a First Watt SE M2 but not an SET where my opinion might be valued less than someone that HAS listened first hand which is fair enough.
The Tekton/Decapo comparsion is a perfect example of how a speaker with higher efficiency is better suited and in direct comparison with a speaker with less efficiency gives a seemingly negative impression to you Rob. Your amp is different than Rebbi's but the power is similar enough. The Kit 1/Decapo combo may have been less objectionable to him but still, not enough for him to keep them, "lets explore further options". So if one is going to explore the options, what might be the BEST option? Good enough for me is not necessarily good enough for someone else. The question has hardly been put to bed as far as I'm concerned, only for some it is quite satisfactory. I have listened to numerous SETs over the years the most recent a pair of 7 watt DHT 300b sets with a 95 db speakers which I've listened to numerous times over the past 4-5 years in different rooms as well. Another I'm quite familiar with are different, integrated stereo 845s in parallel producing a whopping 35 watts with a diy compression driver in a very large transmission line enclosure! In both cases I hear limitations in large scale music, at least I DO. The dynamics on transients are just not the same with less power IME, this is where I HEAR the limitations first, things just sort of level out. The clipping characteristics on these amps are quite benign so I don't hear anything objectionable, just a ceiling.
Roxy, the speakers you are using are getting closer to the type of efficiency required that is going to minimize constraints on the music offered by an SET/DHT 8 watt amplifiers, IME.
It appears that what may be good enough for one listener may not be enough for another, at least speaking for myself. If someone is influenced to try the SET route it is important to pay close attention to all considerations MOST IMPORTANTLY, the speaker used! The higher the efficiency, the greater chance of long term success. There is NO substitute than listening first hand. |
Reb,
I've done some downsizing and will be putting some items up for sale shortly.
One item I am planning to part with are my STAX electret "ear speakers". These are entry level STAX and not expensive and tehy always tend to shine in particular with tubes upstream. I;ve always thought these would do some very nice things with a SET amp as a source but that won't be happening with me anytime soon. They connect to an amp like speakers. LEt me know if interested. I would like to find these a new home where they might get more use. |
Mapman,
You've always said you wanted to see how De Capo's stack up against your Triangle's. I know where you can get a nice pair. ;-)
Oh, and by the way I think you and Charles might want to settle this whole "SET limitations" thing via a gentlemanly arm wrestling match. Or, better yet, you could play "catch" with his Coincident Frankenstein mono-blocks and the first one who drops one has to shut up about SET limitations.
Or something. |
"We couldn't be more clear in stating that SETs require appropriate speaker matching"
That's keeping it real.
There will be more limitations with more speakers than otherwise.
As long as people realize this, then they should be fine.
Nothing wrong with building a system around an amp if that is what floats ones boat but keeping it real means knowing this will be the case with a SET more so than with most anything else.
For example I thought it inevitable that Reb would eventually choose to dump the Decapos as a result of moving to SET, though I hoped I was wrong. There was false hope that somehow the combo would work out when on paper it seemed apparent to many that that would not be the case.
Now changing speakers to optimize for use with an amp is not not the end of the world, just another choice that we all make all the time, but the fact is the choice of speakers that will perform optimally with a set is much more limited than otherwise.
Most speakers WILL NOT perform optimally with a SET amp, certainly less so than otherwise. Nothing will change that fact.
The good news is that it is probably not any harder to choose the right speakers for a SET for optimal performance than any other kind of amp. The bad news is that one will find their choices more limited. Also those choices will likely tend to be physically larger than otherwise, which might not work for everyone, and also might be quite expensive in the case of the best and largest choices.
Different strokes for different folks. Let's all just be real about the obstacles one is likely to face. Sugar coatings taste good at first but tend to wear off over time. |
Mapman,
It seems you've missed the fundamental point of this current topic. "keep it real"? that's what I and other SET users have been doing. We couldn't be more clear in stating that SETs require appropriate speaker matching. Once achieved, you can enjoy listening to all manner of musical genres. Thus SETs "don't" limit or restrict one's choice of music. The cliché that SET has " limitations" as to what one can listen to is in fact wrong. I can't make it more clear rhan that Mapman. The point Tubegroover's raised concern over had to do with limitation of various music genres. No one here has suggested SETs aren't limited in their ability to drive certain speakers. You may need to reread the above posts for proper context.
Charles, |
I also started on the trumpet at about ten, thanks uncle Bill. Rebbi I have to disagree with your imaging assessment of the Tekton. Now I realize you are in your venue and I am in my venue. If you aggregate all of the reviews of Tekton, I believe all the reviewer's thought the Tektons imaged extremely well. Also, this might be an apples/orange thing, you heard the new Lore Reference, I own the M-Lore and Lore. But I believe the house sound is similar. When I did compare the DeCapo directly against the M-Lore, yes, the DeCapo slightly edged out M-Lore/Lore in imaging, but it was more of a case of spotlighting, which is not the way we actually hear music live. The M-Lore/Lores throw an enormous stage in my venue. Great scale, height, width, depth. All the reviewers agreed on this aspect. When it comes to tone, color, texture, a weighty fullness, harmonic rightness, solid bass, and more...the DeCapo couldn't compete in my room with the 8 watt Coincident Dynamo and Tekton combo. By comparison the DeCapo was thinner and you could tell it was stressing where the the Tektons were relaxed and handling everything thrown at them. I'll give a couple of examples pertinent to this discussion: on the Bach, Stokowski London Phase Four, Toccata & Fugue in D minor, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, it pretty much starts full tilt violins/violas, then with major thwack descends into deep Cello and Bass strings, then loud cacophony of French Horns and Brass. The Tecktons handled this piece with aplomb, the DeCapo's went yelping down the street completely thin and missing all the power of the deeper notes, as was always the case on the deep end that ultimately affected the balance of the music, what you should hear from a live orchestra when it hits those big moments such as also in Mussgorsky, Gates of Kiev.
Even playing Jazz you would lose a lot: one of my faves was diminished, Louis Armstrong & Duke Ellington/The Complete Sessions/Deluxe Edition, because the DeCapo could not capture all of Mort Herbert's terrific bass, especially the body and volume of air and fat notes floating out, it totally missed the foundation. You made my point with Lorde and that type of music. In sum, to my ears/room the Tekton beat the DeCapo pretty much in every parameter.
We all hear differently. I like the quality of sound top to bottom much better as presented by the Tektons. YMMV and it obviously it does. Same goes for everyone else and that is a good thing. After all, variety is truly the spice of life. Best. |
"Time to retire the SET limitation cliches."
Charles, c'mon get real.
Are you saying SETs do not have limitations?
Fact is they are the MOST limited of amp designs. One has to adapt in other places to make them work well.
Not to say that they cannot work well when mated with the right gear, but it is a disservice to suggest a SET amp with just a few watts does not have limitations.
Its not a cliche but a fact that just s few watts IS A LIMITATION.
Not an insurmountable one, nor one that might not well be outweighed by other benefits in some cases, but a limitation nonetheless.
One will have to jump through some very special hoops for best results, as Rebbi has recently determined as well.
We all love what we love but let's just keep it real. :^) |
Rebbi, I'm a former trumpet player(began at age 10).though I don't play anymore I still have 2 horns (trumpet and cornet) for sentimental reasons. |
