Has anyone tried SET tubes amps with maggie 1.6's

Hi Paul,

I have been looking for an alternative to the expensive REL sub and perhaps your Hsu VTF-3 will fit the bill nicely.
Is there anywhere that I can get information about it easily? Otherwise I will try to research it a bit...the chance of hearing it where I live in south western New Mexico is pretty near impossible! Can the "crossover" on the Hsu VTF-3 be "dialed-in" to match the roll off of my maggies (or your Martin Logan's)?
I have consistantly read good things about the Hsu speaker line and I belive, here and there I have read a thing or two about his subs...but it has been quite a while and I cannot remember too much about it. I'll certainly check into it.

I deeply appreciate your recommendation Paul!

I do not know what your budget is for SET amp but I do have some suggestions...although I have never heard them personally...

Jud Barber makes a SET/OTL tube amp called the Stargate that puts out 30 watts and has been very favorably reviewed. It lists for $5,500. Yes...I know...that demands a bit of cash! Call Jud directly if you are interested...his company is called Joule Electra.
David Berning makes and OTL tube amp that uses radio signals to "control" the output signal of the tubes and puts out a wopping 70 watts. If you read audioasylum you will get a great deal of information about it. It sells for $4500. a bit less than the Stargates.

However niether of these amps have a "tube" sound (I read a great deal of reviews about these amps and I am extrapolating from them) in the sense of what most audio enthusiasts would imagine a SET to sound like. But they are worth cheching out if your budget can stand it.

I am seriously looking into the Carver Professional ZR 1600. It is one of the new digital amps, actually a mosfet amp that uses a tri-path chip to control the incoming and outgoing signal to maintain its "purity." I have read a great deal about it and I am in touch with several current owners (from audioasylum) that are very pleased with it and characterize the "sound" as being tube like, in the sense of it creating a rich bloom (one user said "bubble") of sound. It sells for well under a thousand dollers for 350 watts into 8 ohms and 600 into 4 ohms...that should give my maggie 1.6's the juice they need to sing. I have it on order and will certainly report what it sounds like. I should be getting it in 2 weeks or so, so check back here and I'll let you know what I find.

Again thanks for you suggestion of the Hsu VTF-3. Although many maggie 1.6 reviewers caution not using "any" sub with these speakers (they are so fast and "clean" that subs generally cannot keep up with them, for anyone interested see Davids remarks above). And yes... I agree with David that a good sub like his REL's help to build a firm foundation under the music and also help to flesh out the midrange giving the voice (for example) a more human and richer presence.

Best-Richard

Try driving them with a clock radio! Probably about 1 watt. Surprisingly the radio sound will be quite good, but you won't get what you paid for from the Maggies.

Yes Eldartford,

I can see that the idea of using an "underpowered" amp must seem to you like an exercise in futility. Granted.

But what is going on here is an attempt to find the limits of what a modest, but beautifully crafted amp will do, with a supposedly "difficult to drive" speaker like the maggies 1.6.

Think of it as an experiment...we audiophiles need to cultivate a little tolerance. If only to allow the "spirit" of experimentation to thrive...exactly like the designers of the audio products we love do, when they set out to see if they can reinvent an existing topology.

Best-Richard

I'm having a hard time comprehending what I'm reading, since it doesn't seem to match up with my experiences at all.

When I auditioned Maggie 3.6's, the dealer used a CJ Premier 17LS preamp and MV55 or MV60 power amp. At moderate volume, it was dreadfully obvious that the power amp was simply out of gas. The room was not large but did have a fairly high ceiling (12'?), although a lot of it was pretty live. And I didn't play almost anything that would call the maximum from the power amp, just a couple of fairly deep bass notes from a synthesizer. Now these are 3.6's, but they are spec'ed within 1dB of the 1.6s, and the 50+ wpc was clearly and obviously not enough. From what I heard, I don't think this is really an opinion - it was fact. But then, other folks seem to like it.

I'm also floored at the notion of running Martin Logans with SETs. My room is small (14x15) and my ML mains regularly pull at least 50-100W peaks out of my amps (and I'm measuring this, I'm not guessing even though my amps don't have meters). I can't imagine how even a 20W SET could fail to run out of gas. This is especially true since I am using a powerful sub to augment the bass.

Don't get me wrong - I understand the magic of SETs driving these planar speakers - but my experiences with them, especially with those 3.6's, is that anything except chamber music simply pulls too much power.

Hi Blw,

I think you suggested very clearly the limits of low powered SET amps or low powered SS amps like the beloved Pass Labs Alpha 3's (for example) when using them with planar and electrostatic speakers.

There are several thoughts I would like to share with you. One is that you are quite right that the music being listened to will certainly determine how well this type of amp will perform. The size of the room, the position of the listner to the speakers (nearness), and even the hour that the music is being heard. Late at night, the so-called "normal" parameters of most listners can change radically.

To illustrate this point, many years ago I built a rather full size Clavichord from a kit (Zuckermann). It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. As you may know the clavichord was not used for concerts (primarily) but rather for composition...Bach, for instance and Mozart (late at night!) used the clavichord to compose with. The clavichord uses tangents that stick up at the end of the (exposed) keys and strick copper strings stretched over them (allowing the player to "attenuate" the sound and even to change pitch). The sound is indescribable...the overtone "structure" far exceeds the piano by a substantial order of magnitude.

However...unless one listens to this instrument late at night or in extraordinary quiet circumstances what is heard seems rather insubstantial...nothing could be farther from the truth however.

A cousin of mine once visited me during the day to "hear" the clavichord which I played for him, first warning him that (sound) conditions were not ideal (read: too much noise!). He listened attentively and then gave me his judgdement: thin, insubstantial, lacking in dynamics, uninvolving and so on.

This same cousin visited me several years later...late at night! Again I played for him on the clavichord...his jaw dropped in wonder and surprise. He characterized the sound as "having the quality of human flesh...my whole body resonates like I myself am being played." He never forgot that experience.

Best-Richard