SET the best?

Thanks guys, a lot of great information here. I missed out on the speakers I was looking at, but I may try to grab a new pair of demos. I have been reading non stop, researching many different amps. I think I should change the speakers first before I get hung up on the amplification like many of you have recommended. I am in the process of changing my current amp for one that will work with both my current speakers and the ones I plan to upgrade too, then I can play with the super low watt SET's in the future.

Thanks again,

Breuninger, it was really cool to read your thoughts on this subject. I know you come from a place of experience and I've slowly been coming around to share your opinion.

Hearing you say that stuff makes me feel like less of a traitor for coming back to push-pull and solid-state amps on speakers that dip below 6 ohms and are less than 88db sensitive. Haha.

Atmasphere you said {This power limitation is one reason why I don't use SETs. The bigger you make them, the less bandwidth and detail} Please explain if you would for this doesnt seem to make sence, maybe its just wordered wrong. Maybe Im not getting your point. But power rating in SET doesnt have anything at all to do with bandwidth its the SETs design. Mostly the transformers used. I have owned SETs with limited bandwidth but if of proper build this isnt a universal SET problem. Now if you dont have power your loudspeaker requires thats a system matching error and not the fault of the SET amp but of owners system choice.

Johnk, the post was worded right. The upper power limits of SETs in a way are more of a function of the output transformer that it is the tube! The bigger you make the transformer, IOW to handle more power, the less bandwidth it will have. If you try to optimize it for bass, the highs will be rolled off and vice versa.

Since many high efficiency speakers (99db+) have limited bass response, SET builders usually sacrifice the bass performance in favor of the highs, since speakers that go below 40 Hz in the high efficiency world are few and far between.

IME experience the bigger SETs also have less detail. This is based on my personal listening experiences, but you will notice that one of the revered 'king' tubes in the SET world is the type 45, which usually makes less than one watt at full power. IOW, the smaller you make them, the better they sound, which is a common theme with amps in general (although OTLs seem to be one of the few exceptions), both SET and P-P.

I've also noticed that it is exceedingly rare to compare like technologies in the SET world. People often compare say a 300b SET against a P-P EL-34 amp (with the results in favor of the SET), but how often is a 300b or other SET compared to a P-P DHT class A amp of the same power rating? IOW to be scientific, this is where one would start if looking for real answers.

I went the other way - from a Cary CAD-805AE SET to the CAD-211AE push-pull amps. The reason for the switch was because the SET was underpowered for my new speakers. With the old speakers (ProAc D38's) the SET sounded magnificent with certain types of music - vocals, lieder, violin solos, string quartets. But the SET's could sound muddled when given something a bit more full range, like heavy orchestral. The symptoms were poor seperation of any instrument from the midbass down.

The CAD-211AE is an improvement in almost every aspect, mostly with dynamics, midrange weight, and almost unstoppable drive. But the top end is nowhere near as good as the SET. I was bi-amping for a while (see my sig) before I was forced to return the SET to pay the bills! If I could afford it, I would buy another pair of CAD-805's and bi-amp again.