What's the deal with SET? (Single-end Triodes)

[jabbr]

get a bigger house - the part where most of the horn is located just needs to be a heated warehouse

 

then you can use those tiny, low power SET amps...

 

That's why we use those Class A amps -- keeps us warm

[shum3s]

Good heavens, stop by, even just for a handshake. PM me if you want to stretch your legs. That's a long drive. :-)

 

And no, you were not misled at all. What you've purchased is a common and perfectly acceptable route toward the goal. Within my old DIY community back east, there are lots of different approaches to high-efficiency systems.

 

Zack how do I PM you regarding that handshake?

[astrotoy]

Avant-Garde Trios, at $60K plus a pair, use powered subs for the low end. So I don't think you have anything to feel bad about. ;-)

 

So do my AV Duos (which I bought used but nice for around $10K). Smaller than the Trios, they do fit in my room. The Trios won't easily and my wife would notice them. They are more efficient than my Duos, which are only 103db. My Duos are fine with my 3.5W/ch SETs.

 

Larry

[zackthedog]

Zack how do I PM you regarding that handshake?

Click on my handle, and choose Private Message.

[accwai]

I hope you are not taking my comments on single driver loudspeakers personally.

I have a bit of first hand experience and believe that it may help others.

I owned a pair of largish ported standmounts with Diatone P610 and a pair of semi-omni single drivers before that; next came some Consonance horns which I tried to improve with some modifications.

The experiment with horns was just too expensive for my budget and I returned to using more conventional speakers.

 

So you come into a thread about SET and offer to help people trying to test the water by showing them how hopeless the endeavor is and advise them to give up?

 

Yes I am aware of this combination inherint weakness, but I assume all audio systems have their trade offs, am I correct in assuming this? [...]

 

Yes of course. To me, single driver speakers have the same simplicity as SET amps. And just like SET, they don't try hard to be perfect on paper. So you have to accept their limitations. And in return, there are moments of magic.

 

As for the crippling limitations listed, the bandwidth limitation is there. If massive bass it what you're after, you can't avoid offloading the bass to something else. But crossing over from wideband driver to subwoofer seamlessly is probably going to be difficult, especially if you're on a budget. On the other hand, if you want to reproduce a couple of acoustic instruments, a small jazz ensemble etc in a intimate setting, you really don't need that much bass.

 

About intermodulation, that can be a real problem with highly complex music, full symphony orchestra for example. But I'm not sure if more conventional speakers are all that much better. Price for speakers and associated equipment to properly resolve full symphony orchestras is going to be very shocking no matter what technology it is.

 

As for uptilted response, some wideband drivers have it. Plus there might be some degree of shoutiness as well. But they is not an inherent problem of single driver. Drivers that are free from such problems do exist. On the other hand, the uptilted response has some interesting effects. A while back in the Bach cello suite thread, one of the posters pointed out the highest string used in one of the recordings is of a different type. To the poster, the break in timbre is a distraction. But to me, it spice things up nicely. The uptilted response can be thought of similarly, I suppose. Try it and see if you like it.

 

Now on limited dynamics, I think the comment is quite misleading. SET and single driver usually have a directness to their sound. The energy of the music just pours out without restraint. In a more budget oriented system, the macro dynamics might be somewhat limited, but if you look into the strands inside the soundstage, they are quite alive. I believe the fact that the amp is connected directly to the driver's terminals has contributed significantly to this liveliness. This is the thing that draws me to SET and single driver in the first place.

 

For what its worth, my main musical interest is solo keyboard, a little bit of piano but mostly harpsichord. So evenness in response is very important to me. Not just even in the perceived frequency response, but handling of macro/micro dynamics, timbre and resolution should be even across the frequencies. The goal is very high resolving power without undue emphasis on specific notes. This allows the harmony and the melody/counterpoint of the pieces to be understood with ease. I believe having only one speaker driver contributes to the evenness that I'm after.

 

At the end of the day, you can't discover if a path is right for you without actually walking the path. If you feel the appeal, try it. You taste and judgement will be affected over time. If it doesn't appeal anymore, leave. There is no other way. For myself, I'm happy with the system I have now and there is no plan to change any time soon. But then again, may be I'm totally deluded. I'm certainly no expert, so who knows. But ignorance is bliss. So who cares

[semente]

So you come into a thread about SET and offer to help people trying to test the water by showing them how hopeless the endeavor is and advise them to give up?

 

 

 

Yes of course. To me, single driver speakers have the same simplicity as SET amps. And just like SET, they don't try hard to be perfect on paper. So you have to accept their limitations. And in return, there are moments of magic.

 

As for the crippling limitations listed, the bandwidth limitation is there. If massive bass it what you're after, you can't avoid offloading the bass to something else. But crossing over from wideband driver to subwoofer seamlessly is probably going to be difficult, especially if you're on a budget. On the other hand, if you want to reproduce a couple of acoustic instruments, a small jazz ensemble etc in a intimate setting, you really don't need that much bass.

 

About intermodulation, that can be a real problem with highly complex music, full symphony orchestra for example. But I'm not sure if more conventional speakers are all that much better. Price for speakers and associated equipment to properly resolve full symphony orchestras is going to be very shocking no matter what technology it is.

 

As for uptilted response, some wideband drivers have it. Plus there might be some degree of shoutiness as well. But they is not an inherent problem of single driver. Drivers that are free from such problems do exist. On the other hand, the uptilted response has some interesting effects. A while back in the Bach cello suite thread, one of the posters pointed out the highest string used in one of the recordings is of a different type. To the poster, the break in timbre is a distraction. But to me, it spice things up nicely. The uptilted response can be thought of similarly, I suppose. Try it and see if you like it.

 

Now on limited dynamics, I think the comment is quite misleading. SET and single driver usually have a directness to their sound. The energy of the music just pours out without restraint. In a more budget oriented system, the macro dynamics might be somewhat limited, but if you look into the strands inside the soundstage, they are quite alive. I believe the fact that the amp is connected directly to the driver's terminals has contributed significantly to this liveliness. This is the thing that draws me to SET and single driver in the first place.

 

For what its worth, my main musical interest is solo keyboard, a little bit of piano but mostly harpsichord. So evenness in response is very important to me. Not just even in the perceived frequency response, but handling of macro/micro dynamics, timbre and resolution should be even across the frequencies. The goal is very high resolving power without undue emphasis on specific notes. This allows the harmony and the melody/counterpoint of the pieces to be understood with ease. I believe having only one speaker driver contributes to the evenness that I'm after.

 

At the end of the day, you can't discover if a path is right for you without actually walking the path. If you feel the appeal, try it. You taste and judgement will be affected over time. If it doesn't appeal anymore, leave. There is no other way. For myself, I'm happy with the system I have now and there is no plan to change any time soon. But then again, may be I'm totally deluded. I'm certainly no expert, so who knows. But ignorance is bliss. So who cares

 

A few quick comments..

 

Firstly, I am not against SETs, but as any other topology they should be adequately partnered on the speakers side, preferably band-passed in an active configuration.

 

You can reduce intermodulation by adding more ways (see Neumann website).

 

Small drivers have limited dynamics.

 

You can solve the problem of uptiltilg and "shoutiness" by lowpassing.

 

Beaming affects sound power (see Toole, Paul Barton).

 

Occelia uses a tweeter.

 

Finally, does it make sense to put a system together that will restrict the music you listen to to a single instruments or small ensembles?

[semente]

Whilst I have not had direct experience with SETs I have owned a low powered PP valve amplifier from Audio Innovations, a 47labs Shigaraki and used those with single driver speakers.

I have also read a bit about speaker design.

 

All speaker topologies have specific limitations but some have more damaging limitations.

Single driver speakers have very limited potential; you'll soon feel that you need to add a sub and a tweeter and then it's no longer a single driver, but with the disadvantage of letting the driver run full range whilst band-passing will limit its operation band to where it performs best.

 

People fall in love with certain concepts to the point of neglecting overall performance.

 

R

[accwai]

[...] Occelia uses a tweeter.

 

Depends on what you mean by use. Mine are set to 2 out of 20 on the dial.

 

Finally, does it make sense to put a system together that will restrict the music you listen to to a single instruments or small ensembles?

 

Depends on who you're talking to. You can see what I normally listen to in the album of the evening thread. But that's just me

[4est]

But they are--really. If they weren't much different, you wouldn't get such an increase in efficiency.

 

why is a tapped horn more efficient than ported? - diyAudio

 

Gosh, I just do not see why this pisses you off so much. I merely stated my opinion that a back loaded horn is not a horn, but is in fact a type of port as there is no front wave support to help couple the driver to air. Hence my comment on epistemology. And you disagree- so what!

 

And I have never commented on high efficiency either.

 

And a pentode is a pentode even if you connect it as a triode. The people searching for NOS 2a3, 811, 300B ect are doing it for good reasons- they sound good. Having sat behind flea watt (what I'd call that amp), new and vintage SET (think WE, Jensen or Altec), single ended OTL (you betcha!) and push pull Xfmer and OTL on a buddies horn rig, I can say there are differences. They are also readily apparent. The truly interesting thing to me is John Swenson's comments on power supply being the primary factor on Class A vs Class AB.

 

To wit, my friend and I were chatting on the phone yesterday, and I asked what he was running these days. Despite the piles of SET gear he has (he calls it a museum), he is running push pull pentodes on his 110db field coil horns after months of trials between all of them. He even commented on that he is nervous as it could vaporize the drivers he has spent decades collecting. He thinks/feels it is the regulated bias, screen and B+ that makes the difference. It is the only real similarity between the top four contenders- including coupling methods: direct, capacitor or transformer.

 

I am going through all of this as it appears as if you think I am raining on your parade, when I am really just trying to be accurate. To me a SET horn system has a front horn and a triode in it. There are plenty of examples of this type of kit. I am not factoring cost or size in this as I feel that is not a part of the definition even though both are very practical considerations. Go ahead and call me wrong. I just do not care. What I do care about is people leading others to believe that shums system mirrors that of a (by my definition) a horn/SET one. The notion that: a back loaded small single driver cone with open baffle sub woofers is comparable to or equates with horn loaded bass cabinets and horn driver mid/highs, is ludicrous to me- regardless of how nice it might sound. I've owned both, and do not let my present system fool you. I am into tubes, and my Maggies were purchased as a stop gap until I have the time or inclination to fix my Soundlabs.

[zackthedog]

Gosh, I just do not see why this pisses you off so much. I merely stated my opinion that a back loaded horn is not a horn, but is in fact a type of port as there is no front wave support to help couple the driver to air. Hence my comment on epistemology. And you disagree- so what!

 

And I have never commented on high efficiency either.

 

And a pentode is a pentode even if you connect it as a triode. The people searching for NOS 2a3, 811, 300B ect are doing it for good reasons- they sound good. Having sat behind flea watt (what I'd call that amp), new and vintage SET (think WE, Jensen or Altec), single ended OTL (you betcha!) and push pull Xfmer and OTL on a buddies horn rig, I can say there are differences. They are also readily apparent. The truly interesting thing to me is John Swenson's comments on power supply being the primary factor on Class A vs Class AB.

 

To wit, my friend and I were chatting on the phone yesterday, and I asked what he was running these days. Despite the piles of SET gear he has (he calls it a museum), he is running push pull pentodes on his 110db field coil horns after months of trials between all of them. He even commented on that he is nervous as it could vaporize the drivers he has spent decades collecting. He thinks/feels it is the regulated bias, screen and B+ that makes the difference. It is the only real similarity between the top four contenders- including coupling methods: direct, capacitor or transformer.

 

I am going through all of this as it appears as if you think I am raining on your parade, when I am really just trying to be accurate. To me a SET horn system has a front horn and a triode in it. There are plenty of examples of this type of kit. I am not factoring cost or size in this as I feel that is not a part of the definition even though both are very practical considerations. Go ahead and call me wrong. I just do not care. What I do care about is people leading others to believe that shums system mirrors that of a (by my definition) a horn/SET one. The notion that: a back loaded small single driver cone with open baffle sub woofers is comparable to or equates with horn loaded bass cabinets and horn driver mid/highs, is ludicrous to me- regardless of how nice it might sound. I've owned both, and do not let my present system fool you. I am into tubes, and my Maggies were purchased as a stop gap until I have the time or inclination to fix my Soundlabs.

 

You're not raining on *my* parade, but you were pretty rough on shum. Look, it's one thing to say, "If you like that little amp, you'll love a 300b," but that's not what you said. You said his system wasn't really SET and it wasn't really horns, neither of which is true. You seemed *confused* about the nature of his amplifier because it had two output tubes. I attempted to set the record straight.

 

For the record, a pentode is NOT a pentode if you connect it as a triode. I know some people think a "genuine" directly-heated triode is the only answer, but that's not necessarily the case. A triode-wired EL84 has much higher transconductance than a 300B, for one thing, which helps with accuracy and bandwidth; it's very easy to drive, again improving bandwidth and simplicity; it's indirectly heated, so you don't have to jump through hoops to get it quiet; and it's a very pretty-sounding tube. One of the best SET amps I've ever heard uses an indirectly-heated *regulator* tube that, on paper, looks like a very poor candidate for linear single-ended operation.

 

That said, I AGREE that a directly-heated triode like the 2A3 or 300B can be capable of more magic, but that magic can disappear pretty quickly if the amp is poorly built, and if you can't afford good-quality tubes. And please don't tell me I don't have a "real" SET amp unless I use NOS WE 300Bs. ;-)

 

Your *opinion* of what comprises a "true" SET system is certainly clear, but it's not the only way to get SET magic. If shum had spent $20K on his system, I'd be the first to suggest that perhaps it wasn't the best deal. But he didn't. You made him feel like he got cheated. He didn't. He bought a budget SET/horn system and he's enjoying it. I'm guessing he's not interested in collecting a museum's worth of stuff. I'm also guessing that a $20K compression horn outfit is beyond his budget. And even if it weren't, he might not like it. It's not everyone's cup of tea.

 

Finally, regarding horns, I know you think you "merely stated your opinion," but there and again in this post you are making assertions. Unless I'm very much mistaken, a back horn involves air-coupling the same as a front horn does. A horn and a port are not the same thing. If you can point me to a source that states otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected. This series of articles looks convincing to me:

 

http://www.quarter-wave.com/Horns/Horn_Theory.html

 

And please don't use the old "gee you sound pissed off" ploy. I'm not pissed off. I'm just pretty sure I'm right. ;-)

[TubeLover]

While certainly not the easiest option to design, purchase and st up, SET is certainly still viable, and it does not "require' a massive expenditure. It can also, when properly put together and set up, play everything from a string quartet to loud rock. I have had the capability of doing that.

 

A horn based system is not very affordable, and more limiting, but some people are very fond of their AvantGarde's, etc By choosing say, speakers from Zu, or Omega, and a relatively affordable amp from Decware, or Icon Audio, or others, or buying used, this can be done effectively, and affordably. And you may well end with a system that brings your more audio magic then you've ever heard.

 

JC

[semente]

While certainly not the easiest option to design, purchase and st up, SET is certainly still viable, and it does not "require' a massive expenditure. It can also, when properly put together and set up, play everything from a string quartet to loud rock. I have had the capability of doing that.

 

A horn based system is not very affordable, and more limiting, but some people are very fond of their AvantGarde's, etc By choosing say, speakers from Zu, or Omega, and a relatively affordable amp from Decware, or Icon Audio, or others, or buying used, this can be done effectively, and affordably. And you may well end with a system that brings your more audio magic then you've ever heard.

 

JC

 

Zu speakers have poor performance and cannot be considered hi-fi/accurate.

 

Omegas, though better, have the shortcomings of a single driver topology.

They are indeed a cheaper way that is just adequate enough to try out SET amplification but I don't really agree with the "effectively".

 

R

[mourip]

Prices for Omega Loudspeakers start at $695. Just last week my Super 3i's (94.5 dB at 8 ohms) arrived and are now breaking in. I've wanted to try a SET amp and high efficiency speakers for years and finally decided to go the Omega single driver route. My next acquisition will likely be a Decware Zen amp. The pairing is reported to be terrific, especially at this price-point.

 

+1 for Omega speakers with SET or Pass First Watt amps. I use a FW SIT2 since ended solid state amp.

[mourip]

Single drivers are a crippled topology, hence the need for subs (and I would add in spite of).

It's shortcomings are well documented.

 

If you're happy with such a system then your requirements and expectations are well below what I expect from a system.

 

R

 

 

All any off us can really say is what sounds good to us.

[semente]

All any off us can really say is what sounds good to us.

I am not contesting that; on fact I believe that the ultimate goal of an audio system is to satisfy its owner.

But that satisfaction depends on one's expectations.

As I have mentioned previously, the single driver topology has a number of limitations (and some advantages too) and cannot be proposed as an alternative to a wider range two or three way speaker.

 

Yes they are sensitive enough to be driven by low powered SETs and the point source does produce very convincing imaging and they are reasonably affordable.

But they are not an alternative to a wide-range horn system; saying that is misleading information that may lead prospective SET users to disappointment and loss.

 

R

[Stereolab42]

The best thing about being exclusively a headphone listener is that SET amps are viable and affordable for all of the best headphones, and for all types of music. (Rocking a Woo WA5 and Abyss headphones at the moment, with a number of different 300B pairs to switch between...) Of course, now your average person would say a $6k amp is pure insanity, but by the standards of traditional audiophiles, just peanuts.

[zackthedog]

I am not contesting that; on fact I believe that the ultimate goal of an audio system is to satisfy its owner.

But that satisfaction depends on one's expectations.

As I have mentioned previously, the single driver topology has a number of limitations (and some advantages too) and cannot be proposed as an alternative to a wider range two or three way speaker.

 

Yes they are sensitive enough to be driven by low powered SETs and the point source does produce very convincing imaging and they are reasonably affordable.

But they are not an alternative to a wide-range horn system; saying that is misleading information that may lead prospective SET users to disappointment and loss.

 

R

 

We hear you. :-) I think it's time to let people choose their own experiences. If it's disappointing, they'll move on.

[TubeLover]

Zu speakers have poor performance and cannot be considered hi-fi/accurate.

Omegas, though better, have the shortcomings of a single driver topology.

They are indeed a cheaper way that is just adequate enough to try out SET amplification but I don't really agree with the "effectively".

 

R

 

Your, increasingly negative, possibly personal(?) issues with Zu are not relative. I can only guess that you are primarily basing it information many years old, as I said last time around. I'm sure you believe you are correct, but other people with very significant expertise do not side with you. You are causing inaccurate information to potentially mislead people. I have owned many, many speakers, including the Zu Druid Mk IV/08 which provided very high sonic performance. That speaker was also highly regarded almost across the board. I know of half a dozen serious audiophiles who own various models of Zu speakers as a part of some very fine systems. Some reside here on CA. Even the Stereo Review article where you note some problems with measurements resulted ultimately in a very positive review of the speakers involved. Herb Reichert said, in conclusion:

"Audio consumers need to be self-aware and self-empowered. Don't just buy into some pre-existing (ie, mainstream) audio aesthetic or belief system. Your ears, heart, and mind are far more sensitive and sophisticated measuring tools than any 'scope, calibrated mike, or analyzer—trust them. In my rustic hermitage, and to my ears and heart, Zu Audio's Soul Supremes delivered copious amounts of savory musical connectedness. Highly recommended.

Six Moons has also awarded them extremely high marks, and Srajan owns them, (and owned (owns?) the previous model Druids) when he could own anything available.

In addition, you might have overlooked this:

https://www.cnet.com/news/audiophiliac-speaker-of-the-year-zu-druid-v/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if your opinion is, for example, that there are no good hamburgers, it's simply of no value to the majority of other people who already feel differently, or will once they experience a good hamburger.

 

And Merry Christmas

 

JC

[semente]

Your, increasingly negative, possibly personal(?) issues with Zu are not relative. I can only guess that you are primarily basing it information many years old, as I said last time around. I'm sure you believe you are correct, but other people with very significant expertise do not side with you. You are causing inaccurate information to potentially mislead people. I have owned many, many speakers, including the Zu Druid Mk IV/08 which provided very high sonic performance. That speaker was also highly regarded almost across the board. I know of half a dozen serious audiophiles who own various models of Zu speakers as a part of some very fine systems. Some reside here on CA. Even the Stereo Review article where you note some problems with measurements resulted ultimately in a very positive review of the speakers involved. Herb Reichert said, in conclusion:

"Audio consumers need to be self-aware and self-empowered. Don't just buy into some pre-existing (ie, mainstream) audio aesthetic or belief system. Your ears, heart, and mind are far more sensitive and sophisticated measuring tools than any 'scope, calibrated mike, or analyzer—trust them. In my rustic hermitage, and to my ears and heart, Zu Audio's Soul Supremes delivered copious amounts of savory musical connectedness. Highly recommended.

Six Moons has also awarded them extremely high marks, and Srajan owns them, (and owned (owns?) the previous model Druids) when he could own anything available.

In addition, you might have overlooked this:

https://www.cnet.com/news/audiophiliac-speaker-of-the-year-zu-druid-v/

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if your opinion is, for example, that there are no good hamburgers, it's simply of no value to the majority of other people who already feel differently, or will once they experience a good hamburger.

 

And Merry Christmas

 

JC

 

Hi JC,

 

Self empowerment comes from knowledge, not from magazine reviews and audio gurus...

 

I considered Zu Druids as an upgrade from my Diatones.

Then I saw the measurements at Soundstage.

All measurements I can find online lead to the same conclusion: these speakers are bad designs.

It's not an opinion, just an acknowledgement of facts.

 

I don't care about professional reviews.

They're just another opinion, an expression of taste, but one that is biased by the very important fact that it's been paid for by the manufacturer.

A good example is the latest Stereophile review where the measurements clearly show the incompetence of the design followed by JA dismissing what is obvious with his usually tirade: it's not bad when you listen... (I haven't read the review for fear it'll make me sick).

Such is the state of the audio press today.

I won't even mention 6 loons except to say that they cater for a very specific bunch of minorities and are very good at it... Evangelists.

 

But all of the above should not stop you from enjoying them.

After all, that's what matters.

 

Merry Christmas,

R

[Keith_W_Idiot]

Be careful. Romy the Cat frequently Googles himself to see where he is being mentioned. All you need to do is mention ROMY THE CAT and he'll join this forum and start arguing with everyone

Well, there are multiple explanations for the phenomena.

 

One of them might be that Romy has at his site a very public list of HTTP references and the sites are poste links to Romy site are easy visible.

 

GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

 

Another explanation might be that there are plenty of degenerates at audio forums and those degenerates are so pathetic that by spreading idiocy about Romy they feel that they fulfill/remedy some own psychologiscal disturbances. There is a reason why Romy treats most of the internet audio freaks as they are Darwinian missing links between single-cell and cockroaches, you Keith_W is one of those reasons. I think you are a great ornamentation to this forum.

[zackthedog]

Well, there are multiple explanations for the phenomena.

 

One of them might be that Romy has at his site a very public list of HTTP references and the sites are poste links to Romy site are easy visible.

 

GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

 

Another explanation might be that there are plenty of degenerates at audio forums and those degenerates are so pathetic that by spreading idiocy about Romy they feel that they fulfill/remedy some own psychologiscal disturbances. There is a reason why Romy treats most of the internet audio freaks as they are Darwinian missing links between single-cell and cockroaches, you Keith_W is one of those reasons. I think you are a great ornamentation to this forum.

 

Rather like shouting "Beelzebub" three times at the stroke of midnight, isn't it? ;-)

[Keith_W]

Lol, told you. Just mention his name, and he appears!!