SETs vs old SS � Listening experiments

[pauln]

Im doing some experiments to satisfy my curiosity about the SET sound, which I love and have been enjoying for the last four years. I am picking up a few SS amps to play with and compare to my SETs to hear the differences and see if I can articulate those differences here for the review of others. Anyones thought appreciated

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Current SET system is:

Bang & Olufsen Beogram 1900 tangential arm turntable with MMC 6000 pickup. The 6000 response is 20Hz-45KHz with an effective tip mass of .22mg, single crystal beryllium cantilever, moving iron type cartridge. The output (.6mV/cm/s) is lower than moving magnet, a little higher than the louder moving coil pickups. The stylus is a contact line profile.

The phono EQ preamp is Wright Sound WPL 11 in a WPL 10 case (transition model) with an external power supply.

The SETs are Wright Sound 3.5s using the stock original Sovtek 2a3.

The speakers are 2004 LaScalas with the AL-4 networks (Linkwitz-Riley 6^th order extreme slope 36dB).

I have acquired a Nikko TRM 600 integrated amp from the early 70s, and expect to be the owner of a Pioneer SA 6500 and Yamaha CA 600 (both integrated amps) shortly. All these are from the time that phono was king and all were made in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Japan. Although the USA began making SS amps in the late 60s and early 70s, it was a new area for us, and some of them were pretty unstable and sounded horrible. The Japanese at this same time had almost two decades of transistor experience producing consumer electronics products and actually made some excellent amps in this period, all discreet components, well built.

I put the Nikko in service this evening, making sure to leave the LS in place. I played some of the records I know well to hear the difference. These are my impressions of the Nikko, compared to the SETs; Ill report on the other SS amps when they arrive

Lots of differences in the sound, Ill try to lay them out as I thought of them. First, I immediately recognized the SS sound as different. The frequency response is wider. The bass is lower and more extended, and the highs are more extended. This is with the Nikko tones flat, no filters, no loudness. The bass showed a few individual notes that I dont hear on the SETs, and generally the bass tone is deeper. Also, the bass and mid-bass seem to occupy a physical region in the sound stage that spans the wide of the room and holds about the first four feet of elevation from the floor. With the SETs, the bass is much more localized and sounds like it comes from a distinct place. Generally, the imaging of the Nikko is much less precise and spread across larger regions of the sound stage. The high end is quite different cymbals, tambourines, voice sibilance, glockenspiels, and other high sounds through the Nikko seem to be reproduced within frequency bands with a more definite upper and lower boundary, whereas the SETs seem to allow these sounds to spread over a wider range without upper and lower edges - a more airy sound.

Something strange I noticed is that the extension of the bass and treble seems to make the songs sound like they are being noticeably played at a faster tempo Im attributing this to the extension I cant think of anything else that could account for this. Another general difference is that with the SETs, I like to listen at what I consider loud at just under 90dB average SPL, but with the Nikko, this same level of perceived volume measures in the mid 90s, even though there is more energy in the bass, and some additional extension in the treble. I dont know how to account for this except that maybe the extension masks some of the mid range.

The Nikko is a very musical amp and at no time did I think it was sounding bad, but the extra bass is a little hard for me to get used to. For those that think the LS dont have bass, I think the bass with this SS is a bit too much. With a CD source I imagine it would be way too much for me. Maybe Im just a midrange guy

One of the differences between SS and SETs, and I hear it with the Nikko, is that the SETs portray the sound stage as an empty or transparent stage within which instruments are placed. The Nikko, like all other SS I have heard portray the sound stage as solid, within which instrument locations are distributed. This is not a bad sound, it is more like listening to mono in some sense.

After getting a little used to the bass and treble extension, I focused on the mid range. This is where the actual differences were more subtle but persistent as the tone and character of the sounds I know well were displayed with funny alterations. The vocals had a little less high end, a lot of the instruments sounded a little different, and the balance of the sounds was different. For instance, you may be like me in that when you listen to a piece, your focus of attention jumps from one instrument to another as the work progresses. When you know a work well, this jumping around of attention becomes somewhat predictable that is, I am hearing the bass at a particular time and focusing on it because of a particular thing that the bass player is doing, them I know that the guitar is about to do something and I listen for that, then there is another thing I know that will happen with the drums With the Nikko, this somewhat predictable sequence is upset because the balance of sounds is different. Its not that I am hearing things I have not heard before, its just that my attention is being directed differently because the sounds are different.

Perhaps the most important difference I heard concerns the balance between intelligibility and accuracy. In some ways, the SS Nikko seemed to portray some sounds with an improved intelligibility over the SETs, but in the course of doing this some of the accuracy or authenticity of the sound was lost. This is hard to describe, but I attribute it to the extension in the high end. With the Nikko, there were distinct points in the record where I felt that I heard an instrument or voice more clearly than with the SETs, but that the reproduction was not the way it was supposed to sound naturally. A similar thing happened in one of my records where a voice is being processed through a combination of phasers and flangers. On the SETs this presents as a unitary sound, but with the Nikko it sounded like there were two different layers of sound I dont think this is what was originally intended, but who can say.

Im going to listen to some classical music and some old King Crimson now, which strangely, make similar demands on the system. I would be interested in anyones thoughts about SET vs SS.

Pauln

[Guest " "]

very intresting.

you're going to find that SA-6500 a potent package. I use to have one as a priviate in the army hooked up to 4 speakers, driven by a pikering cartridge....sound was awesome.

[pauln]

Well, this experiment is paying off sooner than I thought. I put on Brahms violin concerto and immediately realized I must never try to listen to classical music on SS again, ever! How can I put this? I stopped the record after the first 5 minutes. None, I mean none of the sounds sounded natural. I mentioned before that the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Nikko had more bass than suits my taste, but with classical; where is the bass!? Now it seems the bass and high end are gone, and what is with these strange sounds? My first impression was that NONE of these instruments sound right, and the more I listened, the more I became convinced that the sound of the instruments was all wrong. Yipes! What a shock, I should have begun with classical music. What can I say? Classical music sounds terrible with the Nikko. Again, I say NONE of the instruments sounds natural or correct. Im really amazed. I know this piece very well, almost every vibration is in my heart. This Nikko is destroying the beauty of this work I am quite surprised.

Thoughts welcome

[Marvel]

Paul,

Very nice descriptions you have given. Since I have hooked up the Moondogs to my LS, I have made a few observations. The bass isn't quite as solid/tight. However, I am finding I am listening to music at a lower volume and actually hearing more detail. Acoustic instruments sound very natural. Symphonic music is incredible. My youngest son, a trumpet player, music composition major, and member of the Valparaiso U. Orchestra. He loves the SETs.

My SS sounded great, but I can easily live with what I am currently using for a long time.

Bruce

[oldbuckster]

Not looking to start anything here, but can You really give a fair test of SET vs. SS if your main listening set-up is SET? Wouldn't a more fair test be with someone with a musical background, and not a HI-FI buff, or collector, that doesn't know about SET, or could care less what SS unit you are using................No axe to grind, straight down the middle, no pre-formed opinions? or Maybe Average Joe Working Guy who just wants to turn on the stereo and listen, who thinks a Mod is a T.V. show with Bea Arthur.............there are a bunch of different Camps on this forum, different views, and different needs, and different ideas of what music is supposed to sound like.................Can You Really be 100% fair and open on your views?????..........................Just Asking....................

[dubai2000]

An interesting read. I have no idea why the Brahms might sound so wrong with the Nikko - perhaps it has to do with the different level of distortion produced by tubes vs SS?

I think comparing sound is always subjective: put two people in front of the same rig and they not only focus on different aspects of sound, they also perceive them differently.

The so-called 'average guy' often won't be of help either. Listening is something you have to train....and fortunately the ear learns very quickly, but an untrained listener will not only lack vocabulary to describe what he hears, no, he won't know what to listen for.

And this is not to put anybody down, but I remember when I started with this hobby. People were telling me about sound stage, different presentation of bass, highs etc. To be honest, I really didn't/couldn't hear what they were talking about - hope that has changed, though [].

Wolfram

[stormin]

Without a Marantz 2325 , Kenwood KR 9600 ,Sansui G8000 and a Pioneer SX 1250 all bets are off. These were the champs of the vintage SS IMHO. Sorry Yamaha fans.[]

Now get ahold of those 4 pieces and let the testing begin and oh by the way make sure Echowars has gone through them all. [H]

[Duke Spinner]

the Nikko...

a great choice.... but PaulN .......

Caps,man..

she needs Caps ..........

just like a crossover ......[]

[arfandbark]

Stormin,

I've been working my way up to this on the ss side. Not that I'm biased, it's because I can buy vintage ss for so much less. I'm having a ball with this and spending hundreds, not thousands of dollars. Each manufacturer has it's own 'sound' I've found so far.

I've got a pair of H/K 930's, a 730, a Pioneer SX-880, a Sansui 7070 as well as a G-7700 and a Marantz 2325(just got it yesterday, needs capacitor work). Just bought another Sansui, the 8080db which will plop its box on my doorstep in the next few days.

I know the comparison is incomplete, however, these Sansuis are very impressive with their 'headspace' and dynamics.

I'll get that 2325 wrenched and see what can be better soon but until then I'm liking my G-7700.

She's playing "King of the Hill" so far. Darned 930 H/Ks aren't far behind.

[Daddy Dee]

PaulN,

thanks for the review. Very interesting. The TT is a very cool model, IMO.

[tillmbil]

Nice read. I think that a different SS receiver is in order. I really like the Pioneer SX1250 myself over the HK's. I would love to hear the Sansui 9090DB.

I am sure that Classic Rock is probably not your normal listening music, but a rock comparison would be of interest. I find the tighter bass with SS and rock go well together. I am currently putting together a rock set up.

[oldbuckster]

Nice read. I think that a different SS receiver is in order. I really like the Pioneer SX1250 myself over the HK's. I would love to hear the Sansui 9090DB.

I am sure that Classic Rock is probably not your normal listening music, but a rock comparison would be of interest. I find the tighter bass with SS and rock go well together. I am currently putting together a rock set up.

By the looks of your second system, Khorns and VRD's I think you got Classic Rock pretty well covered,..........EH!.................

[jackpod]

PaulN

Try to get your hands on an early 70's SS McIntosh, MC250(basic) or MC2505 (glass panel w/meters) These SS babes have output transformers, I think Brahms will come back home. It was what sold me on Mac back then and I have never gone back

Jack

[SilverSport]

I do not wish to start a war and this is my findings for me only but...I have always wanted McIntosh equipment...loved the Big Blue Eyes and great sound as well as robust build quality...my first nice piece of nice (IMO) electornic gear was a Yamaha CA-610II...one of the main reasons for buying it beyond I thought it sounded great and the price was more in line with my budget than McIntosh (college freshman in 1979) was it had two big meters (Yellow Eyes but hey...)...when I found this place and lost all reason (happily so!) I picked up a nice MAC1900...had Terry DeWick do the once over...nice...then I picked up an MA6200...gone over by AudioClassics...a generation newer than the MAC1900 and a bit more power...nicer...with K'Horns I thought I was set (excuse the unintended pun ...STILL I wanted the Big Blue Eyes (meters) but they will come eventually I thought...

I kept hearing about how Tubes love Horns and wondering...wondering, wondering!

Daddy Dee needs to unload some stuff, puts up an EICO HF-81...I already have my Father's EICO HFT-92 Tuner (sitting unused since college) so this is a match made in heaven right??? I get the EICO...mind you it was made in 1959...two years before I was ...I hook it up to the K'Horns...WOW!...what is going on here...is THIS what I have been wanting to hear all my life...it seemed like that big a change...and it is KILLING me about the McIntosh...I have had McIntosh as my "Grail" components forever and this little, ugly B*stard (said with love) all of 14 whoppin' watts per channel has brought me to this level of audio bliss...then a member here (robster) puts up for sale a pair of mint VRDs and a BlueBerry MkI and in this euphoric haze I bite on that as well...WOW!!!...sounds WOW with my K'Horns...move the EICO to the Heresys...still sounding fantastic...later I aquire a pair of Quartets for the EICO and the Heresys go to an all Heritage (well I do use the Academy/popbumper center) Home Theater (SS Outlaw Audio) but...ohmigawsh did I go off target...abort abort...

Bill

[jackpod]

Silversport,

And you are still in for a surprise when you do acquire one of the Macs that has output transformers, they call them autoformers. Altho the Mac 1900 and 6200 are several steps above other SS gear (IMHO) neither of those pieces have autoformers. There is something about the sound of one of these Macs, I currently have a handful, at one time I had like 28 pieces, but slowly sold them off. I hate to see something just sitting. I have two with meters, MC150 feeding my Belles, MC7300 feeding my Paradigm Studio 100's, an MC2100 feeding my Heresey's, an MC250 feeding my garage speakers, a tubed MC240 feeding my Ionovacs, 5 of the rare MC50 monoblocks feeding more Ionovacs and other house paging speakers. I absolutely love the McIntosh. The beauty about McIntosh is the way they hold their resale value. I have never sold one for less than I bought it for, and often I make a few bucks on them

If you can find an MC2505 (50 WPC w/meters) or an MC2105 (105WPC w/meters) you;ll never go back

[leok]

Paul,

Thanks for the very interesting comparison and writeup.

The ss vs SET comparison has a lot of familiar themes. I suspect the SET simply has less objectionable and possibly simply less distortion at low power (I'm talking 10s of milliWatts at best here).

Although there may be better high frequency extension with the ss amp, the ss distortion is accentuating those regions also by adding extra frequencies (harmonic cross products due to the non-linear amplification). With the classical music that's a disaster. I couldn't stand classical music on any system until I learned to use amps with low distortion at low power.

The more transparent sound stage, again, is a result of better low power characteristics of the SET amp. Spacial cues, mostly room echoes, are way down in power compared with the direct sound. A lot of ss amps are distorting so badly at those powers ambient sounds are simply not recognizable.

Low frequencies: hard to say. My parafeed SETs do as well with low bass as my Crown D-45. The Crown can simply go louder. I've done a lot of work on the SETs to make that the case (mostly using a very large, non-electrolytic Solen part as the parafeed cap). The Sowter iron is big enough to handle lows to about 10Hz, but small enough to have excellent highs because it is parafeed and handles no bias DC.

I believe this is really a question of low distortion at low power, not SS vs SET. I have a real tough time distinguishing between my SETs and the Crown D-45 (except of course that the Crown can get louder). The Crown D-45 is made for horn-loaded speakers. It has very low distortion at low power. As an engineer, I trust it more than I do the SETs, but then, since I can barely tell the difference I enjoy both equally. The Crown cost 1/5 what I paid for the SETs.

In the end, I think good PWM, like the Hypex designs, may have a substantial edge on both linear ss and tube amplification.

Leo

[dubai2000]

I am with Silversport on this one. Before discovering Klipsch I had a pair of Quad ESL63 with a MC-2105/C29 combo.....and I thought I had found my audio happiness.

But when switching to Khorns I quickly found that this sound was not for me - listening mostly to classical music at that time. Hence my move to tubes....and there has been no looking back for me.

Sure, I have often read about the 'tube-like' character of the early Mc SS units, but to my ears it simply didn't materialize. Clean and powerful is was, but upper frequencies simply became too 'harsh' (and not real) for my taste - knowing quite well that a lot of instruments do have a lot of upper frequency extension in real life - but to my ears this still sound different to SS gear and Khorns.

Wolfram

[SilverSport]

...jackpod...I appreciate your perspective on these...I have heard some of the new McIntosh (current) just no through Heritage which I prefer...I was all up for those perfect MC-30s that were on here awhile ago that AudioNectar got...he was VERY helpful to me on this and once I got over the sticker shock (sorry, to me that was a lot of cash) I quickly moved up to MC-275s and the new Pre (don't remember the number) then switched to the Tube MA2275...I COULDN'T FIND ONE TO LISTEN TO IN CHICAGOLAND...Anywhere...Not even at the special dealers that McIntosh's own website stated that they MUST have at least one of everything on hand
(Premier)...several told me they had one but when I arrived they in fact didn't...I was returning after spending my whole day off driving to different Mcintosh dealers (3) trying to hear this integrated or the 275s with the PreAmp (heard everything else by Mcintosh...sweet) came to the KlipschForum where robster posted about the VRDs and BlueBerry MkI...first thing I saw as I came in my door and went to the 'puter...I bit...I love the resale value, build quality and customer service of McIntosh and really believe they just dropped the ball where I was concerned (crazy for McIntosh with credit card burning a hole in my pocket) but none could produce the products so...I went elsewhere...no knock on MAC at all but I am happy with what I have.

Thanks for the info...you know I'll have to hear this someday.

Bill

[SilverSport]

...Wolfram...your experience really mirrors my own...thanks for posting...[]

Bill

[Marvel]

I refuse to knock SS or tubes. Especially SET vs. SS. I like both on my LS, but the thing I really like about the SETs is what I can hear at lower volumes. And anytime I don't have to turn it up, I am very happy. My ears will like me more in another 5-10 years.

Definitely, the bass is not as tight on the SETs. But I love what I hear. That's what's so great about this hobby/obsession. It's what I like. Zachary and I sit and listen to symphonic music, and he say the symphony is really right there in front of him. I thought so too, but I have also learned to trust his ears, as that has become his life. Either sitting in an orchestra playing or sitting in the audience listening.

Bruce