SETs vs old SS � Listening experiments

[oldbuckster]

There is such a WIDE swing in the recording quality of material, don't you find it hard to tell which sounds best through what power. Just by listening to Marks SET amp pushing Khorns, it was clear to my ears, Acoustic based music sounded excellent through that system, IN THE ROOM GOOD, but again, to my ears lacked bottom end performance on Rock Music. I think it has as much to do with the speakers, as the power. Funny, my Sony receiver which I have stated many times, doesn't play 2 channel that well, all of a sudden becomes much better sounding, and that's because of the La scalas.......Alot of factors as to why a system sounds good........A SET pushing Horns, Belles , and La scala's at 105 spl sounds alot different than pushing some other 85 spl speakers......YES???????

[edwinr]

Bruce, the attraction of SET amplifiers to those that own them is unfathomable to those that don't. When I bought my Classe some time ago, the store salesman was trying to steer me down the SET path. He just couldn't understand why someone like me would purchase a s/s monster amp over a SET amp. To this day I still wonder... [*-)]

Also someone mentioned the LS3/5a being driven by a miniscule tube amp. Now on a good day, the LS3/5a is around 81 db/1w/1m. Yet this speaker can be driven to moderately high levels by a fairly low powered amplifier. I know this because I have owned several variations over the years. Maybe the relatively high impedance of these speakers has something to do with it.

[NOSValves]

hey Craig...everything all right buddy???...take heart in knowing your VRDs helped bring this 45 year old to a new level of listening enjoyment and fulfillment...cheer up!...is it time for another fishing trip???

Bill

I'm not unhappy I just know that no matter what you do for a living it does get stale after a while. If someone is looking for a job to make their life happy then they are in for a dissapointment.

Craig

[jcmusic]

In my opinion, Craig may be a little unhappy about some things going on within his life. For sure he is overjoyed with the sports aspect of his life, eh Craig. Go Tigers.

Jay

[Audio Flynn]

I'm not unhappy I just know that no matter what you do for a living it does get stale after a while. If someone is looking for a job to make their life happy then they are in for a dissapointment.

Craig

================================

I thought I had the happiness in work life situation figured out; then my application for "pool boy" at the Playboy mansion was rejected.

More important to happy with home life.

[sheltie dave]

"The reason, I believe, folks may be reading a topology inference is because they had mistakenly associated that low-powered SET amps were excluded from meeting the minimum power requirements for a Klipschorn. PWK's statements clearly sets the record straight. When you see that quote, take it as a way of saying that the Klipschorn power requirements should not exclude any particular topology. I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest someone would be conceited or arrogant for quoting PWK, that would be a little wacky given the context.."

Coda, in 1951 a typical 10 to 20 watt push-pull amp would have a max rating with up to 5% distortion, rendering the amp useless with the K5J Klipschorn. PWK made his statement about a good 5 watt amp in the context that there were very few 5 watt amps with low distortion that would best power his speakers. The Brook 12a that he loved even had a modded dampening circuit to better drive his KHorns - they put out about 10-12 wpc with a push-pull set of 2A3s.

Paul specifically designed the Khorns for max efficiency and minimal cone excursion to minimize distortion, and best utilize the low powered amps of the day. Given a clean watt of power, any year Khorns can deliver the goods.

Paul was not setting the record straight(retroactively,) he was merely stating that his KHorns could deliver the goods with a clean watt BETTER than any other speaker on the market, with a high level of validity for 1951. ALL the topologies in 1951(combined with available output tubes) were of low power(relative to today,) and most were of low mono quality.

As years went by and marketing brochures were updated, the "recommended" power values racheted up TO REFLECT CHANGES in available quality amplification. There were very few quality low watt SS amps being built, while Klipsch's marketing strategy effectively switched over to SS paradigms, leaving tubes in the dust. This change did not nullify or remove quality tube amplification from consumer consideration - marketing and production decisions caused this paradigm shift. Nowadays the tide is slowly shifting to allow tube re-entry efforts.

I do find some of the arguments in this thread(and others) to be specious, tending toward arrogance and conceit. After all, we are talking about systems that will run over 3 grand to start, in many cases. There isn't an amp that can be a man for all seasons, and SET amps never will adequately man a position in a robust home theater or dual use system. I also get amused when a neophyte to Klipsch often hears advice to consider getting amps that are priced more than triple or quadruple what a reasonable entry would be, or what they may be looking for. I do find some people giving very solid advice regarding costs, where and how to buy, and covering many of the bases in forthright fashion.

I could go back four years, and remember thinking $300 for an amp was way too much money to be spending on frivolity. I would wager many people on the two channel forum spend more time thinking about RCA cables, speaker wire, and various speakers than they do on investment strategies. It's a fun game, and Max put it very well when he suggested we should find what we enjoy, and enjoy it frequently.

[Cut-Throat]

I would wager many people on the two channel forum spend more time thinking about RCA cables, speaker wire, and various speakers than they do on investment strategies.

Not me! - I'm retired.

[garyrc]

Hey, forum folk -- can these power needed calculations for solid state and tube amps into speakers of varying efficiencies be right?

Someone (this thread is soooo long!) brought up the issue of what we should consider "low efficiency" in speakers today. A related issue is whether 3.5 w tube (SET) amps could adequately drive them with all kinds of music.

In my view, to know what SPL (@ 2.83V -- 1wt into 8 ohms -- @1 Meter) constitutes "low efficiency" in 2006 (or for that matter, what SPL constitutes "high efficiency," today) we would need to know the efficiency of the speaker that falls at the efficiency median. Calculating the median would require a large, fairly collected sample, as would calculating the mean (arithmetic average), but I suspect that the mean would be inappropriate because it is over-influenced by extreme scores.

Lacking that sample, I would say that the efficiency I see most often (this would be my impression of the mode) in everything from the ads of the cheap brands, to the Audio Advisor, reviews in Stereophile, etc., to the various Internet sources is about 90 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 Meter.

My harsh inclination is to consider a speaker that needs twice the amplifier power in watts (the equivalent of 3 dB more) as a 90 dB speaker to produce a given SPL to be "low efficiency," and one that needs only half the power to be "high efficiency," So, speakers below 87 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 M would be low efficiency, and those above 93 dB @ 2.83V @ 1M would be "high efficiency."

Now, if my peak reading meter can be trusted, my Klipschorns usually use much less than a watt, but peaks @ 6.3 wpc are not uncommon for great surges in classical music, or explosive transients (I like 'em to sound dangerous) in almost any kind of music in our big room. On occasion, we've needed a bit more than about 12 wpc (yes, usually on both channels with full orchestra peaks, varying and alternating as to which channel was highest) --- peaks to be sure, but lingering about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second, and repeated over and over. One time we used 25 wpc.

To match the peak SPL my family and I were occasionally enjoying @ 12 wpc into a Khorn (104 dB @ 2.84V@1 M):

1) A slightly low efficiency speaker [87 dB @ 2.83V (1 wt @ 8 ohms) @ 1 Meter] would need approximately 640 watts, for about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second at a time, from somewhere. That somewhere might be from a really good 300 watt solid state amp, with 3 dB+ real dynamic power. If we take into account the currently popular notion that good tube amps can produce pleasantly distorted instantaneous peaks up to 6.25 times the power of their solid state cousins of the same RMS rated power -- let's make it 7 times -- we would need 300 divided by 7, or a really good tube amp of about 40 watts (42.86 watts).

2) With what I'm calling a typical efficiency speaker (90 dB) one could get away with a really good 150 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 20 wpc tube amp.

3) With what I'm calling a high efficiency speaker (one that just barely qualifies @ 93 dB @ 2.83v @ 1M) really good 75 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 10 wpc tube source might do.

4) And with Klipschorns, to get those 12 watt peaks we enjoyed, a really good 6 wpc solid state amp could be used, if one existed, and a really good 6 divided by 7, or 1 watt tube amp ( .857 watts) could be used for each channel.

As I asked before, can this be right?

But I'm made a lot more comfortable by the > 12 x (> 10 dB+) extra headroom I have over the 12 watt peaks by using 150 wpc amps. Because what if a big peak comes as a surprise, and we go way over 12 watts? I like 'em to sound dangerous.

[sheltie dave]

Thanks for reminding me, Cut throat. [] With a four year old, I'm looking at two more decades...

[Parrot]

You've obviously optimised your room/amplifier/speakers to get the best out of your music. BUT... I have to say if you heard a very high quality, high power s/s amplifier dropped straight into your system - you may be surprised. Many are I think, afraid of any amplifer that starts off it's qualitifications with '200 plus watts per channel'. The usual comment, even from my friends is; "Are you nuts? Why do you need that much power?" Well, my response is playing them some delicate piece of music, a string quartet or something similar, and then my amplifier starts showing it's true colors. It's the amazing control that such an amplifer has even at low listening levels that is it's greatest attribute. There is no hesitancy in the frequency extremes, no shyness, no suggestion that the musicians aren't in the room with you (very recording dependant of course []).

Good points.

If the amp debate were merely about dBs, it'd be simple. Any old thing can reach 100dB, including a built-in, 2-inch TV speaker. It's the quality of that 100dB that counts.

To make an analogy to cars, it'd be like saying any car can go 65 mph, and I never drive over 65 mph, therefore I don't need one that can go 120 mph. Judging a car just by the raw speed it can attain is like judging an amp by its wattage.

[Marvel]

There is such a WIDE swing in the recording quality of material, don't you find it hard to tell which sounds best through what power. Just by listening to Marks SET amp pushing Khorns, it was clear to my ears, Acoustic based music sounded excellent through that system, IN THE ROOM GOOD, but again, to my ears lacked bottom end performance on Rock Music. I think it has as much to do with the speakers, as the power. Funny, my Sony receiver which I have stated many times, doesn't play 2 channel that well, all of a sudden becomes much better sounding, and that's because of the La scalas.......Alot of factors as to why a system sounds good........A SET pushing Horns, Belles , and La scala's at 105 spl sounds alot different than pushing some other 85 spl speakers......YES???????

I have a very inexpensive Sony, and it sounds very good on the LS. My JBLs are rated at 89db I think. I have powered them with some low power before, and they sound okay. Used to rock the house with a 30wpc JVC integrated. I don't think the SETs would do them much justice. My Mark Knopfler CD is very good cranked up on the SETs, Dire Straights is pretty sweet too. The acoustic stuff is, like you said, IN THE ROOM GOOD. Bottom end is a little lacking, but I (personally) think the mids and highs sound so much better that it is worth the loss. I don't want to go the sub route, but I suppose one set at 100Hz and down would work pretty well.

Bruce

[IB Slammin]

Hey, forum folk -- can these power needed calculations for solid state and tube amps into speakers of varying efficiencies be right?

Someone (this thread is soooo long!) brought up the issue of what we should consider "low efficiency" in speakers today. A related issue is whether 3.5 w tube (SET) amps could adequately drive them with all kinds of music.

In my view, to know what SPL (@ 2.83V -- 1wt into 8 ohms -- @1 Meter) constitutes "low efficiency" in 2006 (or for that matter, what SPL constitutes "high efficiency," today) we would need to know the efficiency of the speaker that falls at the efficiency median. Calculating the median would require a large, fairly collected sample, as would calculating the mean (arithmetic average), but I suspect that the mean would be inappropriate because it is over-influenced by extreme scores.

Lacking that sample, I would say that the efficiency I see most often (this would be my impression of the mode) in everything from the ads of the cheap brands, to the Audio Advisor, reviews in Stereophile, etc., to the various Internet sources is about 90 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 Meter.

My harsh inclination is to consider a speaker that needs twice the amplifier power in watts (the equivalent of 3 dB more) as a 90 dB speaker to produce a given SPL to be "low efficiency," and one that needs only half the power to be "high efficiency," So, speakers below 87 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 M would be low efficiency, and those above 93 dB @ 2.83V @ 1M would be "high efficiency."

Now, if my peak reading meter can be trusted, my Klipschorns usually use much less than a watt, but peaks @ 6.3 wpc are not uncommon for great surges in classical music, or explosive transients (I like 'em to sound dangerous) in almost any kind of music in our big room. On occasion, we've needed a bit more than about 12 wpc (yes, usually on both channels with full orchestra peaks, varying and alternating as to which channel was highest) --- peaks to be sure, but lingering about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second, and repeated over and over. One time we used 25 wpc.

To match the peak SPL my family and I were occasionally enjoying @ 12 wpc into a Khorn (104 dB @ 2.84V@1 M):

1) A slightly low efficiency speaker [87 dB @ 2.83V (1 wt @ 8 ohms) @ 1 Meter] would need approximately 640 watts, for about 1/4 or 1/5 of a second at a time, from somewhere. That somewhere might be from a really good 300 watt solid state amp, with 3 dB+ real dynamic power. If we take into account the currently popular notion that good tube amps can produce pleasantly distorted instantaneous peaks up to 6.25 times the power of their solid state cousins of the same RMS rated power -- let's make it 7 times -- we would need 300 divided by 7, or a really good tube amp of about 40 watts (42.86 watts).

2) With what I'm calling a typical efficiency speaker (90 dB) one could get away with a really good 150 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 20 wpc tube amp.

3) With what I'm calling a high efficiency speaker (one that just barely qualifies @ 93 dB @ 2.83v @ 1M) really good 75 wpc solid state amp, or a really good 10 wpc tube source might do.

4) And with Klipschorns, to get those 12 watt peaks we enjoyed, a really good 6 wpc solid state amp could be used, if one existed, and a really good 6 divided by 7, or 1 watt tube amp ( .857 watts) could be used for each channel.

As I asked before, can this be right?

But I'm made a lot more comfortable by the > 12 x (> 10 dB+) extra headroom I have over the 12 watt peaks by using 150 wpc amps. Because what if a big peak comes as a surprise, and we go way over 12 watts? I like 'em to sound dangerous.

Lets see........IB Slammin, Then,..... IB Thwakin,.....and now, .....IB Dangerous.......don't tell anyone, but IB doin some Lux MQ60 PP tubes last weekend...........very, very, nice at 80db, ...... but IB ain't nice......[]

AH!, Merlin, MQ60. Is that considered a tube system? GULP!

The two BTL M-117's are back in this week.[*-)]

Terry

[stormin]

Lets see........IB Slammin, Then,..... IB Thwakin,.....and now, .....IB Dangerous.......don't tell anyone, but IB doin some Lux MQ60 PP tubes last weekend...........very, very, nice at 80db, ...... but IB ain't nice......[]

AH!, Merlin, MQ60. Is that considered a tube system? GULP!

The two BTL M-117's are back in this week.[*-)]

Terry

You crack me up Terry.

I guess you be slammin man !!!

[coda]

Coda, in 1951 a typical 10 to 20 watt push-pull amp would have a max rating with up to 5% distortion, rendering the amp useless with the K5J Klipschorn. PWK made his statement about a good 5 watt amp in the context that there were very few 5 watt amps with low distortion that would best power his speakers. The Brook 12a that he loved even had a modded dampening circuit to better drive his KHorns - they put out about 10-12 wpc with a push-pull set of 2A3s.

It's been a long thread, check this out again in case it was missed earlier about PWK's logic behind his 5-watt amp quote,

http://www.audioimport.nl/heritage/reviewsHERITAGE/arkansasspeaker.html

Audio: Then you view the response curve as the least important of those criteria?

Klipsch: Yes. What you really buy in a loudspeaker is horsepower

output. In horn loudspeakers the efficiency - the horsepower output,

call it - is typically one to three orders of magnitude higher and the

distortion proportionately lower than in a direct radiator.

Admittedly, the direct radiator is the less expensive, "cost effective"

approach, and it will never be replaced because horns are vastly more

expensive to build. But if you look at it in terms of horsepower per

unit Cost, then the horn suddenly becomes much more cost effective -

raising the point that the total music system may cost less for a given

level of performance if the speakers cost more and yet require a much smaller amplifier. This brings in my much-quoted remark that what this country needs is a good five-watt amplifier.

Paul specifically designed the Khorns for max efficiency and minimal cone excursion to minimize distortion, and best utilize the low powered amps of the day. Given a clean watt of power, any year Khorns can deliver the goods.

Paul was not setting the record straight(retroactively,) he was merely stating that his KHorns could deliver the goods with a clean watt BETTER than any other speaker on the market, with a high level of validity for 1951. ALL the topologies in 1951(combined with available output tubes) were of low power(relative to today,) and most were of low mono quality.

As years went by and marketing brochures were updated, the "recommended" power values racheted up TO REFLECT CHANGES in available quality amplification. There were very few quality low watt SS amps being built, while Klipsch's marketing strategy effectively switched over to SS paradigms, leaving tubes in the dust. This change did not nullify or remove quality tube amplification from consumer consideration - marketing and production decisions caused this paradigm shift. Nowadays the tide is slowly shifting to allow tube re-entry efforts.

Undoubtedly, it would appear the later updates to recommended power seem to be marketing driven, I've been careful to include what I can find attributable to PWK.

I do find some of the arguments in this thread(and others) to be specious, tending toward arrogance and conceit. After all, we are talking about systems that will run over 3 grand to start, in many cases. There isn't an amp that can be a man for all seasons, and SET amps never will adequately man a position in a robust home theater or dual use system. I also get amused when a neophyte to Klipsch often hears advice to consider getting amps that are priced more than triple or quadruple what a reasonable entry would be, or what they may be looking for. I do find some people giving very solid advice regarding costs, where and how to buy, and covering many of the bases in forthright fashion.

I could go back four years, and remember thinking $300 for an amp was way too much money to be spending on frivolity. I would wager many people on the two channel forum spend more time thinking about RCA cables, speaker wire, and various speakers than they do on investment strategies. It's a fun game, and Max put it very well when he suggested we should find what we enjoy, and enjoy it frequently.

Most will agree there are low cost alternatives to any

topology, as well as options to buy on the cheap in the pre-owned

market. Unless you can point to specific examples to show what arguments by me you're talking about, terms like specious or arrogance are weasel words, suggesting something again that is wacky and baseless.

Back to listening experiments, I was over at Kelly's place this afternoon, testing out some 2A3 tubes, listening to some great golden era jazz LPs thru his Moondogs. My favorite cuts were from Count Basie and his band. With the RCAs, it sure sounded natural to me.

[oldbuckster]

I'm not sure if my question was answered or not: Let me try again, maybe it was answered and I don't get it..........I know a SET will power Khorns to the point they are Loud....105 spl @ 1 watt............would they also power a (for example only) speaker of say 85 spl @ 1 watt to the same Loudness level........or would they be totally lacking in the power needed??? From where I stand.....this is a fair question.....and that is all it is......a question...............Khorns powered by SET can reproduce very loud...........will a lesser speaker match that performance..........with the same SET amp??? I think that's what I want to ask.........or is it a dumb question????

[Duke Spinner]

Anemic ......describes the performance @ 85 dB sensitivity....OB

[Parrot]

Back to listening experiments, I was over at Kelly's place this afternoon, testing out some 2A3 tubes, listening to some great golden era jazz LPs thru his Moondogs.

Ah, good ol' Kelly. Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it?

Did you think to ask him when he's going to return a particular forum member's amp, and another forum member's tubes?

[oldbuckster]

Anemic ......describes the performance @ 85 dB sensitivity....OB

ANEMIC..........Dukester, it bothers me that I understand what you say, your answers make more sense to me than all the technical terms.....but, maybe I still haven't asked right............Marks SET powered his Khorns quite well, that I think is because OF 105 spl...now the same SET driving a speaker of 85 spl or even 90 spl would not reach the same levels as the Khorns...........would SET works as well with less effiecient speakers? Maybe I got it this time..................

[coda]

Ah, good ol' Kelly.

Not sure what all folks have sent him, or why. Shoot him some mail if you need to get up with him. He spends an inordinate amount of time on the water sailing, but is still checking his in box.

[Marvel]

Anemic ......describes the performance @ 85 dB sensitivity....OB

ANEMIC..........Dukester, it bothers me that I understand what you say, your answers make more sense to me than all the technical terms.....but, maybe I still haven't asked right............Marks SET powered his Khorns quite well, that I think is because OF 105 spl...now the same SET driving a speaker of 85 spl or even 90 spl would not reach the same levels as the Khorns...........would SET works as well with less effiecient speakers? Maybe I got it this time..................

Nope, and I likes me SETs. They might work on certain types of music at lower levels. You might even enjoy them on some things, but overall, you need the higher efficiency horns.

JBL even stated that you could use the 4311s with as little as 10 watts and do useful monitoring. Ummmm, not sure I would want to try that much. And twn watts is still more than the Moondogs will do. Could have been advertising hype. Sorta like when IBM said you could run OS2 effectively with 4 meg of memory. That is good for a real laugh.

I guess that I could hook up the Moondogs to my Heresies for a while since I have the H/K430 on the LS temporarily. Or even hook them up to the JBLs and hear what happens.

Bruce