To me, having an amp that sounds not as good as the 45 SET (if that is one's preferred sound) when playing at the regular volume one listens at, just to have the capability of delivering clean sound at extreme peaks when listening at higher levels is more "ridiculous;" I'll take better sound for 99.99% of the time and sacrifice quality for the brief moments when higher peak output would be desirable. It is all a matter of what compromises one is willing to accept. I don't know of a single component, at any price, that I thought was free of some performance compromise in certain respects vis-a-vis another. I am in agreement with Atmasphere that the use of a 45 SET amp by the OP is not "ideal," but I also agree with Charles 1 dad and the OP that one can really like such a combination, particularly if one can live with the "compromise" of more modest listening levels. |
I am a big fan of the 45 tube. I have heard it used in parallel single-ended, pushpull (I own a pushpull 45 amp) and in single output tube single-ended configuration. It delivers a very punchy, clear and detailed sound when operated well within its upper output limit. I think someone can effectively utilize a 45 SET amp with the AN-Es in a smaller room, provided that one accepts that it will not be able to play at high volume levels. I am quite familiar with the AN-E and I have heard it with some fairly low-powered amps; a local dealer frequently pairs the AN-E with an Audio Note Kageki amp which is rated at 6.5 wpc. I can hear the limitations of this amp when playing demanding music, such as large choral pieces. The music begins to suffer from compression and becomes muddled and unfocussed to a slight degree. But, these are problems I can see someone living with because, for the VAST majority of the time, a good 45 amp will sound great. I do agree with Atmasphere that a 45 SET is really best used with extremely high efficiency horn systems. A friend had such an amp for his107 db/w system and it sounded great. That kind of combination can be recommended without much reservations; the use of a 45 SET with something like the AN-E can only be recommended with the caveat about limited volume levels. |
Inna, Some other integrated amps to consider include something from Vinni Rossi (can be configured in MANY different ways, including tube stages) and Lavardin and LFD integrated amps (simple, really nice sounding medium power integrated amps). I've heard these with speakers that were moderately efficient (Harbeths, Audio Note, J.M. Reynaud). As for a phono stage, Zanden makes a few nice tube and solid state versions; the most fun feature being a choice of different equalization curves. I have heard the Symphonic power amp Charles mentioned and it is really very good for solid state. |
I think that most often people who are SET fans arrive at that point after going through a range of other choices. Low-powered SETs tend to be an end-point only after a long search because it takes some experience finding the relatively few speakers that are compatible with such amps (many high-efficiency speakers are highly "colored" as far as their tonal balance so you have to find the few that are not so odd or learn which "color" works for you). It can also mean giving up a little on some of the more obvious attributes (like extremely deep bass response and bass punch) for the more sublime attributes of SET amps and compatible speakers that one learns to appreciate after long-term experience. So, in that sense, I agree with Charles.
But, in this day and age, where "knowledge" so freely flows on the internet, I can see Mapman's point that a lot of inexperienced listeners could be seduced into trying SET amps at the outset (it took me YEARS before I even learned of their existence, today just google "best amp" and you are there). I fear that it is the case that many are tempted to try SET amps with incompatible speakers and/or assume that cheaper SET amps will do the trick because they should not cost that much to manufacture (because they a simple and have few parts). The problem with that is that those parts can be very expensive to get right, particularly the large, air-gapped output transformers that can handle the high standing current in the primary without over saturating. You will find a lot of internet posts from those saying that the SET amps they heard are crap; I bet that a lot of this comes from listening to such "bad" setups (easier to be WAY wrong with SETs that with any other kind of amps).
While I agree that it is far easier to get quite decent sound at a reasonable price from Class-D amps, I have not heard any "all out" assaults on top quality sound that involved such amps. I admit that I haven't heard too many in high-end systems utilizing Class-D amps, but, those that I have heard were somewhat disappointing (e.g., Devailet and Rowland) because they just sounded a bit dull and un-engaging. In a lower-end system, I thought that a Bel Canto amp sounded pretty good for the money. |
Mapman, I don't know how easy the Triangle speaker is to drive, but, I do like how it sounds. It is a nice and lively speaker that has a somewhat "bright" top end that is not harsh or hard or sibilant--a VERY hard trick to pull off and something I find quite appealing. Maybe not a 45 SET, but certainly there are other candidates that would easily match with the Titus. Also, I am not one that is completely wedded to SET amps; I own both SET and pushpull amps and like both types. If I had to pick a single favorite amp, it probably would be a custom-built OTL that a friend owns that makes almost everything else sound dead in a direct comparison. I heard it in a direct comparison with an Audio Note Kageki (the SET ajmp I own) and the OTL trounced the SET in the short-term audition of the two. If I owned a Titus, I would at least be tempted to try an OTL, even though the Titus really doesn't need something extra to bring it to life. Charles, I agree with you that digital sources can sound terrific. If I had to choose digital or analogue, it would be digital because there is MUCH more available digitally than on vinyl or tape. Most of my listening is from CDs (ripped to a server). However, while it is not an issue of the inherent capabilities of the medium, there are lots of digital reissues of analogue-sourced music that is quite poor and it is striking how much better an early issue on vinyl sounds compared to the digital reissue. This might have to do with deterioration of the original tape, but, most often it is indifference in the mastering (evidenced by very good digital reissues of the same music by specialty houses like Mobile Fidelity). Most jazz digital reissues are quite good, and some classical digital reissues are actually better than the analogue originals (e.g., 1970-80's DG recordings that were poorly mastered for vinyl), but, there is a LOT of reissued pop and rock that is terrible sounding in the digital format. That is why I have both formats even though most of my listening is from digital sources. |
I don't think it is quite as simple as a great digital system will sound even better with good phono gear added. I have problems with optimizing my system for one or the other. I had a setup that sounded quite good with both my CD player and my phono setup. But, when I went to a music server that has a slightly different tonal balance, if I optimize the sound for the server, the setup doesn't sound as nice as it did before when playing my phono source. I actually have more flexibility than most people do in changing my sound without taking drastic measures, because I can control the output of both my midrange and tweeter drivers, but, I find it too much of a bother to fiddle with this when switching back and forth. I actually ended up optimizing the sound for my music server because I listen to it more than I do the phono setup. |
I have not heard the Nenuphar. I am certainly interested in that speaker because it has gotten some favorable comments. My understanding is that it employs transmission line loading which means it will not be as efficient as the Charney speakers. But, if it offers good sound, I am certainly interested. I should have also mention that I have heard, and liked both Voxativ full-range systems and a few other full-range systems employing Voxativ drivers.
I am surprised how much improvement full-range systems have undergone in recent years. I the past, I've generally liked systems employing "full range" drivers as wide-range drivers in multi-way systems, but, I did like pure one-driver only full-range systems. The Voxativ system I heard changed my mind to some extent, and the Charney, even more so, has altered my view. Now, I need to hear the Nenuphar.
|
The BIG problem with 45 SET amps is finding the right speaker. Those that can deliver close to a full range sound at reasonably high volume level and with decent tonal balance are primarily giant horn-loaded systems. The trade-off is very high price, and having to place a very large system in an appropriate space. If that trade-off is not feasible, one has to live with volume limitations when using moderately efficient speakers or the tonal quirks of some high-efficiency alternatives like single driver systems. I have found such systems to be interesting, but, too colored and too restricted in both top and bottom frequency response to be usable with all kinds of music.
I bring this up because I have, since this thread ended a few years ago, heard some notable exceptions. The single driver, back-loaded horn systems by Charney Audio are very good all around speakers, capable of playing all sorts of music, and they are quite efficient. I heard them working with SET 300b amps. They come with various choices for the single driver. I particularly liked the one with the AER driver. For a much lower price point, I like the Rethm Bhaava. This uses a high efficiency full range driver to cover the upper bass to treble range and has a built-in powered woofer to handle the low end. Like the Charney speakers, these are compact systems that can work in a large variety of rooms. |
The vast majority of horn-based systems, particularly modern systems, are not my personal ideal. Many are excessively colored (nasal or shrill or ragged sounding) for my taste. Among those that I like, would be the Avantguarde systems and Edgarhorn systems. It has been a while since I heard and Odeon, and I thought it was okay back then.
But, certain older systems and new systems with certain vintage drivers sound very good to me. I like old Western Electric compression midrange drivers and the various Japanese clones of these drivers. These systems cannot be mass produced, so they really don't represent commercial alternatives to speakers like the AN-E. |
