Enough SET Power for Rock and Roll


I'm still trying to figure out what SET amp would sound best for Rock and Roll (and other music but especially Rock) on Klipsch Cornwall II speakers (101dB efficiency) in a room about 18x13 (with kind of medium acoustics - not live, not totally dead.) On a Marantz 2230 (which sounds very good, surprisingly good for being ~35 years old and 30 watts of solid state) I found that when I crank up the Rock and Roll on the Cornwalls I'm listening from about 89dB to 97db, but frankly if I wasn't worried about clipping or blowing out the speakers or receiver I could probably enjoy an occassional 100 dB :) - but if I have to live at 97 dB and below I could. (Measurements made with a Radio Shack meter set on fast, C weighting - taken from 1 meter away from the speakers, and also at the main seating position which is about 10-11 feet from the speaker plane.)

From many posts here and over on AudioAsylum it sounds like a 45 SET amp would sound great but might not have enough oomph - although that isn't 100% certain. It seems that a 2A3 SET amp would have a better chance of handling the loud music and the "complexities?" of Rock (and orchestra music) vs. say simple instrumentals and vocals. Next up would be a 300B SET, more power but some people seem to think it gives away some of the "magic" of the 2A3 and especially the 45. It isn't so clear to me from reading the various posts how any of these tube types do on the low end; I think low end (reasonably deep and tight) is needed to do Rock and Roll well - but so is good midrange and highs, so it's a balance, of course.

What do you think, more power and listen loud with ease, ie go with a 300B, or can a 2A3 or possibly a 45 do it all? Or is it possible that SET just can't do Rock and Roll seriously with 101db speakers in a 18x13 rom? In which case, next up is what kind of tube amp? If SET makes sense, I'd like to give it a try but I don't want to push physics or the budget too hard with experiments that aren't likely to work.

Thanks!
hi_hifi
My Audio Mirror SET monoblocks are rated at 45w - plenty 'o power for you. He also makes them at 20w.
I own a DHT pushpull amp that uses the 45 tube. It is a terrific amp--bass is tight and punchy, harmonic structure of instruments is fully saturated and realistic, and attack and decay of notes is very natural. These are all the qualities one would expect of DHT tubes. The biggest difference with SET amps is in soundstaging. SET amps tend to be better at presenting a big, enveloping soundstage in which the listener feels fully emersed rather than looking from outside in.

I mentioned high quality SET amp in my earlier post because there is a general impression that SET amps are lower in cost because of their simplicity. The problem with that assumption is that it is quite challenging to make decent output transformers for SET amps because of the high DC current saturating the core. The transformer is the key to a great SET amp, and good ones are not cheap.
The Audio Mirror stuff is very nice looking and appears reasonably priced.
I have a 2A3 SET amp @ 3 or 4 watts. It will rock with my 98db speakers.
But - Even when I had Klipschorns @ 104 db, and in a small 12' x 13' room, I always thought there were better options for rock. If loud is 20% or so of your listening, sure go for it.
But from your post it sounds as if loud rock is a majority of your listening. I would not recommend a 2A3 SET, I would skip the 300b SET and go right to a 211 or a parallel SET or PP DHT.
Flea power SET amps can do loud rock, but it ain't what they do best. Other topologies do loud rock best.
I wonder how some of the Zu speaker offerings compare to Klipsch in terms of performance and value for rock music off a SET type amp?