|
Forums
https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl AUDIO FORUMS >> General Discussion and Support >> SET vs PP https://www.decware.com/cgi-bin/yabb22/YaBB.pl?num=1725932145 Message started by greensigns95@yahoo.com on 09/10/24 at 02:35:44 |
|
Title: SET vs PP Post by greensigns95@yahoo.com on 09/10/24 at 02:35:44 I know, I know…I can hear the collective sighs, but I am knew to this sight and two years out from the Mystery Amp I reserved… but is that really the one I want??? Do I want PP with KT Tubes? Or should i go with a SET? I want holographic, thick but airy…with some ass in the low end. Currently driving Focal Evo 4 Arias. Advice appreciated… (I honestly LOVE the look of the Mystery amp, just not sure if will be the sound I am chasing). I have been using a beautiful Fisher 500c, but it is like an old car and I am tired of fixing things). |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Kamran on 09/10/24 at 03:10:31 Here’s a non-biased (no pun intended) answer from ChatGPT: The choice between push-pull and single-ended (SET) amplifiers depends on your preferences and what you're looking for in terms of audio quality and amplifier characteristics. Here's a comparison to help you decide: Push-Pull Amplifiers Advantages: Efficiency: Push-pull designs are generally more efficient, meaning they convert more of the power drawn from the power supply into audio output. Power Output: They typically provide more power output compared to SET amplifiers, making them suitable for driving a wider range of speaker types, especially those with lower sensitivity. Distortion Characteristics: Push-pull designs often have lower harmonic distortion, which can result in a cleaner sound, particularly at higher volumes. Disadvantages: Complexity: They are more complex to design and build, with more components involved. Sound Signature: Some audiophiles believe that push-pull designs may not provide the same level of warmth and richness as SET amplifiers. Single-Ended Triode (SET) Amplifiers Advantages: Sound Quality: Many listeners find SET amplifiers offer a more natural and warm sound. The simplicity of the design can lead to a more direct and detailed audio experience. Simplicity: They have a simpler design with fewer components, which can lead to a more straightforward signal path. Harmonic Distortion: SET amps often produce a type of harmonic distortion that many people find pleasing to the ear, adding to the richness of the sound. Disadvantages: Efficiency: SET amplifiers are usually less efficient and may produce less power, which might be a drawback if you have speakers that require more power. Speaker Matching: They generally require high-efficiency speakers to sound their best. Matching them with lower efficiency speakers might not yield the best results. Heat and Maintenance: SET amplifiers can run hotter and may require more maintenance due to the nature of their design. In Summary: If you prioritize efficiency, power output, and a cleaner sound, a push-pull amplifier might be the better choice. If you prefer a warmer, more natural sound and have speakers that are well-matched to the lower power output of SET amps, you might lean towards a single-ended design. Ultimately, your choice might also depend on personal taste and listening environment, so if possible, it's worth auditioning both types to see which one aligns best with your preferences. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by CAJames on 09/10/24 at 03:19:27 Quote:
I think in general you should trust your gut: if you think you want a Mystery Amp you probably should get a Mystery Amp. But if you want some actual advice I would say this: you can't go wrong with any Decware amp, but you need the right amp for your speakers. And if you want to keep your current speakers, the specs say minimum power is 40 watts and that is a Mystery Amp. You can get the sound you seek with a SET as well, but you'd need very different speakers. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by greensigns95@yahoo.com on 09/10/24 at 04:07:40 The Focals at 92db not enough efficiency? |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by CAJames on 09/10/24 at 04:34:20 JMO but if the manufacturer says 40 watts minimum I’d go with that rather than the 92 dB. A lot of speakers claim to have 90+ dB efficiency but aren’t a good match for low power SET amps because the crossover sucks out a lot of power. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Kahuna Jack on 09/10/24 at 05:14:59 Get both ! Stay in line for the Mystery and pick up a basic Zen se84 ufo second hand during the wait . You'll then get to spend time with both and study the differences. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by bloodlemons on 09/10/24 at 07:16:14 I have had a ZMA since early 2019. With tube rolling, you can make it sound any way you want. I promise you. When yours finally arrives, check back in here and I will help you plot your new adventures in tube mania. Sound financial advice: start shopping or saving your money for NOS GEC KT88s now... |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Coqui on 09/10/24 at 17:25:36 I just received the ToriiMkV and I am super happy with it. I have been told that I will continue to improve with time. I will be asking for assistance when the time for tube rolling comes. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Tommy Freefall on 09/10/24 at 19:33:38 Another thing to be aware of is that Steve has a certain preferred sound signature. And when developing his amps, he voices them to produce that sound signature regardless of the topology - PP, SET, SEP - being utilized. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by cmdc on 09/10/24 at 19:49:44 As others have noted, this will probably come down to personal preference, but I can share the results of two natural experiments—one longstanding and the other new and ongoing. 1. In my dedicated listening room, which is geared overwhelmingly toward vinyl, I have a ZMA and a UFO25 side by side in the same system. I’ve had the ZMA since ~2019, and have loved it with a succession of speakers of varied sensitivities (Von Schweikert VR4jriii; Caintuck Lii F15 OBs; then Zu Druid Mk V). When I first listened to to the ZMA in my room, it was more realistic, more engaging than anything I’d ever heard. And every tweak to the room that followed just made it better. In late 2022 (I think), I finally got my UFO25 after a nearly 2 year wait, and put on the shelf next to the ZMA to try it out. In the ~2 years since, the UFO25 has been my default amp. When I do use the ZMA for one reason or another, I still love it, but as between the two of them, I always return to the UFO25. That said, both the Lii F15s and the Zu Druids are quite sensitive. When I tried putting the Von Schweikert’s back in (~89 dB), they sounded lifeless with the UFO25; but by this point, I preferred the other speakers with the ZMA as well. 2. More recently, I just received my new Decware HR2s after an 11 month wait. (There aren’t many of these in the wild yet, so I’ll write more about them in a separate thread.). The HR2s are replacing another, highly modified pair of Lii F15s, in a much larger space (20x27x17H, with the long wall open to another equal size space). Because it’s a family room, it’s untreated. I use an SE84UFO in this room. It worked beautifully with the high efficiency Lii F15s, but I was concerned that SE84 would struggle with less efficient 92 dB speakers in the big space. After a weekend trying the 2 watt SET with the new speakers and being really pleasantly surprised at how terrific the sound was, I substituted in my Torii Mk V, which is a 20 WPC push pull amp. All afternoon, I’ve been listening to the Torii Mk V in place of the SE84UFO, exact same setup and drawing on the same playlist I’ve been using to test the HR2s. The list ranges from orchestral music and classical guitar, jazz bass (Jaco Pastorius), to female vocalists (Shirley Bassey, Billie Eilish), to Pink Floyd, Flaming Lips, and Guns N Roses, among others. Frankly, I could be really happy with either amp in this setup. Based on the short comparison thus far, the Torii Mk V is producing a denser sound field and more concrete images, which is unsurprising given its greater power. By contrast, the SE84UFO seems faster, with a soundstage that is both wider and much deeper. And I want to emphasize that the bass from the little SET is terrific (the SE84 easily delivers 80+dB and a visceral thump to a listening position 20 feet from the speakers); the Torii just has more weight. My initial sense is that I prefer the SE84UFO, even though I expected it to be inadequate with these speakers in this space. If anything, it confirms my instinct that I want to get another SE84 and bridge them into mono, which will give me a little more power without losing the transparency and immediacy of an SET. In light of all this, you might want to take into account your bass/ low end preferences. If you really like to feel the music thump, or you want a really visceral listening experience, particularly in a larger room, a Push Pull might be the way to go. If you like really good (but maybe less intense) bass, coupled with greater speed and transparency, opt for the SET. And since you’re still in queue for a bit, you might want to explore whether a pair of UFO25s might be a worthwhile alternative to the ZMA, since the cost differential is minimal. (Though I’m not certain you can add amps to your order.) And if you stick with the ZMA, rest assured you will love it. —Carroll |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Lon on 09/10/24 at 20:42:37 Thanks for reporting these findings. As owner of two pairs of HR-1 I am eager to read your impressions of the new speakers. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Tony on 09/10/24 at 20:47:46 Carroll, outstanding review. Thanks for putting the time and effort into this discussion. I hope at some time you will do another review of your HR2s. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Hearafter on 09/11/24 at 00:06:09 Carroll, Really nice write up sharing your excellent experience with several different amps and speakers. Really helps explain Steve’s amp line-up and how to make choices. Just the 3 year wait is a killer. Thanks for sharing! |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by Kamran on 09/11/24 at 01:53:53 Carroll, Good to hear from you after a while—fantastic feedback! And eager to hear your impressions on the HRv2 speakers. Didn’t realize that these puppies had a 1 yr wait. Looks like it was worth it. I think what I’ve also heard from many folks (and perhaps this is the point that Tommy was making) that all Decware amps (regardless of topology) carry a certain house sound. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by The other Lon on 09/11/24 at 15:21:07 Greensign...I received my Torii MKV in May and currently have just under 250 hours on it. I also purchased an SE84CKCS about a year into my 26 month wait. I feel it was the best decision I made. This gave me the opportunity to hear/experience a Decware amp. I decided to keep both. While each is different and I prefer the Torii, no regrets on picking up the used SE and getting used to its operation, tubes, etc. My primary room is small (12X14X8.5+) which lets both work in the room. The SE is now in the basement listening "room" which is 11X35X6.5 and it is still capable of driving very efficient speakers (100DB) at my preferred listening level of 65-75DB. Could go louder, just do not feel the need. Carroll, good to hear you received your HRv2's. I hit 11 months yesterday (ordered 10/11/2023). Hopefully I'll be getting a great email from Decware soon as well. Looking forward to your review. |
|
Title: Re: SET vs PP Post by greensigns95@yahoo.com on 09/12/24 at 03:04:03 Thanks, everyone!. And great write-up, Carroll! You read my mind, actually… I would love to find a UFO on the open market while I wait. I know an old tube head in Houston that makes SETs. Thought about having him build me one and I can finish the woodwork, (as that is my side therapy when not in front of my speakers). I recently went to Grid Hif in Houston to buy some Klipsch Forte IVs, but I listened to the new Focal Aria Evo 4s and was so -leased with them, I bought those instead. I know the Fortes would probably play nicer with the gear I have ordered, but I am hoping your experience with 92db speakers works for me as well. |
|
Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.2.2! YaBB © 2000-2008. All Rights Reserved. |