advertisement


What is the Single Ended Triode thing?

The two problems with SET amplification are the exponential rise in harmonic distortion as you turn up the volume and the high output-impedance which makes it very sensitivy to load (combined amp/speaker frequency response depends on the speaker impedance characteristics).
I wouldn't be surprised if your Unison is already putting out 1% THD at 10W.
As I see it, SETs should ideally be used band-passed in active configuration with high sensitivity speakers ≥100dB.
But because the harmonic distortion is low-order it sounds nice to some people. Of course it will be accompanied by high levels of IMD and that is not as pleasent.

The thing with all of this is to view it as a whole. No amplifier exists without a speaker, and I’d put money on a good SET with really good (i.e. expensive!) horn speakers having lower overall distortion than almost all conventional AB amps into conventional box speakers as horns are just so much more efficient and lower in distortion. Typical ported 6-8” bass mid drivers etc are very far from distortion free. The big picture is all that matters in audio, it is all about synergy. To my mind the main thing wrong with SETs & horns is they are obscenely expensive to do well. I don’t care in the slightest about a level of distortion in am amplifier that only ever shows on test gear unless you are trying to thrash it into an entirely unsuitable loudspeaker. It’s just irrelevant.
 
The thing with all of this is to view it as a whole. No amplifier exists without a speaker, and I’d put money on a good SET with really good (i.e. expensive!) horn speakers having lower overall distortion than almost all conventional AB amps into conventional box speakers as horns are just so much more efficient and lower in distortion. Typical ported 6-8” bass mid drivers etc are very far from distortion free. The big picture is all that matters in audio, it is all about synergy. To my mind the main thing wrong with SETs & horns is they are obscenely expensive to do well. I don’t care in the slightest about a level of distortion in am amplifier that only ever shows on test gear unless you are trying to thrash it into an entirely unsuitable loudspeaker. It’s just irrelevant.
I didn't realize horn speakers are very low in distortion.

I thought that lowest distortion speakers were electrostatics and balanced stator magneplanar designs.
 
What about the Lyngdorf "power DAC" technology? It doesn't seem to use analogue amplification of any kind:

https://www.avsforum.com/attachments/steinway-lyngdorf-fully-digital-amplifier-1-pdf.62309/

EcdvJ9U.png


Lyngdorf Audio specifies the TDAI-3400’s power-amp section as able to output 200Wpc into 8 ohms or 400Wpc into 4 ohms by using extremely rapid-switching, low-Rds MOSFETs, and to provide a maximum current output of 40A. Although Equibit, Lyngdorf Audio’s version of the PWM switching technology, is proprietary, other companies make PWM amps -- less usual is how Equibit controls the output volume. Instead of attenuating the analog signal after it goes through D/A conversion and is sent to the power-amp stage, the signal is sent directly to the power amp while still in the digital domain; the volume control then adjusts the voltage output of the power supply, which regulates the amount of power sent to the loudspeakers. Lacking a traditional DAC or preamplification stage, the TDAI-3400 has much simpler circuitry and acts as a power-DAC, which makes it theoretically less susceptible to noise and distortion -- the digital signal is not converted to analog until just before it’s sent to the speakers.

https://soundstagehifi.com/index.ph...dorf-audio-tdai-3400-integrated-amplifier-dac

The original TacT Audio amplifier used a bridge type power output stage using Mosfets which I believe came from the RF world. As I said above, to drive a loudspeaker you still need an audio output stage to provide the voltage/current amplification needed to drive the loudspeaker, and whether you drive it with a digitally converted analogue signal, or a pulsed signal (switching amplifier), as in the Class D stage mentioned in the article above, the output stage is basically the same as an analogue output stage. Anything else is marketing...

I remember seeing the first original TacT Audio amplifier (which later became Lyndorf) which was a very nice thing developed by a couple of very bright designers who I spoke to back in the late 1990s at the High end show in Frankfurt. This was when they were TacT Audio and before they were bought out. The company has had a number of investors and link ups over the years including with Steinway. I spoke to them (TacT Audio) about UK distribution, but in the end although the amplifier was beautifully made, it sounded OK, much better than anything Lyndorf make today, but ultimately it didn't match the speakers I was importing at that time, so I walked away but enjoyed the conversation with the designers.

FWIW, if you were to connect this amplifier to a really high quality efficient loudspeaker you would hear exactly how the Lyndorf described technology performs, which is about as far away from a good SET sound as you can get.
 
The thing with all of this is to view it as a whole. No amplifier exists without a speaker, and I’d put money on a good SET with really good (i.e. expensive!) horn speakers having lower overall distortion than almost all conventional AB amps into conventional box speakers as horns are just so much more efficient and lower in distortion. Typical ported 6-8” bass mid drivers etc are very far from distortion free. The big picture is all that matters in audio, it is all about synergy. To my mind the main thing wrong with SETs & horns is they are obscenely expensive to do well. I don’t care in the slightest about a level of distortion in am amplifier that only ever shows on test gear unless you are trying to thrash it into an entirely unsuitable loudspeaker. It’s just irrelevant.

We are talking about the same things with different words — suitability for purpose —, that partnering a 12W Leben or a Prima Luna with a pair of Harbeth SHL5s is making an unsuitable match.
And that is because:
1. distortion A (linear) -> the combined frequency response will not be flat but look like the hills and valleys of the Harbeth's impedance plot,
and 2. distortion B (non-linear) -> the Leben will be putting out more than 1% THD above 5W and it will be skyrocketing above that.

But the funny thing is that some people might actually like it.

So, again, SETs should, in my view, ideally be used band passed in an active configuration to avoid the aforementioned issues with impedance variation which result in linear distortion and with very high sensitivity speakers (≥100dB) to avoid non-linear distortion.

And as you rightly say such multi-way horns are rare and expensive.
 
If SETs work for individuals then that's great. Most of us want to enjoy the music, we shouldn't let equipment ideals get in the way of that. I have a plethora of amplifier types and speakers. With my open baffles, I always come back to my SET amps. With my floor standing reflex speakers I like Class D best. There's no doubt in my mind that we must consider amplifier/speaker pairing as @Tony L has said.

I find there's a parallel between audio and photography. High-end photography is often achieved via RAW image capture. This means that photos are captured with maximum accuracy (fidelity). The reality is that these photos are not very pleasing to view. The images are then post-processed (in-camera or on a computer) to produce JPEG photos - tweaks include dragging out detail from shadows (improving dynamic range), sharpening, contrast, hue etc.

SETs and coloured speakers are to my mind equivalent to the post processing of photos - it's done to make the final result more enjoyable for humans. The images or music (software or vinyl) should be stored in a high fidelity format but viewing or playback should be adapted for pleasure. In other words, the high fidelity source is rendered to achieve the preferences of the listener.
 
So the chip in a chip amp still uses transistors, just in their miniaturised IC form?

Its not in IC miniature form but in a reasonable size package, normally about the size of 2 x TO-247 transistors side by side, but all the amplification devices are mounted on a single substrate, so instead of having a bunch of discrete transistors and a pair of output devices, you have a single package (or chip as it is often referred too) with all the semiconductors enclosed within this package.
 
I find there's a parallel between audio and photography. High-end photography is often achieved via RAW image capture. This means that photos are captured with maximum accuracy (fidelity). The reality is that these photos are not very pleasing to view.

That analogy is incorrect.
A RAW file is, as the name implies, what the camera captures. As far as I know, all cameras will append a specific group of setting to the RAW file, which is user customised, and this will produce a given "presentation". With the cameras I've owned I can have my RAW files look pretty much like my JPEGs as standard, it's only a matter of tweaking the settings. Except that, unlike JPEG, a RAW file allows a certain level of non-destructive tweaking and is lossless.
JPEG settings are user adjustable but less adjustable than RAW and if you don't like their "presentation" you need to find a new camera.

I would more quiclky compare JPEGs to low-fi and RAW to (potentially) high-fi.
 
That analogy is incorrect.
A RAW file is, as the name implies, what the camera captures. As far as I know, all cameras will append a specific group of setting to the RAW file, which is user customised, and this will produce a given "presentation". With the cameras I've owned I can have my RAW files look pretty much like my JPEGs as standard, it's only a matter of tweaking the settings. Except that, unlike JPEG, a RAW file allows a certain level of non-destructive tweaking and is lossless.
JPEG settings are user adjustable but less adjustable than RAW and if you don't like their "presentation" you need to find a new camera.

I would more quiclky compare JPEGs to low-fi and RAW to (potentially) high-fi.
RAW files can have camera settings applied but most minimise these, for example with Nikon many use "flat" or "standard". Settings' such as "vivid" are available but best left for helping set the jpgs. Settings can be removed in post-processing (yes, lossless) so you can always get back to the real RAW file as captured. The pure RAW file will look ok but it's not a patch on a tweaked file which is then rendered as jpg (so it can be displayed or printed).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GT
SETs and coloured speakers are to my mind equivalent to the post processing of photos - it's done to make the final result more enjoyable for humans. The images or music (software or vinyl) should be stored in a high fidelity format but viewing or playback should be adapted for pleasure. In other words, the high fidelity source is rendered to achieve the preferences of the listener.

I like the analogy between audio and photography. Thing is that if you select a really good SET amplifier, as well as a really good well matched loudspeaker you will get the purest sound and closer to the music than any other type of amp/speaker combination. I am sure there are manufacturers who make coloured speakers, but these are best avoided if you want to hear the recording as it was intended.
 
RAW files can have camera settings applied but most minimise these, for example with Nikon many use "flat" or "standard". Settings' such as "vivid" are available but best left for helping set the jpgs. Settings can be removed in post-processing (yes, lossless) so you can always get back to the real RAW file as captured. The pure RAW file will look ok but it's not a patch on a tweaked file which is then rendered as jpg (so it can be displayed or printed).

That may be because more advanced and pro users don't always enjoy/want/need an eye-catching "presentation".
The same is true with audio. Toole's research seems to indicate that untrained listeners prefer more bass and more treble (in regard to flat) than either trained or pro listeners.

I don't agree with your understanding of real RAW. A RAW file is just raw data, with no settings (white balance, contrast, sharpness, saturation, tonal balance, etc.) applied. It can be "anything" within what was captured by a particular combination of ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings.
A pure RAW is more like (reddish-brown) undevelopped film...
 
SETs and coloured speakers are to my mind equivalent to the post processing of photos - it's done to make the final result more enjoyable for humans. The images or music (software or vinyl) should be stored in a high fidelity format but viewing or playback should be adapted for pleasure. In other words, the high fidelity source is rendered to achieve the preferences of the listener.

I find ‘colouration’ an interesting term as it tends only to apply to tonal issues, and usually just some random person’s interpretation of some random response plot taken in someone else’s room. To my ears all hi-fi has issues, speakers are hopelessly imperfect, and sadly to a large degree you get what you pay for. I’m curious whether you have heard any really serious high-efficiency horns; Khorns, Altecs, Avant Garde, high-end JBL etc? The thing they do for me is a) make every conventional box speaker sound entirely devoid of dynamic range and nuance, and b) remove so much of the vagueness that comes from room reflection that is an inevitable part of wide-dispersion speakers. There is something quite astonishingly alive and real about a good horn speaker, especially if you enjoy complex music with real dynamic nuance (e.g. jazz drummers never sound better). There is something exceptionally good about the best SETs and huge horns. Many of us will never be able to afford to play at that price level, but it is hugely unwise to judge it on paper!
 
That may be because more advanced and pro users don't always enjoy/want/need an eye-catching "presentation".
The same is true with audio. Toole's research seems to indicate that untrained listeners prefer more bass and more treble (in regard to flat) than either trained or pro listeners.

I don't agree with your understanding of real RAW. A RAW file is just raw data, with no settings (white balance, contrast, sharpness, saturation, tonal balance, etc.) applied. It can be "anything" within what was captured by a particular combination of ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings.
A pure RAW is more like (reddish-brown) undevelopped film...
As with any analogy it’s limited, nonetheless it makes sense the me. You introduced the concept the the RAW data can have in-camera user specified adjustments applied. This confuses things and many apply few to none of these, the magic happens in post processing. Of course the camera records the image with ISO, aperture, shutter speed (and method) as well as focus point.
 
I find ‘colouration’ an interesting term as it tends only to apply to tonal issues, and usually just some random person’s interpretation of some random response plot taken in someone else’s room. To my ears all hi-fi has issues, speakers are hopelessly imperfect, and sadly to a large degree you get what you pay for. I’m curious whether you have heard any really serious high-efficiency horns; Khorns, Altecs, Avant Garde, high-end JBL etc? The thing they do for me is a) make every conventional box speaker sound entirely devoid of dynamic range and nuance, and b) remove so much of the vagueness that comes from room reflection that is an inevitable part of wide-dispersion speakers. There is something quite astonishingly alive and real about a good horn speaker, especially if you enjoy complex music with real dynamic nuance (e.g. jazz drummers never sound better). There is something exceptionally good about the best SETs and huge horns. Many of us will never be able to afford to play at that price level, but it is hugely unwise to judge it on paper!
Absolutely I've heard a lot of horns...I've heard Avantgarde in a huge room. It's an experience I'll never forget! BTW I wasn't advocating coloured speakers - it's more that some will tailor their sound with them, rather like processing a photo until over-saturated.
 

Hi there - perhaps I wasn't being specific enough - with LM I was referring specifically to their one 300B amp called the 210IA. And my comparisons were directly against their other amplifiers like the 219IA and Melody Valve Audio amplifiers. The 210IA in those comparisons were "lady-like" and that is ultimately why I purchased the 219IA. I was also the first North American reviewer to review and cover the brand so it was nice to see that eventually, other publications get around to them. The 845 219IA sounded bigger, fuller more powerful by a wide margin over the 210IA. The dealer was correct that in comparison the 210IA sounds softer. Albeit it still comes down to taste and what one listens to. Audio Note's first Meishu I was not a big fan of - it is their best-selling amplifier. But it just wasn't my cup of tea. The owner of the company prefers amps, as he told me, "211, 45, 2a3 and a distant fourth 300B." Yet his customers buy the 300B amp the most. I agreed with Peter. Until the Meishu Tonmesiter with a new patented power supply - it lives up to its name and is the only 300B amplifier I have heard that I would buy.

As for audio shows well I have been to one show where I chose MBL and YG Acoustics as the bottom 3 worst rooms of the entire show only to go to another show and pegged them as a tie for the best sound of the show (same speakers and same equipment!) - Audio Note, which I own, sounded poor and would not have made my top 20. MBL makes some sense being Omni-directional the room plays a vital role in the results - but then so do corner loaded speakers like an Audio Note or Corner loaded horns.

I have been to rooms on a Friday where the sound stunk and on Sunday were superb. I have heard famous long-lasting brand names that I have never managed to hear sound good. I simply presume that I am wrong about them or the fans like something I don't. Usually, I try to hear something three times in three locations at a minimum (and they can't all be audio shows). A specific example is Magnepan - been listening to them for 30 years and I try and try but I have yet to "get it." I keep trying because maybe one day the stars will align. And the reason I keep trying is because of a guy on another forum who was always telling me he hated AN speakers - he kept going to audio shows and he kept hating them. Then one day he went to a show in California and boom the stars aligned for him and he said they were the best sounding speakers he ever heard at any show. And boom the crappy-sounding coal turned into a diamond. I was patient because they have won so many best sound at audio show awards over the years that it's not a coincidence.

One example is the show in Toronto that just finished a day to two ago. Several posters quite like the AN room with the AN K/SPe that I just reviewed - a $5,500 speaker and a $3500 amplifier with built-in DAC (El34 no less) and remote control against rooms with $100k price tags. https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61932

Another example is when people were saying the KEF LS-50 sounds better than the KEF Blade - well no it doesn't. I owned the KEF for 4 years and why the speaker can sound better at any given show is that a smaller speaker can hide from room-related problems - the Blade can't. So the LS-50 may be able to sound better in a lousy listening environment - that is probably very true - better when the room is not a dreadful motel no chance - the Blade is much better. The show report I linked above is the same thing - the AN K is far less likely to have room-related issues than the J or E.

But there is that old saying "you never get a second chance to make a first impression" so it goes.
 
The thing with all of this is to view it as a whole. No amplifier exists without a speaker, and I’d put money on a good SET with really good (i.e. expensive!) horn speakers having lower overall distortion than almost all conventional AB amps into conventional box speakers as horns are just so much more efficient and lower in distortion. Typical ported 6-8” bass mid drivers etc are very far from distortion free. The big picture is all that matters in audio, it is all about synergy. To my mind the main thing wrong with SETs & horns is they are obscenely expensive to do well. I don’t care in the slightest about a level of distortion in am amplifier that only ever shows on test gear unless you are trying to thrash it into an entirely unsuitable loudspeaker. It’s just irrelevant.

I would agree with you that the price to do all of this gets crazy - on the other hand the SET with HE horns (or HE speakers) are probably the only kind of way that I would go if I ever win that big lotto - in other words, they actually provide the sound quality that justifies the prices. After auditioning the Viviv Giya and Dan D'Agostino amplifiers here recently - meh. My thoughts went to the Acapella Audio Arts (IMO better than Avantegarde) and Audio Note digital and amps there is no comparison the latter is leagues and leagues superior. The ION tweeters may be the best in the business and they managed to actually sound cohesive and coherent. If you have to ask the price you can's afford - I think the speakers for bordering $80,000 and that was the cheapest thing in the system! Even Acapella's amp is more than that! And it seemed to elevate mediocre recordings as well to make them seem like high quality - granted the 6 digit CD player and transport helped.

You just can't do this on the cheap. As lovely as the speakers are - and maybe I could eventually afford them (second hand) - I can't afford the rest of the system nor can I afford the new house I need to buy to fit them properly. And that's the other killer - I live in Hong Kong - there is a limit to the size of speakers I can use and the resulting quality I can realistically achieve.

DSC02590.jpg
 
So, again, SETs should, in my view, ideally be used band passed in an active configuration to avoid the aforementioned issues with impedance variation which result in linear distortion and with very high sensitivity speakers (≥100dB) to avoid non-linear distortion.
I used my 845 SETs as mid amps, but with (86dB?) Jordan JX92s, which had a wide FR and relatively benign impedance used as mids. The HF amps were EL84 PP (Jordan 50mm drivers), and a big Parasound SS amp (10" SEAS drivers) with my analogue active crossover (Ben Duncan design).
Best speaker system I ever had, but too complicated for my wife, despite it all turning on and off with a single switch! Shouldn't have changed it.
 
I

I find there's a parallel between audio and photography. High-end photography is often achieved via RAW image capture. This means that photos are captured with maximum accuracy (fidelity). The reality is that these photos are not very pleasing to view. The images are then post-processed (in-camera or on a computer) to produce JPEG photos - tweaks include dragging out detail from shadows (improving dynamic range), sharpening, contrast, hue etc.
It seems that botanists often prefer an artist's painting to a photograph, as they can capture more details than are visible in a photo. So which is the higher fidelity rendering?
 
It seems that botanists often prefer an artist's painting to a photograph, as they can capture more details than are visible in a photo. So which is the higher fidelity rendering?

A photograph and a drawing are recordings, not reproductions. :p

Which will give a higher fidelity rendering of either recording, a CRT or a 4k plasma?
 
I find ‘colouration’ an interesting term as it tends only to apply to tonal issues, and usually just some random person’s interpretation of some random response plot taken in someone else’s room. To my ears all hi-fi has issues, speakers are hopelessly imperfect, and sadly to a large degree you get what you pay for. I’m curious whether you have heard any really serious high-efficiency horns; Khorns, Altecs, Avant Garde, high-end JBL etc? The thing they do for me is a) make every conventional box speaker sound entirely devoid of dynamic range and nuance, and b) remove so much of the vagueness that comes from room reflection that is an inevitable part of wide-dispersion speakers. There is something quite astonishingly alive and real about a good horn speaker, especially if you enjoy complex music with real dynamic nuance (e.g. jazz drummers never sound better). There is something exceptionally good about the best SETs and huge horns. Many of us will never be able to afford to play at that price level, but it is hugely unwise to judge it on paper!

In my view, the term "colouration" should only be used to describe benign or euphonic distortions; otherwise it sounds like an excuse for or a relativisation of poor performance...
And as I and others have mentioned, SETs + multi-way horns can actually produce lower linear and non-linear distortion than conventional forward radiation boxes.

I agree with what you say about speakers. Even though electronic equipment is now able to reproduce the signal with an extremely high level of accuracy, tranducers are still very imperfect. And stereo is over speakers is imperfect too, which is why there's no consensus on the issue of directivity. Some end users and designers prefer omin, others wide, others narrow; some like to treat early reflections and others don't.
The only thing I'd add is that part of the "grandness" of big horns comes from their size, and I have found that large Wilsons or (modern) TADs can also perform that trick. It's the "immediacy" that I find perhaps less present in box speakers.
 


advertisement


Back
Top