I think you need the massive voltages that tubes supply so easily. There is no easily available efficiency specification for that situation.
The problem is that when you are dealing with someone who has all the answers and their mind is as tightly closed as the jaws on a hungry pit bull on a meaty bone, trying to pry that mind open and instill some new knowledge becomes very difficult.
Dear sir until you hear these Acoutat's i think that it is your jaw that should stay shut because you have no idea of what you are talking about these DIY Spectra 8800s have played music at volumes that 100k and 200k speakers CAN NOT HANDLE.
Just to play devil's advocate, the Acoustat 1+1s were the first estat that I ever heard and it was love at first listen. But I always felt that they and the other Acoustats were always hindered by the amplifiers of the time. Neither tube (ARC-probably the best I heard them sound, EAR) nor solid-state(Hafler--or their own Acoustat amplifier that was the worst match of all) could really do them justice. And of course the beaming and upper octaves.
Personally I'd love to hear the modded Acoustats with analog of course.
As a dealer then, the best sound from Acoustats with the MK121 transformers was the NYAL OTL amps. About the second best were the NYAL Moscode amps. With any tube amp wIth transformers, the sound was slow and very veiled. But when you hooked up the OTL servo amps and eliminating the MK121 transformers, several layers of haziness disappeared and dynamics increased greatly.
Interesting. But then as I understand, the reliability of the Acoustat servo amps was less than stellar. My friend had a pair of rebuilt NYAL OTL on his Crosby Quads and they were quite good, when they worked. Which wasn't often enough sad to say. The EAR 509 didn't sound veiled; to the contrary the issue was the bass was way to big, bloated and boomy and the top end was rather soft. The best sound I heard was with either the ARC D90 or D110 back then.
I could never understand though why the Acoustat amps sounded so bad with their own speakers. Surely it should have been a match made in heaven (and that was at the time with an ARC SP10 and Linn/Itok/Koetsu Rosewood cartridge). It just was absolutely washed out, thin and electronic sounding.
I sold quite a few Acoustat amps back then and they all sounded quite good. Maybe you had a defective one. They sounded bright on normal speakers, but sounded smooth with the MK121 Acoustats.
Just to play devil's advocate, the Acoustat 1+1s were the first estat that I ever heard and it was love at first listen. But I always felt that they and the other Acoustats were always hindered by the amplifiers of the time. Neither tube (ARC-probably the best I heard them sound, EAR) nor solid-state(Hafler--or their own Acoustat amplifier that was the worst match of all) could really do them justice. And of course the beaming and upper octaves.
Personally I'd love to hear the modded Acoustats with analog of course.
Sir i respect your opinion on analog all i want is the same respect on my preference for good solid state amplifiers for Acoustat's tube amps for ME just don't cut it, i have tried three or four times but always came back to solid state.
Did I criticize your choice of amp Andre? No. I simply related my experience. Don't be so sensitive.
Sorry Myles my post was not ment for you.
I tried all kinds of amps on my Acoustat 3's with the Mk121 transformers. From the Melos tube amps to the large Threshold ss amps...none were that great. IMHO, Acoustat's, like many panel speakers cannot truly reproduce dynamics...See my thread on Dynamics...http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?13787-Dynamics!!!
Oh, OK just so you realize I'm talking about their TNT solid-state not tube amplifiers. The TNT-200 just sounded bad on all speakers, in particular Maggies and the Acoustats. The TNT-200 was thin, electronic, anemic and just lacked information. The piece of junk Hafler 500 sounded better on the 1+1s Don't know if it was good or bad. All I know is that it worked and came from a local dealer.