Power . How much do we need...

[Mike Lavigne]

Unless Mike's built-in subs have a line-leval input that is fed directly from his preamp, I can't imagine how the amp won't have an influence on the sound of the subs. If his 3 watt amp clips, the signal fed to the speakers will be a clipped signal for both the mains and the sub.

the 3 watt'er's run out of gain, but so far no obvious clipping. obviously the 2a3's don't have the control in the bass that the dart has, or that the ML#53 might have. so the bass character of the amp does come thru.

 

[fas42]

Feed the same signal to each speaker (ie one stereo channel or mono them if your preamp can do that), then use the scope to match the powers (channel A minus channel B equals almost a stright line when they are equal as you can get them).

Feed the tube amp into one speaker, the ML into the other.

walk back and forth between the speakers (you have a big room so you can seperate them and balance them to their surroundings) as much as you want to see if you can hear differences.

One problem with that, Tom, is that there may be interaction between the two types of amplifier operating at the one time. Of course, if one doesn't believe in such things then there isn't a problem, but Mike's system appears to have very high resolution and it may be a major factor. Usually the better the setup the most sensitive it will be to every subtle variation in the environment, so to get fair results the testing would have to be done with scrupulous care ...

Frank

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Another statement that would gain a good bit of credibility by the simple admission that it is a personal opinion.

Tim

every perspective/opinion/conclusion i ever post about is based on listening. i don't care much about measurements. everyone knows that.

i've put an exceptional amount of effort into forming my listening opinions, and having an environment where i can feel confident about what i hear.

i'm an open book, anyone can easily see where and why i've formed my opinions. and then draw their own conclusions as to their validity. they can second guess my room, my gear and ancillary equipment.....even my whole approach. and they do, all the time.

i do respect what you are saying, it's fair. but i don't see it's necessary. i think i'm as full disclosure as they come already.

 

[KeithR]

I was never meaning any kind of technical test to be honest.

simply level match and have some fun---this isn't cables or something somewhat more difficult. if you can't tell the difference between a SET and SS amp, you need your hearing checked. it would be nice to hear what others think of 3 watts vs hundreds of watts on a system that is efficient enough (on most music). but at least then we get real opinion, rather than pure speculation as to whether a system can sound more transparent or not with each technology.

Cheers,

KeithR

 

[fas42]

if you can't tell the difference between a SET and SS amp, you need your hearing checked. it would be nice to hear what others think of 3 watts vs hundreds of watts on a system that is efficient enough (on most music). but at least then we get real opinion, rather than pure speculation as to whether a system can sound more transparent or not with each technology

KeithR

Of course, provided both are in their comfort zone, there should be little difference between them: otherwise, one or both are distorting, and then you make a decision as to whether you prefer a certain style of distortion, or low audible distortion. Transparency is simply the absence of a certain type of distortion ...

Frank

 

[Orb]

That alone would be intriguing to me. Preamp issues aside, seeing how the sound changes between the SET and the ML, used just as midrange/high amps, would be an interesting listen. Does the SET mop the floor with the big amp, or are they comparable in this system? Even not blind I would love to try that, even better with an AP unit to measure the distortion at the output of the amps while driving a few test tones. The overtone series should be drastically different between the two amps, even at 1 W. If nothing else it might lead to an interesting test of what we like to hear, and maybe some measurements to help explain why.

Just to add, it would also need to be done at different impedance loading due to a speaker presenting usually 16oms 8ohms 4ohms across the FR.
Agree overtones should be different and also I bet noise floor will change as power is upped, so multiple readings will also need to be done at different power say 1w 5w 20w (last figure just thrown out or instead comparing point of clipping).
Paul Miller does these tests at this level of detail but unfortunately they are not posted online in a way that is easily seen from a chart-graph perspective, in one article he did show these measurements for a power amp and it was very interesting how the above factors affected the overtones and noisefloor against the increasing power and impedance and how it changes from 1w-low power-medium power-high power before clipping- clipping.
One benefit though PM has is that his tests tools can push the threshold of the amp without causing damage as the measurement is done for a specific burst of time that does not cause the amp to become unstable.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

i'm an open book, anyone can easily see where and why i've formed my opinions. and then draw their own conclusions as to their validity. they can second guess my room, my gear and ancillary equipment.....even my whole approach. and they do, all the time.

I don't question any of it. It is what you like, and you have invested a lot of time, experience and money into finding and refining what you like. It would be futile to question such a well-formed opinion. What is questionable is the authority with which the opinions are often expressed. Out of the context of knowing your posting history, your system, your experience, your philosophy, one could easily conclude, from your authoritative confidence in the superiority of your choices, that those choices are based in something universal, scientific, even, when the opposite is true. I don't disagree with your choices; they are yours. Yours is the pursuit of a sound you love, not higher fidelity to any verifiable reference. It is purely personal. There's nothing to disagree with. But would it be better, more forthcoming, more "open" to openly, consistently admit how personal your choices are? I think it would. YMMV.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Keith

We all seem very passionate about our systems. That's fine: We invest a lot of money, time and effort into it while trying to for "perfect reproduction in our homes. The operative term is "We". We all are audiophiles and are pursuing the same goal through various roads...
Let me address some points of you post, #138 in this thread I will quote from it from time to time ..

You posted this

this is a silly thread as all it has done is brought out a tube vs. ss argument and the OP already has a dead set opinion, so not sure why the question is even being asked. a better thread would be to debate large push/pull tube amps vs. SET, but leave that for another day.

Whether it is silly or not is a matter of opinion and we can leave it at that, I would however say that I am not "dead set". I have an opinion based on several years of careful and passionate listening of the finest audio equipment around and of real music, that one on a consistent basis to these days. Whats I hear from music, most music, including non-western, require considerable dynamic swings and sound pressure level, something I don't find low power amplifiers driving medium efficiency speakers capable to do. Throughout the thread it has come clear to many that even speakers that are marketed as such do not upon examination fit this denomination.
As an example, a magazine whose style, substance and protocols I respect, Soundstage Network, measured some speakers among them one which claims high and loud that they are high sensitivity (Concident Tech I think ) to be average in term of sensitivity. This in my experience doesn't apply to all companies or speakers and a simple listen at Steve's tells me that Wilson at least on the X-2 is close to the truth... And if one is thinking magnificent system, that is one of them out there and he is using 32 watts and that is 10~11 dB more than what 3 watts and that is HUGE ...
The better speakers out there, the vast majority of them falls under medium to low sensitivity .. There are very few speakers topping 100 dB/W/m wouldn't you say? Of the speakers vying for "best around" most are medium to low sensitivity with a few being power hungry to a fault (Magico Q5, or Avalon Isis)... SO it seems almost a fact that a 3 watter actually ANY low power amplifier around 1-~20 watts will not coerce them and since our perceptions tend toward the logarithmic even 100 watts maybe borderline in most cases... Are these valid deductions or not?
Mike himself while attracted to the 3 watter if he were to keep just one amp would from what I can infer from his posts keep his current Dar Tzeel ...
I know that for most of the time in most system we are barely pulling a watt or so from our amps but music changes from silence to thunde in microsecond a. The matter remains that when the thunder does occur and the watts to drive our very inefficient speakers are needed they must be present to answer to the call... These would not be available in a 3-watter, regardless of how soft or nice it clips or run out of gain if you prefer it will clip and that in most speakers that most audiophiles are likely to use ...
AS for disparaging Mike's system .. Come on Man! .. I live inthe SOutheAst and was about to travel to Mike for a week-end of bliss and inspiration, so I'll dismiss that point outright .. No one in his right mind would disparage this work of love ...

@Mike

You are fond of stating to that you don't care about measurements... I find myself often not caring about most of them either, strangely. I would never buy an amp based on its THD for example... It's power rating however remains important to me... If a speaker response is 20 dB down at 80 Hz it tells you to think subs else you will miss a lot and it is clear to you that bass performance anchors the music ... I am certain that your room came to this level with careful and likely sophisticated measurements and mathematics .. Not from you , maybe, but from a person or company you hired. You know that the equipment you use were measured and measured to death be it the Dar Tzeel or the 3-watter and also auditioned carefully and in a way to reduce biases and increase repeatability. IOW designers would not listen to itheir gear drunk or with an headache ... at the very least For them to make another instrument that sound the same they may have to measure certain things and correctly and consistently ....else ...
And that is what the data is .. A way to correlate and try to explain what we hear to some hard numbers or set of numbers... And that should not be rejected outright ... A system like yours coupled with data gathered by a person like Amir would be a treasure trove. I want to participate in such an experience . It has the potential to bring some understanding to what we are debating about and often speculate about ... because as noted by some people here amongst them J_N, such experiences are (almost) never conducted ... Science cannot be rejected ... Data can't be .. Musicians needs the data called a score and they rely on a metronome to keep their beat correct .. A piano is tuned with a tool then the ear... But the ear must be checked .. because a simple cold may change its perception temporarily. We, audiophiles, often fall in loooooooove with a system and after repeated and careful auditions wonder what were we thinking .. Data helps avoiding this often costly mistakes and in my view advance the cause of reproduction in our home .. How can it be rejected??... Why should it be rejected. What we all in this discussion are after is repeatedly superb reproduction in our homes .. Repeatedly .. Repeatability can only be accomplished with data .. Our senses are too imperfect. The interesting paradox is that our senses are needed to refine the model and question the data and finally to enjoy the result of the data ... but data we need and its lacking in what missing to achieve higher fidelity... As for preferences 'nother matter ..

PM coming your way..

 

[Orb]

Frantz,
it is all relative.
I doubt anyone is suggesting a low powered SET amp should be used with speakers less than true sensitivie 95-98db (depending upon what you define as low powered either 3-to-10watts and room size), and criticially benign in terms impedance loading to output taps of amp,phase,etc.
Also bear in mind there are SET amps close to 20watts and a little more (I would say this is where we can sometimes see the big cash products), which gives a little flexibility for the 95db speakers that do fluctuate with their sensitivity over their FR.
Appreciate you were just commenting to Keith/Mike but wanted to add to this discussion what I feel should be seen within a context.

Steve, regarding your Lamms how do you connect the subwoofer into the system?
Curious to know if it is a setup that takes some strain or even needs to from your Lamms into those sensitive Wilsons you have, which again is another architecture consideration for those who discuss amps being undepowered (not suggesting Steve's system is underpowered but his implementation may be of interest to this discussion).

Cheers
Orb

 

[Robh3606]

common volumes for stereo listening are what, 80dbs. i would never even tune a system for 120db peaks. if you want to get tinnitus, of which i already suffer not due to loudness, be my guest. it sucks.

Hello Keith

I think you misunderstand why you would want a system that is capable of such high SPL peaks. First off you are not tuning the system for 120dB peaks. All you are doing is providing enough power reserves to be able hit those peaks clean if the need arrises. Clean is the key. You want to be able to do this without the amps clipping. If they clip it's all for naught as you can hear the power compression and it doesn't sound natural.

The whole point is for the system to sound unrestrained and remain effortless at any reasonable SPL level. The only way to get there IMHO is to overdesign/overpower which is more in line with your statement that more power is better. It sure helps if you have high sensitivity speakers. My mains are 98db@ 1 meter so it's not that much of a stretch for me to get there.

The other issue is what part of the spectrum are those peaks in. I can hit 120Db peaks using my subwoofers in my HT. I typically don't go there and purposely listen below Reference Level to avoid issues with my hearing. Just becasue you have a system or design a system that is capable of ear damaging SPL's doesn't mean you don't understand the dangers and are not proactive to avoid them.

Rob

 

[FrantzM]

Orb

I still owe you a reply about your question on how much capcitance would be needed ... Forthcoming . .on its way . In the mail .. ALlow me to reply to your last post ...
I amnot convinced by SET but respect what they do. Their midrange in aprticular and if you would allow me this term, their liquidity. I find their restriction in the lows and often the highs too restricitive and for the most part their low power restricitive. I do also know there are more powerful SET, I have heard some myself .
I believe actually in high sensitivity as a goal for a speaker by the way. THe speakers I like and pursue tend to be south of 95 dB Presently lusting after the Evo MM3 (93 dB if one believes specs ) and am very intrigued by the Magico Q5 (88dB if a person is too generous likely <85 dB) And frommy personal experiences and what I gleaned in this thread , even Iwere to own 95 dB + sensitivity speakers, I would go toward moore watts than less ...
As for listening at 80 dB, I am one of those who plyas music soft...but a person talking in a room is esily 80 dB .. A trumpet would hit 100 dB regularly, while I don't take 100 dB to be my average listening level, I welome the capacity of my gears to hit 100 db with power to spare..

 

[fas42]

The whole point is for the system to sound unrestrained and remain effortless at any reasonable SPL level.

Exactly. If tonal qualities alter as genuinely realistic volume levels are aimed for then you have problems; in my experience, power supply problems. The other quality that has to be there is transparency, liquidity, lack of audible distortion, realistic sound, naturalness, musicality, tonality: these are all words and phrases, used over and over again, which ultimately only mean one thing: that the system is working correctly, to the the point where your ears are unaware of any lacking in its core behaviour. And I get the very strong impression that this is a quality that Mike's system would have in large measure ...

Frank

 

[Mike Lavigne]

@Mike

You are fond of stating to that you don't care about measurements... I find myself often not caring about most of them either, strangely. I would never buy an amp based on its THD for example... It's power rating however remains important to me... If a speaker response is 20 dB down at 80 Hz it tells you to think subs else you will miss a lot and it is clear to you that bass performance anchors the music ... I am certain that your room came to this level with careful and likely sophisticated measurements and mathematics .. Not from you , maybe, but from a person or company you hired. You know that the equipment you use were measured and measured to death be it the Dar Tzeel or the 3-watter and also auditioned carefully and in a way to reduce biases and increase repeatability. IOW designers would not listen to itheir gear drunk or with an headache ... at the very least For them to make another instrument that sound the same they may have to measure certain things and correctly and consistently ....else ...
And that is what the data is .. A way to correlate and try to explain what we hear to some hard numbers or set of numbers... And that should not be rejected outright ... A system like yours coupled with data gathered by a person like Amir would be a treasure trove. I want to participate in such an experience . It has the potential to bring some understanding to what we are debating about and often speculate about ... because as noted by some people here amongst them J_N, such experiences are (almost) never conducted ... Science cannot be rejected ... Data can't be .. Musicians needs the data called a score and they rely on a metronome to keep their beat correct .. A piano is tuned with a tool then the ear... But the ear must be checked .. because a simple cold may change its perception temporarily. We, audiophiles, often fall in loooooooove with a system and after repeated and careful auditions wonder what were we thinking .. Data helps avoiding this often costly mistakes and in my view advance the cause of reproduction in our home .. How can it be rejected??... Why should it be rejected. What we all in this discussion are after is repeatedly superb reproduction in our homes .. Repeatedly .. Repeatability can only be accomplished with data .. Our senses are too imperfect. The interesting paradox is that our senses are needed to refine the model and question the data and finally to enjoy the result of the data ... but data we need and its lacking in what missing to achieve higher fidelity... As for preferences 'nother matter ..

PM coming your way..

Frantz,

measureing tools have their place. for instance; dailing in bass adjustments for speaker set-up is aided by an RTA. you are measuring objective data to help improve precision in set-up. setting up a turntable requires a tracking force meter to get you in the ball park of manufacturer recommneded spec. doing room plots can tell you about gross acoustic room issues and what types of solutions might be needed. obviously manufacturers need objective data both in design and production. so when i say i don't care about measurements, i mean that measuremnts are helpful tools, but i don't rely on them for my truth of performance. they help to guide me to the point where my listening can take me the rest of the way.

when someone wants to measure my amps, my reaction would be 'why?'. that is not going to tell us which is better. and if people want to get together and measure gear then there is no one stopping them but i have no interest. i cannot remember a session in my audio time where the focus was to measure stuff. and i doubt there ever will be.

and maybe our perspectives on this subject are really not that different.

regarding my 3 watt SET's. maybe i've given the wrong impression. i'm not defending them as real world, or suitable for normal systems. they do not suspend the laws of physics.

i don't think they are adaquate for my speakers or my room. even so; they do enough (even in my system) that they are still something i can enjoy. i'm lucky to have a speaker system which, even though it's only 93db 6 ohm, since the amp does not need to power the low frequencies a flea powered amp can actually 'work' marginally. with the right recordings. when i sit closer. and accept the limitations.

and much of what the 2a3's do is about their lack of contribution to the sound. they are an open window. it's like they do this one thing that scratches an itch. when i say that i'm told that we need to measure. i say no, you need to listen. find a 2a3 with Mercury Vapor tube rectification and just listen to one. it might not do everything. but it might scratch your itch too and you will get what i'm saying. try to find any amp anywhere which is as transparent.

this is the situation where data means nothing. for all i know the data may support my impressions. but in any case, it's like a great Single Malt Scotch......if you 'get' it......a little bit is a window into heaven.

i do look forward to your PM and hopefully the time when you can visit me.....soon. then we can listen to some of these different things where we have not exactly agreed on what is happening and enjoy the music.

it will be fun.

cheers,

Mike

 

[Bruce B]

and the fact that i can choose modestly powered amps to optimize the mid and upper frequency performance while retaining superlative deep bass performance and room/speaker adjustablity is the whole reason for my choice of this system philosophy. of course it's not fair to high powered amplifiers, they are not as good at mids and highs as modestly powered amps (in similar price ranges).....and when you remove their advantage in the low frequencies they get exposed.

The same reason I got the MM3's as well. I had already found the amps I wanted and didn't want to get on that merry-go-round again. I auditioned dozens of speakers and I didn't want the speaker to dictate what amps I chose. I "only" had 100 watts, but they're the best sounding 100 watts I'd ever heard!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't question any of it. It is what you like, and you have invested a lot of time, experience and money into finding and refining what you like. It would be futile to question such a well-formed opinion. What is questionable is the authority with which the opinions are often expressed. Out of the context of knowing your posting history, your system, your experience, your philosophy, one could easily conclude, from your authoritative confidence in the superiority of your choices, that those choices are based in something universal, scientific, even, when the opposite is true. I don't disagree with your choices; they are yours. Yours is the pursuit of a sound you love, not higher fidelity to any verifiable reference. It is purely personal. There's nothing to disagree with. But would it be better, more forthcoming, more "open" to openly, consistently admit how personal your choices are? I think it would. YMMV.

Tim

i guess there are times when my preferences are just what you say, a matter of choice or taste....and i qualify it.

then there are other times when my experiences cause me to have a stronger opinion and state it more emphatically.

i know when others state some strong opinion my reaction is to ask about the context. under what circumstances exactly did you reach that conclusion? and i have certainly been one to ask that type of question myself when i hear strong opinions that don't add up to me.

in my case it's easy for anyone to see exactly the circumstances which caused me to form that strong opinion. which, i suppose, has caused me to be more likely to be emphatic.

hey, if i think your mileage will vary i'll tell ya.

 

[fas42]

regarding my 3 watt SET's. maybe i've given the wrong impression. i'm not defending them as real world, or suitable for normal systems. they do not suspend the laws of physics.

i don't think they are adaquate for my speakers or my room. even so; they do enough (even in my system) that they are still something i can enjoy. i'm lucky to have a speaker system which, even though it's only 93db 6 ohm, since the amp does not need to power the low frequencies a flea powered amp can actually 'work' marginally. with the right recordings. when i sit closer. and accept the limitations.

That combination is still able to put out around a genuine 97 or so dB peak at 1 metre, plenty enough to get an excellent listening experience if all else is working correctly. The reality is that the vast majority of amps for the majority of time are working at the same power levels as this "flea" amp: the difference is the normal amp is idling, while the littl'un has the accelerator hard to the floor ...

Frank

 

[Steve williams]

Frantz,
it is all relative.
I doubt anyone is suggesting a low powered SET amp should be used with speakers less than true sensitivie 95-98db (depending upon what you define as low powered either 3-to-10watts and room size), and criticially benign in terms impedance loading to output taps of amp,phase,etc.
Also bear in mind there are SET amps close to 20watts and a little more (I would say this is where we can sometimes see the big cash products), which gives a little flexibility for the 95db speakers that do fluctuate with their sensitivity over their FR.
Appreciate you were just commenting to Keith/Mike but wanted to add to this discussion what I feel should be seen within a context.

Steve, regarding your Lamms how do you connect the subwoofer into the system?
Curious to know if it is a setup that takes some strain or even needs to from your Lamms into those sensitive Wilsons you have, which again is another architecture consideration for those who discuss amps being undepowered (not suggesting Steve's system is underpowered but his implementation may be of interest to this discussion).

Cheers
Orb

Here is how I integrated my subs into my system

Note that I also use a tube buffer here in my system because of the marked differences in input impedence between sub and my main amps

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1049587927&openflup&584&4#584

 

[Steve williams]

I do have different amps and preamps now but I use the same cabling and tube buffer

 

[mauidan]

this is a silly thread as all it has done is brought out a tube vs. ss argument and the OP already has a dead set opinion, so not sure why the question is even being asked. a better thread would be to debate large push/pull tube amps vs. SET, but leave that for another day.

more power is always better, all things equal. unfortunately they are not imo.

but for people to disparage others with systems they have never heard before is mind blowing to me---Mike Lavigne has had the best of high power (ML33s) and low power, has one of the best rooms in the US, and is coupled with SOTA speakers, and i must have read about him having 20+ amps in his room over the years. I am not as quick to dismiss his opinion as others are on this forum. for all those who want his written proof---why not take a trip up north and try and go hear his room (i'd love to btw), which by all accord, is amazing. why not ship your mammoth Krell or whatever and do a shootout with him---THAT would be interesting, not random speculation.

On the other side, i do think distortion comes out of low powered tubes, but I also feel what everybody leaves out is that typical SS distortion is much worse on the ears due to harmonics. i'm not sure which is more preferable. also, Mike has admitted previously that he can only listen to 60-70% of his music on 3 watts. that is a big negative imo.

people quoting systems as requiring 120db level bursts are crazy too. that is the equivalent of a jet engine on a run way. i would NEVER want to have peaks that loud in my room for my own hearing and even worse, for children. common volumes for stereo listening are what, 80dbs. i would never even tune a system for 120db peaks. if you want to get tinnitus, of which i already suffer not due to loudness, be my guest. it sucks.

just my 1.5 cents,

KeithR

Great Post.

The title of this thread should have been:

Power . How much do I need...

 

[KeithR]

Keith

We all seem very passionate about our systems. That's fine: We invest a lot of money, time and effort into it while trying to for "perfect reproduction in our homes. The operative term is "We". We all are audiophiles and are pursuing the same goal through various roads...
Let me address some points of you post, #138 in this thread I will quote from it from time to time ..

You posted this
Whether it is silly or not is a matter of opinion and we can leave it at that, I would however say that I am not "dead set". I have an opinion based on several years of careful and passionate listening of the finest audio equipment around and of real music, that one on a consistent basis to these days. Whats I hear from music, most music, including non-western, require considerable dynamic swings and sound pressure level, something I don't find low power amplifiers driving medium efficiency speakers capable to do. Throughout the thread it has come clear to many that even speakers that are marketed as such do not upon examination fit this denomination.
As an example, a magazine whose style, substance and protocols I respect, Soundstage Network, measured some speakers among them one which claims high and loud that they are high sensitivity (Concident Tech I think ) to be average in term of sensitivity. This in my experience doesn't apply to all companies or speakers and a simple listen at Steve's tells me that Wilson at least on the X-2 is close to the truth... And if one is thinking magnificent system, that is one of them out there and he is using 32 watts and that is 10~11 dB more than what 3 watts and that is HUGE ...
The better speakers out there, the vast majority of them falls under medium to low sensitivity .. There are very few speakers topping 100 dB/W/m wouldn't you say? Of the speakers vying for "best around" most are medium to low sensitivity with a few being power hungry to a fault (Magico Q5, or Avalon Isis)... SO it seems almost a fact that a 3 watter actually ANY low power amplifier around 1-~20 watts will not coerce them and since our perceptions tend toward the logarithmic even 100 watts maybe borderline in most cases... Are these valid deductions or not?
Mike himself while attracted to the 3 watter if he were to keep just one amp would from what I can infer from his posts keep his current Dar Tzeel ...
I know that for most of the time in most system we are barely pulling a watt or so from our amps but music changes from silence to thunde in microsecond a. The matter remains that when the thunder does occur and the watts to drive our very inefficient speakers are needed they must be present to answer to the call... These would not be available in a 3-watter, regardless of how soft or nice it clips or run out of gain if you prefer it will clip and that in most speakers that most audiophiles are likely to use ...
AS for disparaging Mike's system .. Come on Man! .. I live inthe SOutheAst and was about to travel to Mike for a week-end of bliss and inspiration, so I'll dismiss that point outright .. No one in his right mind would disparage this work of love ...

Frantz- you have mentioned numerous times on this site that you don't prefer or understand SET. That is why I said that.

I personally think the largest trend in audio is going to high efficiency speakers and low power tubes. This business is booming--ask the Shindo peeps. Most manufacturers seems to be getting more efficient (even Magico allegedly with the Q3). Look at Devore Fidelity for example. People want choices in amplification. There is a reason MBL is not in the US--most folks don't want 1000 watt monoblock arc welders in their living room.

Is 3 watts enough for me, personally? I don't think so, but I haven't tried one---have been tempted to pick up a Korneff 45 for fun.

I just ordered 26 watt 845 Sophia monoblocks. They probably don't have the purity of a 2a3 or 45 however. And my speakers are 101db/8 ohms.

Cheers,

KeithR