Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:13:04 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:04:10 -0000, "Richard Wall"
wrote:


No - it is merely revealing your faulty assumptions. The test is
working perfectly. However you should be able to discern the appalling
sound of a SET in any kind of test - blind or not.

Here you show both your ignorance and your bias !! A opinion back by no
facts at all just an opinion of poorly designed SET systems you have heard
before.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a *well* designed SET amp
- by definition! :-)

That's why push-pull operation was invented in the '20s, and only
audiofools want to go back to before those days...............

Interesting that most of the well informed members of RAT tended to
disagree with you vehently on this point. They if anyone have experience
with SET. Have you actually taken the trouble to listen to a good SET
(for example Andre's Kiss amplifier) playing Shostokovich ¨
String Quartets or a small chamber ensemble? Quite remarkable:-)
Your Krell, and most other amplifiers, I am told, fade in comparison.

Not recommended though for fans of Metalica:-)

Iain



A SET amplifier is an effects box - nothing more or less. If you
happen to enjoy the effect it produces, then that is fine. But please
don't imagine that it has anything to do with high fidelity
reproduction of music.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Disagree - heard music through one recently, stunning.

Rob