Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Well, one of the aims of the kind of points I make (e.g. about o/p
impedance) is to see if it may be possible to establish that the
'cause' of the preference might be due to an identifiable factor
which could then be replicated - if people so choose - with amp
designs that do not share the power limitations or practical
difficulties of a SET.



People who choose and listen to SET amps probably do not realise that
power limitations or practical difficulties which you mention, even
exist, given the type of music to which they listen on these amplifiers.


I am not sure. Valve amps and SET seem to be well-recommended at times in
magazines, and my impression is that this is often for all kinds of music.
The reviews do sometimes seem to me to use rock/pop of kinds I suspect
might be 'unsuitable', but I'm not in a position to judge as I don't listen
to these types of music a great deal.

Hence the recommendations do not seem to be based on, say, just
modest-volume small acoustic classic/jazz.

Although there may well be a distinction here between what magazine
reviewers recommend, and what people end up actually choosing to buy/use.

Slainte,

Jim

My recent experience was based on tracks from the eponymous Paul Simon
album. The SET amplifier managed to produce an absolutely spellbinding
rendition of instruments and vocal. It was at a reasonable level (normal
conversation possible) using a good record, record player and large low
efficiency (BandW) speakers.

The only limitation I could pick up was loudness - it didn't exactly
distort when switched up, more a form of compression, and ultimately
wouldn't go very loud with low efficiency speakers.

Rob