"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

Mmm. I too have a 405 which has given sterling service. If it is so
efficient, I wonder why Peter Walker, not notably a waster, included
that large, expensive heatsink at the back.

I've no idea, perhaps it looks nice. Even when used as part of a stage PA
rig for an amateur musical (driving Bose SR speakers) it barely got warm to
the touch.

I have a PSE 300B amp that cost about 1600 Euro to build, about the
price of a modern equivalent of the Quad 405 MkII. It's lasted fifteen
years.

And how many new valves has it needed in that time?

It consumes about 120W for stereo. That's *less* draw at full
power than the Quad 405 MkII.

And for just how much of the time is a domestic HiFi amp used at anything
even remotely near full power? The 405 and 44 pre-amp together consumes 35W
most of the time, occasionally flicking up to around 50W or so on the
loudest passages whilst driving my Tannoys.

smaller SE 300B amp consumes about 50W
for stereo and just idles along with horns but the 405 must draw down
more than the SE amp to drive ESL-63 to the same SPL as the 300B
drives the horns.

Ah! you give different goal-posts to the two I see. A 405 must drive
ESL-63s, whilst the SET amp can be allowed horns. That's a comparison
between ESLs and horns, not between SETs and the 405.

But the amazing thing here isn't your carelessness with the numbers

I think I've pointed out that it's you who are being careless with numbers.

but the hubris of telling me how your flavour of an obscenely
expensive hobby is saving he planet!

Hey! you started it with your inane suggestion that SET amps somehow or
other fit the "small is beautiful" philosophy.

David.