Jim Lesurf wrote:

Few would argue that they offer perfect reproduction.

But some do?

They would have to be mendacious or idiotic.

That's not the point.

If by "the point", you mean the aim of those who prefer
them, then perhaps.
But others might have a different "point". :-)

Yes. The difference is one of taste rather than idiocy.

A good SET and its speakers deliver a legitimate,
authentic
presentation.

Unless you are saying other amps are 'illegitimate' I am
not sure what the
purpose would be of the first term you apply here. It
isn't illegal or
immoral to use a SET so far as I know. :-)

Legitimised not just by the number of people who prefer the
presentation of SETs and appropriate speakers, but by the
fact that they form a recognisable *movement*. I feel I'm a
forlorn voice in the wilderness when it comes to this kind
of thing. Hailing as I do from Bradford, where not only
SETs, but any kind of music other than scratchy wails from
minarets, no longer exist, I accept that Islam is a
legitimate religion even though I doubt the authenticity of
many of our mullahs. As an example of legitimacy, IMO if you
want music to sound good on a mobile phone, compression may
by a legitimate option.

Music is essentially a social enterprise. It's creation and
distribution have evolved over centuries. It's a shame
sociology was banned because it would be there, rather in
the fashionable psychoacoustics, that I would look for a
resolution of the Trevor syndrome. Somehow everyone is aware
that the presentation of music cannot be reduced to metric
indicators of performance, but no-one knows how to fill the
gap. Hence Trevor is on one side of a chasm, and the SET
crew are on the other.

Nor am I clear what you mean by "authentic" when talking
about a device
that is driven with an input voltage-time pattern and
responds by applying
a (hopefully related) voltage-time pattern to loudspeaker
terminals.

If you mean, some people prefer using them, sometimes for
some types of
music but not others. Fair enough. That seems a simpler
and clearer
statement than saying they are "legitimate" or
"authentic". Or are you
making some other specific point(s) which requires the
terms you apply to
be defined more precisely for this context?

A new idea must employ some license, since all precise
meanings of words are by their nature attached to
established notions.

If I had my old Dansette I might listen to Little Richard
again although maybe it wouldn't be the same without the
tree house. So many people had Dansettes then that,
arguably, the combination is not just legitimate, but
authentic...the Dansette in part defined the sound of Little
Richard. Perhaps for the genuine sound of the Beach Boys,
you need a Dynaco. That would not be to say that you
shouldn't play them on anything else...if all you've got is
a Krell it'll just have to do, and the necessity legimises
even if it doesn't authenticate.

I don't go to several different concerts before deciding
which one I
like best. I would expect to appreciate each for what it
is, as long as
it's an authentic and legitimate presentation.

Indeed, but that refers to going to concerts, not talking
about SET.
In that context "authentic" does have a plausible meaning,
but I am
less clear what you'd mean by "legitimate".

So am I. I just mean there are important notions somewhere
in the vicinity of legitimacy and authenticity. If I go to a
concert and they say they are playing music by Sibelius, how
do I know they aren't lying, on the one hand, or automatons,
on the other? I want the musicians to be inspired and put
their hearts and souls into it so it makes sense in the here
and now, but I also want them to stick to the score and
remain true to the spirit of Sibelius. There is a
contradiction here, and when I try to resolve it, words like
"legitimate" and "authentic" seem to crop up. "Reproduction"
doesn't enter into it...although "fidelity" seems to hit the
spot.

TBH I don't know anyone who *does* "go to different
concerts before
deciding which one they like". I, and others I know, got
to different
concerts to hear and enjoy different performances

Good. That's a relief.

Is it that you regard it as sensible to have just one
recording of
a work, and change from one SET amp to another in order to
get one
that sounds like Beecham at the RAH and another like Boult
at
Croydon? If so, would it not be simpler just to buy
different recordings
for different interpretations? Or if reproduced music does
not satisfy
you, just go out more? :-)

But it's not reproduced...it's presented.

I was just checking out "ambisonics", and read that, whereas
stereo reproduction aims to bring the orchestra into your
room, surround sound can bring the concert hall too. The
closer you get to reproduction, the more fragile the notion
becomes, IMO. I want something legitimately arranged to
sound authentic played with my system in my room. If I want
to listen to a concert, I'll go to one. If there are no
concerts to go to, there's no point in pretending, I might
as well admit I'm stuck with room-music. That's OK, I like
it. Considering most people listen to room-music most of the
time, it has its own authenticity, and is perfectly
legitimate in this epoch of privatised society.

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Would you like me to provide the range of logical and reasoned facts
which prove that SET owners are idiots?

With logic and reason on the one hand, and idiocy on the other, that might
be difficult.

**Not so much.


If you design an amp yourself, the result should be predictable, and so
you don't need to listen.

**Not so much. However, with appropriate measurements, it is possible to
weed out those amplifiers which exhibit audible faults.

I would build
a SET because there is no chance of me sampling one, with attendant
suitable speakers, for long enough to get accustomed to it.

**Even given the fact that they have severe audible limitations? Curious.


With a SET, in particular, it is wise to leave some room for manoevre. I
wouldn't be trying to recreate a sound I had heard before. Rather it would
be representative of the breed, so I know that I am listening to what SET
folk hear. Then I would fiddle around with it like they do, until I got it
just right, which I understand takes a while.

**The usual idea behind a high fidelity reproduction system is to reproduce,
as accurately as possible, the original musical event. If a part of that
system (say: The amplifier) has audible faults (as characterised by
appropriate measurements), then it may be discarded as unsuited for it's
purpose (ie: To reproduce the original musical event with accuracy)


Few would argue that they offer perfect reproduction.

**No audio component does. However, many audio amplifiers can provide
reproduction which have levels of distortion which are beyond the ability of
human ears to detect. SETs, generally, cannot acheive this feat.

That's
not the point. A good SET and its speakers deliver a legitimate, authentic
presentation.

**Nope. I admit that I have not heard all of them, but I've heard quite a
few. They all distort. Then, of course, if you start on that high
efficiency, single driver silliness, the situation becomes worse. Much
worse.

I like a lot of the
stuff that their owner's say about them, so I might like to get a slice of
the action.

**I'm sure many people do just that.


I don't go to several different concerts before deciding which one I like
best. I would expect to appreciate each for what it is, as long as it's an
authentic and legitimate presentation.

**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.

Trevor Wilson

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION systems. BIG
difference. SETs distort whatever was created.


You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET amplifiers fill a
room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

Iain

Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**The usual idea behind a high fidelity reproduction system is to reproduce,
as accurately as possible, the original musical event.


Can the audio system also be required to *recreate* a *musical expectation*?

If a part of that
system (say: The amplifier) has audible faults (as characterised by
appropriate measurements), then it may be discarded as unsuited for it's
purpose (ie: To reproduce the original musical event with accuracy)


Are 'accuracy' (objective) and 'recreation' (subjective) mutually
exclusive? If so, it seems we have a problem ...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**The usual idea behind a high fidelity reproduction system is to
reproduce, as accurately as possible, the original musical event.


Can the audio system also be required to *recreate* a *musical
expectation*?

**Perhaps I am a little thick, but your question makes no sense (to me).


If a part of that
system (say: The amplifier) has audible faults (as characterised by
appropriate measurements), then it may be discarded as unsuited for it's
purpose (ie: To reproduce the original musical event with accuracy)


Are 'accuracy' (objective) and 'recreation' (subjective) mutually
exclusive?

**No.

If so, it seems we have a problem ...

**Wait for the answer.

Trevor Wilson

The mention of 'suitable speakers' is particularly apposite - for me
the *magic* of SET amplication is best demonstrated when used with
horn speakers

I'm not a fan of horns - give me ribbons or aluminium drivers of some
kind. But the above is true. Horns add that dynamic sound with
stronger leading edges to notes. I listened to a SET/horn system
yesterday, and the piano was extremely impressive, with the percussive
quality of the notes captured perfectly. So horns do deal with one
aspect of SETs I find less than optimum - that slight mushiness that
you get with less sensitive speakers.

Having listened to my PP 2a3 amp recently I may be going back to that.
It's a close thing - virtues both ways.

If a part of that system (say: The amplifier) has audible faults (as
characterised by
appropriate measurements), then it may be discarded as unsuited for
it's purpose

Audible qualities of amplifiers are not the same as measurements - I
know you just refuse to believe this, and this is why it's impossible
to carry out any sensible debate with you.

I can introduce you to a number of people - professional engineers,
musicians etc - who consider a number of solid state amps unsuited for
the purpose of long term serious listening because of a graininess
which gets on their nerves. But of course you won't believe that
either, will you.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The mention of 'suitable speakers' is particularly apposite - for me the
*magic* of SET amplication is best demonstrated when used with horn
speakers (Lowthers, actually) and when you factor in vinyl as the
source, you have the 'Holy Trinity' which (IMO) creates the most
*natural* sound of all.

If you need all three it simply means something in the chain is cancelling
out problems elsewhere in it. Although just how you cancel out the
distortions from vinyl I'm not quite sure.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Ian Iveson" wrote


Legitimised not just by the number of people who prefer the
presentation of SETs and appropriate speakers, but by the fact that
they form a recognisable *movement*.


What 'movement'??

There are a (very small) few who *get it* with SETs and, from what I can
see of it, a whole lot of people who don't....


I feel I'm a
forlorn voice in the wilderness when it comes to this kind of thing.


???

(*You're* a 'forlorn voice'...??)


Hailing as I do from Bradford,


Unlucky....

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...
The mention of 'suitable speakers' is particularly apposite - for me
the *magic* of SET amplication is best demonstrated when used with
horn speakers

I'm not a fan of horns - give me ribbons or aluminium drivers of some
kind. But the above is true. Horns add that dynamic sound with
stronger leading edges to notes. I listened to a SET/horn system
yesterday, and the piano was extremely impressive, with the percussive
quality of the notes captured perfectly. So horns do deal with one
aspect of SETs I find less than optimum - that slight mushiness that
you get with less sensitive speakers.


I think you'll find that's more to do with the speakers than the amp -
the one thing horns do is *remove the veil* at the possible cost of
colouration while 'normal' speakers do the reverse from what I can see
(hear) of it....