| drdna wrote:|
| The altered topology of DSET has the potential to have disadvantages. There is increased overall system complexity and this often seems to be a negative. Beyond this, it is difficult to expound, for me, on the specific differences because, well is it meaningful? The way to reflect on this is to listen comparatively to SET and DSET and observe the differences and correlate this to the toplogical changes. The difficulty is that when one has the DSET the urge is NOT to live with the system as is, but to begin to modify and "optimize" each frequency range, so that it becomes impossible to make a real comparison. |
Yes, you are absolutely correct and I very much back up it. When I had my first full-range Milq then I knew exactly what I did and what I was getting as a result (Sound). Moving with Milq into the DSET operation I lost my immediate and clean view of the Melquiades sound. The result is definably better but the reason-consequences patterns are not so easily interpretable, and are absolutely not interpretable when the filters are applied. That is why I absolutely insist that any DIYer or manufacture, if they are willing to “go DSET”, must to verify all operational, construction and performance parameters/characteristics with a conext of a full-range amplifiers and only THEN to apply the success to a DSET.
| drdna wrote:|
| To this end, I would suggest to ROMY that he keep all the parameters the same from DSET as with the original SET setup and then live with the system for a period of time to make a true comparison between the two. Only in this way can one hope to assess the topological differences' effect on the sound. It would be nice to do this experiment, since he is in a position to do so. |
Well, I understand the objectives and you are right in them but the experiment will not take place as I am already out of the league of the methodological correctness. You see, the 6-chennal of Super Milq is betraying of the DSET idea as the new Super Milq uses one-stage amps. Surely I made all precautions to keep all channels to operate similarly, topologically and operationally, but they still are different amps and the new Supper Milq has basically 2 pairs of 3-chennls DSETs (even despite the HF is not even triode anymore).
So, the Super Milq is not the best illustration of the DSET concept. Also, the Super Milq-type of amps are possible only in context of targeted binding to a specific acoustic system/room. The Super Milq is an irrational aberration, a result of unwell imagination if you wish. My advocating of DSET does not base upon the Super Milq’s “prove”. Also, if we mentally go away from the Super Milq class examples, then we will see that DSET is not necessarily a “remedy” only for DIYes but might have much wider commercial implication. Do not forget that the subject of the thread is not that “DSET is the best amp” but “DSET is better then expensive SET”.
When I said DSET I am very rational. The problem that a regular SET has might be addressed by 2 channels - where one cares LF and another rest of the spectra. THAT is my primary definition of DSET. That DSET is very easily implementable and marketable commercially. We are accustomed in High-End that the speakers are bi-ampable and that the cables are bi-wireable. Why a DSET should not feel the gap where it could. A DSET should not even care a crossover – most of “better” speakers allow bi-amping and their driver-level crossovers are bridged externally… The DSET would be a perfect match in there.
Anyhow, what I would like to see is the industry embraces the DSET idea and begins to educate the participants about the DSET advantages and the DSET economic reasonability. I am sure that the first company and the first marketing cheerleaders who would jump to the DSET wagon and would SPIN IT PROPERLY will make quite a good ride out off it.
Rgs, Romy the caT
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche