For whatever stupid reasons the DSETs (Dedicated Single Ended Amplifier) are not as popular among audio people as they SHOULD be and this imperfection I am trying to attack.

So, if you use SET for whoever propose then it fine but if you even begin to think about more expensive SET  (more then $5K I would propose) then you use currently then DSET is what you should consider. A SET is a bandwidth and load limited devise  – there is not needs to fight with the Wind Mills and DSET topology is the answer to all SET problems.

Romy the Cat wrote:

For  A SET is a bandwidth and load limited devise Rgs, Romy the caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

Merlin, Are you saying that your SET is not sensitive to load and a different plate load has no change to the harmonics of sound? Do you say that your output transformer does not straggle with inductance vs. capacitance battles? When the last time you measured the response of your amp t full power? Can you elaborate how your SET reportedly does not suffer from the default diseases of the SET topology? Rgs, Romy

Merlin wrote:

My SET doesn't have an output transformer. Just four tubes direct coupled. Bandwidth at full power is 2hz to 35khz.

At any rate, with all my experience with OTL amplifiers, and I have see quite many of them, I do not recognize them as anything SET related, though they certainly topologically  might be SETs. The OTL are own unique animals, very intellectually elegant but hardly functional for Sound (unless you drive some strange electrostats or railway track suspended in magnetic fields….) 

Merlin wrote:

No. You are wrong. Harmonically, my SET is quite superb using either 300b or 811 I have unfettered access to the music in it's entirety. Transformer cores just distort the signal.

Well, I do not want to argue the OTL topic. It is not the subject of this thread first of all. Secondly I have heard too many OTLs to take comments about them credibly, particularly in context of a full-range operation. I am not qualified to discuses what is going on in a transformer core, I will leave it for your study, although if you satisfied with OTL result then you might not acknowledge or understand the difference.

BTW, in context of this thread: did anyone have seen a DOTL - a dedicate OTL where the OTL’s load were optimized for a narrow bandwidth of a given OTL channel?

Merlin wrote:

Why on earth would I want one?

You are not as cryptic/abusive as you believe you are. I personally view your comments in context of your other commons at this site and understand that it is your style: do not express yourself but mysteriously bark from the side road. From this perspective your comments in this thread are very consistent to any other their where you participated. I certainly do not increment you – I juts mitigate my expectations accordingly.

On the subject (at least in the way how you turn the subject to be) let me to restate my position. I do feel that something very interesting, sound-making lives in a core or SE transformers. Also, I very much for a plate of the out tubes to be properly loaded. You proved my point about the sever dependency of your SET to load when you paralleled 4 tubes, I have see SET OTL with 32 tubes paralleled to drive the plate impedance down. With 4 tubes you are still at very high number of plate impedance and driving the conventional 16R load time are far from proper lodging. Even if you drive the load from cathodes and apply 10000000 db of feedback to balance out distortion then it still set the output tube far from it’s optimum load operation (not to mention the NF problems). It might be interesting to think about the precision of NF applying and the evaluation methods that where used to set the harmonic envelop of the closed loop but it would be interesting in the situation if a person has no needs to hide what he does or what he think.

With openness and observation facts instead of verbal mouth running this conversation is about nothing.

Merlin wrote:

The Berning Siegfried.

When I made the post about I did not read the replies above. The Berning Siegfried? Well, I did not hear this amp, in fact I did not hear any of the Berning amps that use that impedance matching patent. If it does work (it means sound) then you Merlin is correct as it will defeat to the DSET concept. It would be much useful if you Merlin in your initial replay mention that my DSET “rule” does hold ground because what David Berning offers.

http://www.davidberning.com/

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5612646-fulltext.html

I know little as now about the Berning ideas but I do know SET with transformers. I know that in context of SETs with transformers the DSET idea works very well. Even if the Berning impedance matching sonically sustainable then if still does not resolve a lot of additional benefits of DEST – elimination the interaction between the voice coli for instance and a few other…

Merlin wrote:

... my own feeling is that David Berning's solution is both neater and more practical - the only impediment ot it's acceptance, the dogmatic approach of many thermionic die hards. My experience suggests it's their loss.

I undusted now what you are taking about. My severely-limited knowledge in electronics design does not permit me to make assumptions in electronics. To me the sound of amplifiers measured juts by the actual sound, not but the design concepts. In horns I can relatively accurate predict the sound of installation juts looking at the design. In electronic I can’t not. So, since I have no idea about the actual Sound of the David Berning's solution, or at least his amplifiers, I would withdraw myself from further discussion about it and will stay in this thread only in context the DSETs.

Well, the David Berning amps were more or less interesting then a DSET if the same driver/output tubes used? If the Berning idea works (Sound) then it would be an interesting question. I see some exploiting advantaged of DSET (crossovers, power mitigation, harmonics mitigation between the channels and some more). However, the only accurate concussion might be reached only with the actual conducting a methodologically pure experiment and listening the thing.

Still, I would like in this thread to stay with subject of advantage/disadvantage of DSET approach vs. better/expensive SET: "A DSET is better then an expensive SET" instead of turn it into thread about David Berning. Bernings certainly might be an interesting subject and if you guys are wiling to talks about it then create another thread desisted specifically dedicated to Bernings.

Merlin wrote:

I have heard plenty of traditional SET's from Lamm to Wavac, AN, Kondo and many others. I know I could not live with their failings.

Merlin, in the context of this thread, might I ask you something... When you heard Lamm SET (presumable it was 2.0) then what speakers it drove and what specific problems you found that made you to feel that you can’t live with that sound? I think it would give me some impression what you are talking about and would set certain equalization point for comparing notes..

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.

Paul S wrote:

I will eventually get another pair of ML2s to slave the bass/save the upper registers, because, as we all know by now, dedication rules.

It wouldn’t be a DSET but rather just a simple bi-amplification. Bi-amplification has own benefits but it is not the same as a channel dedicated to own bandwidth. I was running for a few years two pairs of ML2 but I never considered that I used DSET. Well, I use some very rudimental optimization by driving the bass output tube differently, loading it differently, using different tubes, building filters in the ML2’s feedback but it system advancement not the amplifier advancement and therefore it sound not be consider that it ws a dipping into DSET world.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The result [in the 6-channel Milq] is definably better but the reason-consequences patterns are not so easily interpretable, and are absolutely not interpretable when the filters are applied.

Romy the Cat wrote:

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 ... 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.

Romy the Cat wrote:

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.