drdna wrote:

And the explorations that led you from the original Melquiades to this current set-up are well-documented over a period on months.  Still, it might be instructive (to me at least) to hear concisely stated your dissatisfactions with the original set-up that led you to make the changes.

It might be true but the dissatisfactions did not derive from dissatisfactions about a single SET vs. DSET. If I have 2 channel DSET (LF + HF) then it would be fine with me. I think my desire to make chinches were more driven by me desire to optimize the channels of loudspeakers then the dissatisfactions of amplification.

drdna wrote:

This is true, but it reflects also quite accurately my own situation.  I have the EdgarHorn Titans and no intention of building new horns anytime soon.  However, I am buying up the parts to make the Melqiades amplifier.  My own personal question is whether I should proceed as planned or instead build up DSET versions to drive the four channels of the Titans separately.  I am not keen on building original Melquiades "just as an experiment to compare to DSET I will build afterwards" either because it will end up being a lot of money and time, and I am kind of in the situation where DSET might be appropriate.  However, I ask the advice of someone who has already done this whether it is worthwhile in my situation (this is the argument of course for DSET in general as well).

Well, I would say EdgarHorn Titans do not need DSET and the lowest EdgarHorn channel go down to 100 Hz and a regular full range SET will do juts fine. If you decide to drive the EdgarHorn’s subwoofer then you can consider DSET, still, considering the idiosyncrasies of the bass-horn topology it might be advisable to stay with a regular SET. However, if you feel like to drive each speaker channel with individual amplification channel then it is a totally different game. I presume that it would be better result but it also a considerably higher amount of efforts, both in building and in support.

drdna wrote:

Most people planning to bi-amp, they are told to use the identical amps to do so, so this will build resisitance to the idea of using different amps.  Also, it is easier and cheaper to buy one more amp (or pair of monoblocks) identical to the one you already have than to buy four new monoblocks.

The identical amps but with different power capacity, different damps power supplies, different output stage loading and different amount of inductance in output transformer. It would not violate anything in the speaker or it’s crossover but would enable a cheap and small SET in DSET configuration to drive loudspeaker better.

drdna wrote:

So really the target market demographic is audiophiles who are already bi-amping but who can be convinced that they should be bi-amping with DSETs instead of the paradigm of using the same amps, and whose speaker crossover points fit with the design parameters of the DSETs, AND whose ears and systems can appreciate the relatively subtle changes of going from biamp SET to DSET.  I am going to be honest, I think this is going to be a really small number of people.

It is very seldom that people who bi-amp use the same amps. Most frequently peopel who bi-amp (unfortunalsy) use with different amps. The DSET idea might enable then to use basically the same amps.

el`Ol wrote:

Why not more semi-active speakers with high-sensitivity mid/treble and transistor-powered bass?

Multiamping is using of dedicated amps for different channels. DSET is the use two or more of the SAME AMPLIFIERS (SETs in the given case) optimized for a given frequency range (output transformer in case of DSET). Here is the illustration: 3-channal Super Melquiades was a pure DSET with 3 6E5P-6C33C parallel channels. The late 6-channal Super Melquiades with it’s single-stage amps is a deviation from the DSET evangelism and it is more multiamping. We can make some excuses that the Sound of Milq is not determined by out stage and many other excuses but realty it that it is still not DSET but multiamping. I did spent a substantial amount of efforts and time (~3 month) to make sure that that way how I use the Super Milq channels do not break (or “almost” do not break) the TTH weighing scale but the 6-way Super Milq success is still arguable.

In case of pure DSET – where each channel is IDENTICAL there are many problems not there anymore and with an identical loading of the plates via different transformer of the same type a user is in a very “save” environment.

guy sergeant wrote:

A few months ago, iirc, you linked to a Canadian? amplifier which seemed to be made as or perhaps could be applicable for DSET use but I can't find the link.  Can you remember where its is (or what it was called)?

decoud wrote:

I know you do not want to do it, but it is a shame not to do it: actually manufacture a version of the Macondo with an integrated dset, cut down enough (say three channels) to make it feasible while still demonstrating the advantages of the dset idea. Indeed, was not Jessie thinking of spinning something commercial out of his elegant plaster horns? The point of making it commercial is only to make the dissemination of the idea tangible, not just talk.

rowuk wrote:

I think the problem starts when we short circuit the process. It is easy enough to sell "the Best" of anything and still get mediocre results. If we are looking for a modular approach to DSET/speaker, then the results are also best guess because there is no real formula for success. The "conductor" of the "audio orchestra" needs to earn their baton before real "results" are possible.